Jump to content

Zaxcom Nomad - It's Alive.


Jack Norflus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bash - the Sonosax "clicks some of those boxes" I'm interested in, but not others that I've deemed more important. Thus my decision. Since I'm not going to design and manufacture my own solution, the Nomad is by far the best choice for me at this time. However, I believe in user feedback (even before release) in order to make sure the dialogue is in place as early as possible. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Linux processors are not in my current test Nomad - but the answer is yes. You will be able to choose to record either BWAV Poly or BWAV Mono. Or you can record MP3s at 32k, 64k or 128k. The Nomad 8 or 12 will also give you the option to record to a micro SD card via the internal slot.

Jack

Perfect. The previous thread/answer wasn't clear. Thanks Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand from what Glenn said last week, when Zaxcom start to deliver Nomad 6, 8, or 12's, they will have the Linux board fitted, and will be 'fully loaded'. The software needed to utilise stuff like the Linux boards, however, will be coming a month or so later.

Kindest regards,

Simon B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of the built in tx but I must say i m a little concerned about switching to a 50mw 2.4ghz ifb and tc transmission system in such a crowded frequency space. I cannot afford to deal with interference issues there..

I m feeling a little uncertain on that front and like the reliability of my good old g2s for ifb use.

Also, anything that could improve metering display, keyboard and remote roll à la cl wifi from iphone/pad app would eventually be a much appreciated feature IMHO.

Thanks for your opinions folks

Dominique

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i run the headphone from the 680 into the return on the 552 and i'll bounce back and forth between listening to headphone return, prefade and then solo'ing certain tracks on the 680. but to solo a track on 680 you have to press and hold the button for 1.5 seconds, which is kind of a pain.

I run similar setup with 442 and prefer to monitor pre-fade, but also have the headphones out routed back to mixer for additional soloing. The second of waiting is okay i guess - compared to the other recorders that cost a lot more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that most of us (ENG/PSC) are sending audio to a card based video (and increasingly stills) cameras which usually means down loading picture rushes to a laptop on set. On the day, how 'inconvenient' would it be to integrate a download of the multi track audio rushes into this procedure (and therefore reducing the importance of a stereo hop)?

If the video files are properly TC stamped then BWF QT merge from Videotoolshed does it in about 5 minutes. You simply pick your QT folder, pick your BWF folder, then the program makes a synced list of files. You then tell it to paste self contained into the QT movie and the audio is actually pasted into the QT movie in perfect sync. Multiple video files can sync to one audio file, and vice versa. It's great, fast, and I use it constantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting... So you don't need to match the file name up? For example if you want to sync sc57 t13 you just point it to the folders containing the video and audio and it will do it automatically? This is one thing I can't quite understand with the zaxcom numbering system. It seems ridiculous to use a file number that has no relation to the scene or take, why not have the option of allowing this? I know many production companies love it when I hand in rushes named with scene and take as they can find the files they want instantly, straight off the flash card if they wanted.

Out of interest does this timecode sync work with timecode on an audio track? For example with a 5d shoot?

If the video files are properly TC stamped then BWF QT merge from Videotoolshed does it in about 5 minutes. You simply pick your QT folder, pick your BWF folder, then the program makes a synced list of files. You then tell it to paste self contained into the QT movie and the audio is actually pasted into the QT movie in perfect sync. Multiple video files can sync to one audio file, and vice versa. It's great, fast, and I use it constantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one thing I can't quite understand with the zaxcom numbering system. It seems ridiculous to use a file number that has no relation to the scene or take, why not have the option of allowing this?

This has been discussed a lot, why the file NAME isn't "Scene and Take" and there are lots of arguments for and against this. I think we might all agree that it would be nice to have this be an option with the Deva but it isn't. In the real world, for me (and I'm sure a whole lot of other Deva users) thew file naming scheme with proper metadata has NEVER been a problem (and I have recorded literally thousands of sound "rolls"). On many jobs there are NO Scene and "Take" numbers, only timecode and camera "roll" numbers. Question: on digital shoots where the camera(s) just roll when they want to and possibly don't even "slate" ID, does the Assistant Camera person input "Scene and Take" numbers (which they might have to invent themselves if there isn't a script person there in time to give them the number) so that they show up at the DIT station? I'm not trying to agitate, I just don't know how it all works and I don't want to bash the Deva for NOT being able to do something that really isn't a problem in production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that just plain sucks. A (perhaps unintended) slap in the face to those of us who could have bought cars, but instead bought Zaxcom Devas. Thanks Glenn.

