Nano flash recorder

[Robert Starling SOC]

I think Steve Fracol uses one of these daily on Sons of Anarchy and My Boys, he seems to be happy with everything other than that it does not not record plan old NTSC standard def. He has a really nice setup and mount / wiring for his as well.

 

It looks like a great unit and I'd love to have one but just to capture review/playback/reel footage it's too expensive for me. My guess is Steadicam was not an intended market for this product maybe just a nice bonus market they picked up.

 

Robert

[Tom Daigon]

Robert, check this product out from AJA. Its cheaper than the Nano...it records SD and HD...its a bit more compact ...it generates a variety of Prores files that need no conversion and are edit ready.

 

http://www.aja.com/products/kipro/ki-pro-mini/ki-pro-mini-description.php

Edited November 26, 2010 by Tom Daigon

[James Davis]

And it mounts really nicely to a set of rails.....and looks a lot more rugged, better build quality, i've seen one in the flesh, haven't seen a nanoflash in person though.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Robert, check this product out from AJA. Its cheaper than the Nano...it records SD and HD...its a bit more compact ...it generates a variety of Prores files that need no conversion and are edit ready.

 

http://www.aja.com/products/kipro/ki-pro-mini/ki-pro-mini-description.php

 

 

But it only records a SDI signal. it does not do analog NTSC SD, so for those of us that shoot film this box is worthless

[Charles Papert]

The AJA product is not more compact than the Nanoflash--it's about 25% larger in most dimensions including weight.

[Tom Daigon]

Robert, check this product out from AJA. Its cheaper than the Nano...it records SD and HD...its a bit more compact ...it generates a variety of Prores files that need no conversion and are edit ready.

 

http://www.aja.com/products/kipro/ki-pro-mini/ki-pro-mini-description.php

 

so for those of us that shoot film this box is worthless

 

And extremely worthwhile for video shooters, especially those that understand how it streamlines the process posting in a Prores workflow ;-)

[Charles Papert]

This being a Steadicam forum, the usual intention of a device such as these within the Steadi world is for playback of takes on set, not acquisition for editing. There are a great number of Steadicam operators now who were not around for the progression of onboard recorders (anyone still using a GVU5??!) so this may not have quite the same resonance. Far more important for most operators than speed of working with clips in an NLE are factors such as size, weight, and ease of use. When one is walking back to the mark and hoping to review a take in the 45 seconds before roll is called again, how many keystrokes it takes to cue up the last take and/or skip around within it becomes quite important. The little MP4 players are a great form factor but usually require cycling through a number of screens before you can play a shot, and with questionable image quality.

 

For those who are using these recorders for actual footage capture, they are no longer onboard recorders for personal playback, they are part of the production chain. Obviously if one is going onto jobs where the KiPro is spec'd as the recording device for a given camera, it may be well the purchase if you are able to get a rental back on it (something you could never really do with an onboard recorder). At that point though, personal playback is simply a side benefit of the unit, not the primary reason for it being on the rig; and of course it will be likely be mounted to the camera, not the sled so that it can be used for all shooting modes.

 

Obviously the lines are blurring on all of this stuff. I do know that it was a major advantage for me when I had onboard recording and was able to review my work without relying on video assist playback to do so (when even available); was able to catch many nuances and improve shots that way. Of course, with the trend towards keeping cameras rolling and going right into take after take, this becomes less possible.

 

One note regarding both the KiPro and the Nanoflash: with the addition of a $495 Blackmagic analog to SDI converter you can use either for SD recording with composite input. Obviously another box to manage but it could be done.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Robert, check this product out from AJA. Its cheaper than the Nano...it records SD and HD...its a bit more compact ...it generates a variety of Prores files that need no conversion and are edit ready.

 

http://www.aja.com/products/kipro/ki-pro-mini/ki-pro-mini-description.php

 

so for those of us that shoot film this box is worthless

 

And extremely worthwhile for video shooters, especially those that understand how it streamlines the process posting in a Prores workflow ;-)

 

 

You miss the point Tom, It doesn't do analog inputs, it's LARGER than the nanoflash and it's HEAVIER than the nanoflash, Who cares about workflow when it's not the primary recorder...

