Sony Ex and nanoflash, is it worth it?

[Craig Seeman]

I think the question is what’s needed in your post production workflow. 4:2:2 will help both in compositing and color grading. You can’t gain back lost data so recording 4:2:2 allows you to push things a lot more than 4:2:0.

[Iain Gray]

Hi Craig,

Yes I thought that too, so one of the tests i did was to do quite an extreme colour grade, high contrast and high saturation and still the 35mbps seemed to hold up really well not showing that much more degradation than the Prores version.

M

[Aaron Leong]

Hi Iain,

I did similar tests when I first received mine and came to the same conclusion. I work with video all day long and the difference is going to be negligible to the lay man. You won’t see the differences until you zoom in or if you’re working with complex images ie. water, WS of trees, waterfalls, sparks, etc. That’s when you’ll notice the 100mbps cleaning up the image a little more than the 35mbps 4:2:2.

And Craig’s right. it will come in handy when doing green screen, etc. I don’t use it all of the time but it does put me at ease knowing it’s there when I need it. Hope this helps.

~aaron

[Michael Palmer]

” That’s when you’ll notice the 100mbps cleaning up the image a little more than the 35mbps 4:2:2. ”

The EX codec only provides 4:2:0 color space, and most networks require A minimum 50 Mbps 4:2:2

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[Iain Gray]

Thanks guys,

Yes, I’m slightly concerned about shooting the film 4:2:0 for that reason (the network requirement for 4:2:2), and I take your point about it becoming valuable in more extreme situations.

I understand it would make you feel much safer, however do you think that a broadcaster would actually reject a programme if it was shot 35mbps 420? Would they be able to detect it?

We’ll be filming in an extremely hostile environment so any extra hassle/workload and additional kit to go wrong is something i’d like to avoid unless it’s definitely going to make a considerable improvement to the film.

Cheers for advice I really appreciate it!

[Brendan Quaife]

Have you looked in to the Ki-Pro mini that AJA have just released?

Cons: it sits firmly in the pro-res world
Pros: It’s a 10 bit format as opposed to Convergent’s 8-bit.

For those in the post world – those extra 2 bits are priceless!

[Brendan Quaife]

further to your question about networks rejecting material…

I have seen a network reject a programme as they detected a “low bit rate” shot. Ie, some tecchie geek actually claims he could see the compression break down on a fastly panned shot.

This is where higher data rates win – the compression has a better chance when you throw faster data rates in to shots that have faster motion.

So my recording at 50mbps on an external box – you give your shot just that but more of a chance of holding up when there is lots of change happening.

[Rafael Amador]

[Brendan Quaife] “Pros: It’s a 10 bit format as opposed to Convergent’s 8-bit.

For those in the post world – those extra 2 bits are priceless!”
Is much more significant the difference 420 – 422 than the 8b – 10b.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Iain Gray]

Ok i think you’ve persuaded me. Now to sort out workflow with Avid!

Really appreciate your help you can’t beat first hand experience.

Best,
Iain

[William Urschel]

OK, I have a LOT of experience with the EX-1, pre and post use of the nanoFlash (I cannot and will not comment on the two new less pricy technologies out there, as it would be just more blather, uninformed opinion, without experience!). I would say I’m sorry for that last comment, but I’m not!

In any event, I am an absolute fan of the nanoFlash on the EX-1 (running DVI out at 1080×1920 30p, 100Mbps Long GOP, edited on Adobe Premiere CS5, and set up and burned to disc with AME and Encore CS5). This is not theory, this is experience.

BUT, I must tell you about my output and customer base before I site the two MAJOR improvements I’ve seen with the nanoFlash, as they may not apply to you at all. First, I am producing ONLY BDs and DVDs, with the DVD content downrezzed in AME from the hi-def, edited content. I hope to start using Cineform’s NEO HD4 soon (I’ve had Cineform for years) as soon as I can test out its now apparently available coding with Premiere CS5 – it just wasn’t possible, to the best of my knowledge, with CS4, the way I want’d to use it. But back on topic – I am NOT producing for broadcast or web, nor have I been conducting any greenscreen projects lately – I just produce BDs
and DVDs.

Given that, here’s why I am an over the top, enthusiastic supporter of nanoFlash:
1)The unit I have is absolutely reliable and easy to set up.
2)The customer service, when I have questions about off beat set up, id awesomely quick, informative, and dependable!
3)The results using the nano in combo with the EX1 are VERY
notably better to ME (and even to some of my customers!) when it comes to shooting in VERY dark, but contrasty venues – the evident noise in the final product I consider to be as good as it can get!
4) Where my results REALLY shine, using the nano with the EX-1 is with the DVDs I produce. Prior to use of the nano on the EX-1, my DVD content (720×480 30p)was unacceptable to me on a number of my LCD “TV” test platforms, and to MOST of my customers – not so with the nano in use, following the aforementioned set up. Specifically, before the nano, my DVDs received complaints from my customers because of notable interline twitter (unless unacceptable degrees of softening was instituted) with ANY fine horizontal line or horizontal sharp edges in the scenes shot), and all kinds of artifacts. The DVD results with the nano do not exhibit this to any objectionable degree. I know there are other (what are to me complex and convoluted) ways of downrezzing from hi def to 720×480 for DVD production which have produced for many very successful results – I just never got that to work.

What I’ve had to say about the EX-1 nanoFlash combo may not be applicable to your market, but that’s my experience.