The Ninja a portable HDMI LCD Hard Disk ProRes Recorder

[Sanjin Jukic]

The Ninja a portable HDMI LCD Hard Disk ProRes Recorder.

http://atomos.com/>>>

“The Ninja had to be simple to use, rugged and portable.
There are no fiddly buttons, just a crisp, high-resolution touch screen monitor
with just four main functions: Record, Stop, Monitor and Play.,” said Jeromy Young, CEO at Atomos.
“And it’s designed to sit silently on or near the camera or camera operator, so it’s small, light yet tough.
Recording direct to high capacity hard discs means you go form Lens to Timeline with no capture or
transcoding steps - saving money and valuable time in production."

Press>>>

http://vimeo.com/14913405>>>

High Res Press Image>>>

That means R1-MX, Scarlet and Epic have got affordable and small ProRes recording option!!!!

 

[Michael Totten]

Is the IQ / signal coming out of the HDMI on DSLR's any good to begin with?

 

[Mike McNeese]

I think all of the HDSLRs HDMI outputs will have some sort of character output burned in the image. On my 7D, I can turn all of the display info off, but there's still a white box in the center 1/5th of the frame. Won't do much for current DSLR-R's, I'm afraid.

AF100 might benefit, though.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Is the IQ / signal coming out of the HDMI on DSLR's any good to begin with?

On current Canon DSLR's the image quality is pretty decent... but it has problems.

You get better color space: 4:2:2.

The signal is interlaced. 60i for NTSC modes, 50i for PAL modes. Worse... the imager is progressive, so the interlace is being created in camera- definitely not broadcast grade.

In "preview" mode the camera displays a white box which indicates what the zoom function will zoom in to.

In "record" mode the camera displays a red recording indicator circle which encroaches very slightly on the image area. So... you have to crop the 16x9 image slightly (if you want to shoot 2:1 or wider this is not an issue) or you have to recreate that portion of the image in post by comping the material on the recorder with the material recorded in camera.

This another symptom of video being a bolted on feature of the camera. The HDMI output signal could readily be clean.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

confusion

confusion

What is the purpose of this device?
The HDMI out on DSLRs is severly crippled and camcorders are becoming obsolete- anyway-the quality of onboard recording will beat an external recorder of monitoring signal every time. That's why the outputs on cameras are called "monitoring":Angel_anim:

 

[Rudi Herbert]

What is the purpose of this device?
The HDMI out on DSLRs is severly crippled and camcorders are becoming obsolete- anyway-the quality of onboard recording will beat an external recorder of monitoring signal every time. That's why the outputs on cameras is called "monitoring":Angel_anim:

Not by a long shot. I use external recorders such as the Nano Flash and the Cinedeck with my XDCAM Sony cameras as well as the AVCHD Canon mini-camcorders. Both of those lines of cameras spit out 10 bit signals off their HDMI or SDI outputs, and recording to these devices yields far better quality than the on board options. I, for one, prefer to use real HD camcorders than DSLRs, so for those of us who need to use cameras below RED but above DSLRs, these recorders are actually a welcome option.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Really

Really

With all due respect,
I find it hard to believe that the manufacturer with intimate knowledge of their product would be unable to offer better performance than a third party company piggy-backing a device to a monitoring port of a camera.
are there any actual comparisons or is this a typical case in Hollywood of "looking good" ?:devil:
Sorry Rudi- nothing personal, I see a lot of "looking goood" nonsense here all the time...

 

[Kaku Ito]

This would be great for the new Panasonic.

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

I say let the product tested first them make any bad comments.
these days people need to get cheaper and better options.
It can be good for some people anyway.
Its not only red cameras out there.
Let the product come out first before you come in any conclusions .

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

It looks pretty attractive to me especially for R1MX and future Scarlet/Epic users who want to get fast and affordable ProRes DTE option that is missing in those systems.


It's good for DSLRs when they clean HDMI out and also for many other little video cameras that have HDMI out.

 

[Jörgen Persson]

With all due respect,
I find it hard to believe that the manufacturer with intimate knowledge of their product would be unable to offer better performance than a third party company piggy-backing a device to a monitoring port of a camera.
are there any actual comparisons or is this a typical case in Hollywood of "looking good" ?:devil:

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/palmer_michael/nano_and_EX3/Sparks_HighShutter.jpg

We have a Nanoflash and the quality of the recorded 4:2:2 monitoring signal is a lot better than what's being saved internally to the SxS cards). We use it mostly because of the easier workflow with Compact Flash but we have used the higher bitrates of the Nanoflash when shooting green screen and it's outstanding.

 

[Clint Lealos]

I know what I would use this for...a director's playback deck! Mainly for commercials, but it would also be nice on movie sets. This way the director can review takes at his or her leisure, and even take the deck/monitor home at night. It also frees up the camera department from playing back each take in camera. Right now, most people are using Sony clamshells or the nano flash + monitor for this purpose. The Cinedeck is ideal, but price becomes a concern. Also, could you use a wireless receiver on this product? Then it serves two purposes

 

[RivaiC]

Hey Sanjin, thanks for posting..

For dSLR maybe suitable. But for RED, it doesnt give any metadata TC and reelname, which is pretty much needed. How does the recorder handle filename is still question mark as well, those are quite important for RED type application, unless you dont intend to go back to RAW files and only work with prores, maybe it works.