[Tom Daigon]

You miss the point Tom, It doesn't do analog inputs, it's LARGER than the nanoflash and it's HEAVIER than the nanoflash, Who cares about workflow when it's not the primary recorder...

Obviously you missed my point Eric. Operators shooting VIDEO projects with HD-SDI spigots on their camera want to feed a unit like this (acting as the primary recorder) the uncompressed SDI output so the units conversion to PRORES uses the best signal possible. Maybe film shooters need the anaolog inputs but all the professionals I know shooting HD video projects do it in the manner described. MPEG sucks as an edit codec on most NLE systems and takes time to convert. Folks familiar with the post production process generally concur on this point. Its another case of "horses for courses..." ;-)

Edited November 26, 2010 by Tom Daigon

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

You miss the point Tom, It doesn't do analog inputs, it's LARGER than the nanoflash and it's HEAVIER than the nanoflash, Who cares about workflow when it's not the primary recorder...

Obviously you missed my point Eric. Operators shooting VIDEO projects with HD-SDI spigots on their camera want to feed a unit like this the uncompressed SDI output so the units conversion to PRORES uses the best signal possible. Maybe film shooters need the anaolog inputs but all the professionals I know shooting HD video projects do it in the manner described. MPEG sucks as an edit codec on most NLE systems and takes time to convert. Folks familiar with the post production process generally concur on this point. Its another case of "horses for courses..." ;-)

 

 

You miss both Charles and my points. Workflow doesn't mean sh*t when you are using the device to CHECK YOUR WORK ON SET.

 

That and the fact that everything else you posted about the Aja in comparison to the NanoFlash was incorrect....

[Tom Daigon]

Charles, I just finished typing my response to Eric when I caught your last post. You very aptly summed up the different needs and options available now that was not the case several years ago. As I said in my other post, "horse for courses"...

[James Davis]

You miss the point Tom, It doesn't do analog inputs, it's LARGER than the nanoflash and it's HEAVIER than the nanoflash, Who cares about workflow when it's not the primary recorder...

Obviously you missed my point Eric. Operators shooting VIDEO projects with HD-SDI spigots on their camera want to feed a unit like this the uncompressed SDI output so the units conversion to PRORES uses the best signal possible. Maybe film shooters need the anaolog inputs but all the professionals I know shooting HD video projects do it in the manner described. MPEG sucks as an edit codec on most NLE systems and takes time to convert. Folks familiar with the post production process generally concur on this point. Its another case of "horses for courses..." ;-)

 

 

You miss both Charles and my points. Workflow doesn't mean sh*t when you are using the device to CHECK YOUR WORK ON SET.

 

That and the fact that everything else you posted about the Aja in comparison to the NanoFlash was incorrect....

 

 

It would be a very expensive piece of equipment to purchase simply to check your work on set, as Tom said it's primary use is as a primary recorder for higher quality digital acquisition to replace the crappy codec you get out of many cameras as standard, obviously this is fixed by shooting film and not using digital cameras.....but not all of us have this luxury, or desire to do so.

I would have thought if you simply want a device to watch back your shots/takes, then something like a modified archos player or something similar fixed to your sled would be ideal, I can't understand why we would even be discussing any of these devices to be used purely for playback of your shots for our own purposes, seems to me like using a jackhammer to pick your teeth after a meal instead of a cocktail stick.

[Charles Papert]

It would be a very expensive piece of equipment to purchase simply to check your work on set, as Tom said it's primary use is as a primary recorder for higher quality digital acquisition to replace the crappy codec you get out of many cameras as standard, obviously this is fixed by shooting film and not using digital cameras.....but not all of us have this luxury, or desire to do so.

 

How is shooting film a luxury or a desire? If one is a working Steadicam operator, it's just a facet of the job, the flavor of the lump you are asked to screw down to your camera plate. The "luxury" of a film job from the perspective of an operator (assuming an appropriate camera) is that it's quick to configure, has less outboard boxes and dongles, is cable-free (huge luxury there!) and in the case of 35mm, generally the takes are capped at 4 minutes before an requisite break to reload (probably the biggest luxury!).