That said I'm gonna get a Nomad 8 for the bag and the Devas will live on the cart, so there will be a mixer with better preamps for the Deva inputs. And I don't use limiters so I don't care about those so much. But my face still stings. Ouch.

And Mr. Mirror I'd like to know what you meant by your comment. Sounded pretty snarky, did you mean to come off like a total douche or were you trying to say something meaningful? Please clarify.

Dan Izen

I believe there is a misconception that the Nomad is a "step up" from the Deva and Fusion recorders, which, from what I can tell, it is not. The Nomad was intended for the portable/ENG market below the Fusion, and should do so in terms of size and price. And, as they should, Zaxcom will try to make the best of new processing technology and draw on their experience to fine-tune some functions ("auto trim" comes to mind). But I don't believe the Nomad will be preferred over the Deva or Fusion machines for complex, demanding, cart-based production. Other than size and price, I also don't believe the Nomad will necessarily be preferred over the Fusion for bag work.

My guess is that the eventual "step up" from Zaxcom for Deva and Fusion owners will use the new processing technology of the Nomad and experience gained from designing it, but will continue with the touch screen, key pad, and higher IN/OUT count of their current higher-end machines.

To squelch the rumor mill, I'll add that I am not aware of any new products being designed by Zaxcom. My prediction is not based on any information from Zaxcom or anyone else, and is based strictly on my personal logic.

Glen Trew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point wasn't really that one way is good and one is bad, just that it seems silly not to let the user choose this, as you have said not all shoots use scene and take. At the end of the day it is just another file like any computer file, why not allow us to choose the name and if a replica occurs then stick an A or .1 at the end... On shoots without a slate I normally name the file after the location we are in or the person we are interviewing/following, this makes things so much easier to sort through later on.

This has been discussed a lot, why the file NAME isn't "Scene and Take" and there are lots of arguments for and against this. I think we might all agree that it would be nice to have this be an option with the Deva but it isn't. In the real world, for me (and I'm sure a whole lot of other Deva users) thew file naming scheme with proper metadata has NEVER been a problem (and I have recorded literally thousands of sound "rolls"). On many jobs there are NO Scene and "Take" numbers, only timecode and camera "roll" numbers. Question: on digital shoots where the camera(s) just roll when they want to and possibly don't even "slate" ID, does the Assistant Camera person input "Scene and Take" numbers (which they might have to invent themselves if there isn't a script person there in time to give them the number) so that they show up at the DIT station? I'm not trying to agitate, I just don't know how it all works and I don't want to bash the Deva for NOT being able to do something that really isn't a problem in production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point wasn't really that one way is good and one is bad, just that it seems silly not to let the user choose this, as you have said not all shoots use scene and take. At the end of the day it is just another file like any computer file, why not allow us to choose the name and if a replica occurs then stick an A or .1 at the end... On shoots without a slate I normally name the file after the location we are in or the person we are interviewing/following, this makes things so much easier to sort through later on.

+1

I wasn't aware of that and many editors and audio post folks I know find audio files named as scene/shot/take useful. Being dictated a number means I will have to write more onto my sound reports and add another column to them... tsk! Then again, I guess it's just that when you're used to a certain type of workflow it takes a little to get used to a different one in the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I like the Zax numbering system much better now, where at first I was complaining about not being able to name the actual file name for scene/take etc..etc.. , but having the option would be best (options are always the best). Anyways, my main reason as to why I've grown fond of the Zax method is when your slate got marked wrong, or scripty named the wrong take or scene you don't have to make a separate, or mental note making sure you go back and rename your file to match up correctly, you can just do it on the fly while you're recording. Also, you can have more than 1 similar named scene/take and not get a warning of "file already exists" crap, and just make your little note as for what happened there and be done. It's built for speed and no fuss IMO. I've also done post on shows I've worked production sound on, and it's very simple to follow the sound reports from scene/take to the file ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind it. Its much easier at the end of the day to take a glance at a folder and make sure nothing is missing. Also when you are copying files to another disk, you can look at the number of files and then the last filename and if you have no false takes they should match yea?

I actually run into the issue of 'same file exists' issue on 788 a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I actually run into the issue of 'same file exists' issue on 788 a lot!"

This is the real danger in having the file NAME be a changing and somewhat arbitrary alpha-numeric entry. Our files are the first step in a lengthy progression of file transfers utilizing all sorts of different devices, computers and operating systems. If during one of these steps a file with a duplicate name replaces an existing file, this is a serious thing. Scene and take and other production related information should go in the metadata section --- that's what it is there for when the Broadcast Wave file standard was created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I actually run into the issue of 'same file exists' issue on 788 a lot!"