Interesting product tho

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I find it hard to believe that the manufacturer with intimate knowledge of their product would be unable to offer better performance than a third party company piggy-backing a device to a monitoring port of a camera.

They are not "unable". It's a business decision move, not technical incompetence. Manufacturers want to keep their five figure camera clients.

Also, Sony currently has a better screen in a $500 phone than in $8000 professional camera.

 

[Chris Gold]

This, like the nanoflash and Ki Pro, would be great for cameras like Sony's EX-1/3 or Panasonic's upcoming AF100 since they output significantly higher quality over their HDMI/SDI ports then they end up recording too. Sony, in particular, hampers its EX line of cameras with a relatively bad codec to protect its higher end line. If this works as well as the NanoFlash or Kia pro it could be a hit since it is cheaper, though I wonder how reliable 2.5" notebook harddrivers will be at keeping up with a 10 bit ProRes stream.

Also it is very odd that they advertise it for DSLR's since the video being output over hdmi on them has way more cons then pros (IMHO). I guess they are assuming the next gen of DSLR's will have full hdmi out.

 

[Tom.Wong]

just throwing this out there, few things about this product worries me, it looks like a great ki pro mini alternative but...

A. is it consumer grade touch screen? If so, does anybody really expect it to handle well in extreme temperatures especially the cold? Ever try using capacitive touch when your fingers are like ice? If it's pressure than that's different, but then... it's pressure : \


B. so it runs off SATA drives, spinning or SSD. Anybody think this might run into the same problem that RED was concerned with, with their SSD's. IE, the connectors. Sata ports, weren't built to be plugged and unplugged frequently, possibly hundreds of times in a year. So being paranoid about anything that records to a sata device where you just pop it in kind of gets me paranoid now. Or am I just unwarranted for that? CF although CAN have pin issues, was built to be plugged in and out all day...

It's nifty, and for the price point there isn't TOO much to argue about, but lasting power of the device, and real world functionality is always worth that extra buck IMHO.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

conspiracies in boardrooms

conspiracies in boardrooms

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/palmer_michael/nano_and_EX3/Sparks_HighShutter.jpg

We have a Nanoflash and the quality of the recorded 4:2:2 monitoring signal is a lot better than what's being saved internally to the SxS cards). We use it mostly because of the easier workflow with Compact Flash but we have used the higher bitrates of the Nanoflash when shooting green screen and it's outstanding.

Thanks- that helps.
I'll definitely buy the "convenience" case- codec type that fits in your workflow makes a big difference for sure. Also older cameras can benefit from file vs tape advantage and get some extra life with better modern codecs.
What I don't buy is a conspiracy in the board rooms crippling a product. In this extremely competitive market place it just doesn't make much sense....:nonod:

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Jacek,

I'm not aware of the conspiracies, though I don't affirm or deny anything And yes, I agree with you that the camera manufacturers have the capabilities to enable recording options like this in camera, but they don't (conspiracy?) so we're left to use these units to squeeze as much quality out of the cameras as possible. In my case, I have several EX-1s and I absolutely love that camera for what it is, but the 8 bit 4:2:0 35 mebagit codec robs the camera of its pristine quality, so we use the Nanoflash or the Cinedeck (www.cinedeck.com) to record higher quality. I don't see how this would make much of a difference on a DSLR, but on these full HD camcorders, it does make a noticeable one.

 

[marcolisi]

Hi guys, I am trying to look for a firewire recorder to connect to my High definition camcorder or digital cameras , and I found many, but it seems that none specify the encoding in mbps....do they record in the same mbps as the original camcorder (ie. sony xr550 at 24mbps or hs700 at 28mbps) ?
What about the one above ?

Also, do u know if I can record for 12-14 hours straight ? (does NOT have the 4gb limit, correct ?)
Do u know how long the battery last ?

Thank you

 

[Johnny Friday]

With all due respect,
I find it hard to believe that the manufacturer with intimate knowledge of their product would be unable to offer better performance than a third party company piggy-backing a device to a monitoring port of a camera.
are there any actual comparisons or is this a typical case in Hollywood of "looking good" ?:devil:
Sorry Rudi- nothing personal, I see a lot of "looking goood" nonsense here all the time...

Jacek,
Yes, the Nano Flash can deliver/record at a higher bit rate than many cameras onboard recording ability. As Rudi pointed out in this thread. I recently shot underwater 3d using the Panasonic AG-3D1 that records natively as AVCHD at i think 35mbs. at if memory serves me right the color space is 4:2:0 with the panasonic.
NOW, using the NANO Flash device i can connect to the HD-SDI outs of right and left eyes of the Panasonic and then bump up my record rate to 100mbs or even higher....i think as high as 140mbs. AND the color space is 4:2:2 with the nanoflash recorder. and i'm working with a .mov file right out of the gate which for me is just a personal like.

so in the end you are given a better recording option in bit rate and depth. And IMO and easier file to work with instead of AVCHD. What does all this mean? hell if i know, but i do know that the guys back at the studio love the increased bit depth and rate. Images look pretty fantastic from either one. But for me it's the prores that i like coming from the nanoflash and much easier for me to save and work with.