 

I would have thought if you simply want a device to watch back your shots/takes, then something like a modified archos player or something similar fixed to your sled would be ideal, I can't understand why we would even be discussing any of these devices to be used purely for playback of your shots for our own purposes, seems to me like using a jackhammer to pick your teeth after a meal instead of a cocktail stick.

 

Not a great analogy. These recorders offer better image quality, direct transport controls and immediate connectivity without modification when used for onboard playback, however they are large/heavy and expensive. Not so much a jackhammer, probably more akin to shlepping yourself to the dentist to have your teeth cleaned after each meal. Overkill yes, but gets the job done better.

 

I've personally put a lot of time and money into searching for the ideal onboard recorder since I retired my onboard DV camcorder years ago. While the immediacy of flash recording (no rewinding, instant record, quick access to previous takes) is exactly right, the interface has long been lacking. As I mentioned earlier, the Archos and other MP4 players, while seductively sized, have all left me cold in terms of the button pressing maneuvers required to get the job done. Many don't feel this way but I always felt that the better solution was around the corner. When your only opportunity for playback is the time it takes to walk back to one before rolling again, or when the director runs in to talk to the actors, to me any time spent cycling past "photos--MP3's--pictures" in a menu rather than simply hitting "play" is time wasted.

 

When I was planning on rebuilding the base of my sled with a custom j-box and battery system, I formulated a plan to build the recorder into the rig itself; got a couple of used (and discontinued) Nnovia A2D's and was going to mount just the two boards with a solid state hard drive inside. The front panel control panel (easily removable) would have gone up on the monitor support rails. It would have been just about everything I have ever wanted in a recorder--except no HD (but the built in downconverter, once again an internally mounted board, would have taken care of that). Never got around to it and never will. Who wants to buy my A2D's...?!

[Tom Daigon]

If one is a working Steadicam operator, it's just a facet of the job, the flavor of the lump you are asked to screw down to your camera plate.

 

And herein lies the source of a lot of the heated discussions, disagreements and alike. The original intent of this board was to service professional Steadicam ops that worked within the LA type models of film / video productions (i.e. directors , ADs, Cam Ops, ACs, etc) . With the advent of Steadicam models at a lower price point, every Tom (me) Dick and Harry that worked for some type of media organization (local production facilities, corporate media divisions, event/ wedding businesses and independent film makers) suddenly are cohabiting this board as well. All are valid uses of the device but they have their own unique requirements and ways of doing things. I have seen that everyone here is serious about their craft and want to excel at what they do. So even though our work situations and equipment utilization may differ, we are united in our desire to pursue a craft we love / like doing and we all want to communicate with others that share that feeling by participating in this forum.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Tom Daigon

[Charles Papert]

Right. In this instance the discussion was specifically geared towards the appropriateness of the Nanoflash as an onboard recorder for Steadicam, not as an acquisition device. For those using it as such, the application as an onboard recorder would be as a fringe benefit (similar to the playback capability on an OB1 or SSR). Even though there are people here who are working with Nanoflashes and KiPro's and may indeed find it useful to know about the differences in file formats (I'm actually one of them), that's essentially off-topic to the global subject which is Steadicam, and the specific subject here of onboard recorders.

 

In a scenario where a Steadicam operator is hired to shoot a massive one'r on HD, and they know that the final shot will be chopped up but they want the original for their reels and it will be challenging-to-impossible to get their hands on HD dailies, there is a great incentive to record the footage in high quality with their own onboard recorder. However even in this scenario, the amount of footage they will be working with is relatively small and easy enough to convert if necessary. Knowing that there are post-based advantages to one system over the other may be of interest to this particular sector of Steadicam operators, but in the big scheme of things, if I were to share knowledge that is essentially peripheral at best to the discussion, I usually indicate it as such (or at least I hope I do). Context is everything.