This is the real danger in having the file NAME be a changing and somewhat arbitrary alpha-numeric entry. Our files are the first step in a lengthy progression of file transfers utilizing all sorts of different devices, computers and operating systems. If during one of these steps a file with a duplicate name replaces an existing file, this is a serious thing. Scene and take and other production related information should go in the metadata section --- that's what it is there for when the Broadcast Wave file standard was created.

I still believe that the best of both worlds is having BOTH a "unique identifier" and a rewritable metadata name. I've been working on lots of chaotic and undermanaged double system jobs in the past few years where there is no time to enter scene/take info and if I did this in advance of rolling I would turn out to have the wrong info a good percentage of the time. Going back and correcting and renaming files at the end of the day (possibly in OT) while the data wrangler is waiting for my files so he can wrap and ship drives is probably not going to fly either. The importance of having a "unique identifier" for your audio files cannot be overstated, and is one thing Zax does that I wish SD would copy. It is also MUCH easier to check a folder of files named by segment number and see that you have them all, rather than looking through reports to see if you have all the "named" files (where the scene take etc is the actual file name).

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll chirp in on the side of naming the files scene/take. I'm nowhere near the level of jobs many of you guys enjoy, therefore I add value and money by doing the post production job of syncing my production audio to the master quicktime files. This allows me to make extra money and insures that my production tracks are used and not some crappy "Scratch Track" that they "PROMISE" won't be the final edit. Anyway, naming the files the scene/take number makes it easier to track down any slating issues as I can easily double check by just looking at the names. Also, down the road doing dialog editing, its much faster to search audio files by scene number and not have to look it up in a sound report. I equate it with the Red's way of naming files. With no camera reports while editing you have to peck around to find alternate takes.. Therefore, I only verbal slate the first take of a scene and make sure that scripty, myself and 2nd AC are in sync and if there's a problem I only have to change the name of my file. But really it's whatever you are comfortable with..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a mostly-post guy, I like the simplicity of seeing a file, and having a clue as to what it might be UNAIDED. Sure, a good sound Report is a glorious thing on large project, but for quick turnaround simplicity is key.

Why not put whatever relevant information you or the client wants "on top" -as in what the file name is. Boom recorder is the best I've seen there. Sure, put it in metadata as well, but make the filename so that any DIT/Director/Producer can see on the drive if what they want is there. There is

Some shoots I match the Red filenames up so a simple sort in any FCP/MC/Prem can marry files. Other times Scene-Take, other times, whatever crazy crap the post guys ask for. Duplicate files can be delt with in many ways. Replace, auto-1, dialogue box with options, etc.

I still believe that the best of both worlds is having BOTH a "unique identifier" and a rewritable metadata name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that just plain sucks. A (perhaps unintended) slap in the face to those of us who could have bought cars, but instead bought Zaxcom Devas. Thanks Glenn.

That said I'm gonna get a Nomad 8 for the bag and the Devas will live on the cart, so there will be a mixer with better preamps for the Deva inputs. And I don't use limiters so I don't care about those so much. But my face still stings. Ouch.

And Mr. Mirror I'd like to know what you meant by your comment. Sounded pretty snarky, did you mean to come off like a total douche or were you trying to say something meaningful? Please clarify.

Dan Izen

This is not such a nice thing to say. I completely agree with what Bash says, particularly if we are going to continue withe the new model car analogy. I think a better guiding principle when looking at all of this is to reflect on the history of all relevant technologies and the products that use these technologies. A couple of examples always come to mind, for me since I have been an early adopter of just about everything for most of my life (and have paid dearly for it everytime). I bought one of the first Texas Instruments hand held "calculators" that cost $350.00 and had less computing power than my keyless key fob that came with my Prius. Now, if you start getting into personal computers and peripherals, was I happy with the first external hard drive I bought that was a whopping 20 MB (that's megabytes) and cost $1800.00, a few years later I could get a drive with twice the capacity and half the price? The rule with ALL computers from all manufacturers is that if you wait for the next model it will be faster, have more features and cost less than the one you are about to buy.

I think we have gotten spoiled with this latest generation of devices we use that do have so many things that can be upgraded via software only. In the old days when you had the older model and they came out with the new model, NOTHING was upgradable --- if you wanted the new model badly enough, you bought it. The comparison between Nomad and Deva is not really even relevant --- though they share much of the same operational software they are completely different products designed for different uses and users.

" all going into the latest/greatest/cheapest NEW product. "

that is at least 100% of how it is.

Vehicle manufacturers only recall their products to fix known, mostly safety related issues, they don't upgrade, they introduce newer, better models. New computer's and chips come out several times a year, and computers are not upgraded. When new software is released, older model computers get left behind and newer models are required for all the new "stuff"

When I was a kid, the term was "planned obsolescence"! You should have seen the computers I used then (you can google them: IBM system 360, then came IBM system 370, Burroughs B5500, then B6500, then B6700. Honeywell 600, then GE (bought them) 635... the list goes on!)

Your face was not slapped, -Nobody's face was slapped-- you are just participating in progress,

Weighing in late on Dan Izens earlier complaints....

I don't think planned obsolescence is always a valid argument. I understand that as progress is made that some products will be left behind. However, technical short-sightedness is hard to excuse as well. I think we should hold up examples of other products that continue to evolve several years after their first release. The examples i cite are the 788t, Nagra 5 and Cantar. Now some upgrades are quite expensive ( cantar ) but they are possible. And to be fair, i've certainly been burned by the lack of upgrade paths provided by manufacturers other than Zaxcom.

Zaxcom makes very impressive products and i have taken a peek at the nomad and i think it is very powerful product. I just urge all manufacturers to think beyond the first few years of new products life. I know that it is not always possible but it is something that i think we'd all pay more for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont have time to do the research at this precise moment - but I know that my Deva 5.8 does a whole load of tricks now, none of which it was ever advertised as being able to do when I bought it. Deva and Fusion have both evolved - quite easily as much as Cantar or 788. I think it is quite hard to suggest that Zax are guilty (or more guilty) of not evolving their existing machines. I seem to recall that neither EQ nor comp/lims were in the original spec!!!

Kindest regards,

Simon B

Weighing in late on Dan Izens earlier complaints....

I don't think planned obsolescence is always a valid argument. I understand that as progress is made that some products will be left behind. However, technical short-sightedness is hard to excuse as well. I think we should hold up examples of other products that continue to evolve several years after their first release. The examples i cite are the 788t, Nagra 5 and Cantar. Now some upgrades are quite expensive ( cantar ) but they are possible. And to be fair, i've certainly been burned by the lack of upgrade paths provided by manufacturers other than Zaxcom.

Zaxcom makes very impressive products and i have taken a peek at the nomad and i think it is very powerful product. I just urge all manufacturers to think beyond the first few years of new products life. I know that it is not always possible but it is something that i think we'd all pay more for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a mostly-post guy, I like the simplicity of seeing a file, and having a clue as to what it might be UNAIDED. Sure, a good sound Report is a glorious thing on large project, but for quick turnaround simplicity is key.

Why not put whatever relevant information you or the client wants "on top" -as in what the file name is. Boom recorder is the best I've seen there. Sure, put it in metadata as well, but make the filename so that any DIT/Director/Producer can see on the drive if what they want is there. There is

Some shoots I match the Red filenames up so a simple sort in any FCP/MC/Prem can marry files. Other times Scene-Take, other times, whatever crazy crap the post guys ask for. Duplicate files can be delt with in many ways. Replace, auto-1, dialogue box with options, etc.

I'm a post guy too and would of course like the files named by scene/take. But that's just not how it goes on lots of production sound jobs, esp w/ SD recorders--there's no time or space for entering that info. In the sometimes tiny slices of time between takes I want to be doing something to make the shot better (talking to the boomie, adjusting a lav etc etc) not entering data. Those of you working off of carts with thirds to help the boom op (if you have a boom op!), grab your keyboard and enter data as you will. For the mudfests I've been on in the last while we go for an accurate non-repeating file count. Once the files are synced in an NLE (for jobs that will use the OMF audio, which is the great majority overall) the audio file name is of secondary importance anyhow. For jobs with audio conforming, the series of non-repeating file names works just fine, and if one needs to consult a report (supplied electronically with the files) then that's what needs to happen. I am not being cavalier about the time and energies of the audio posties (since I am one half the time), I'm realistic about doing what can be done well 100% of the time re: naming and reporting. If I am instructed by post (when the post isn't me) to work differently I do. When I have no instructions this is how I roll, with no complaints so far.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting... So you don't need to match the file name up? For example if you want to sync sc57 t13 you just point it to the folders containing the video and audio and it will do it automatically? This is one thing I can't quite understand with the zaxcom numbering system. It seems ridiculous to use a file number that has no relation to the scene or take, why not have the option of allowing this? I know many production companies love it when I hand in rushes named with scene and take as they can find the files they want instantly, straight off the flash card if they wanted.

Out of interest does this timecode sync work with timecode on an audio track? For example with a 5d shoot?

Yep, file names mean nothing. That's a huge plus. And yes, the TC is printed as "Aux TC" to an audio track. I used it today with a 5Dnand it really is rock solid barring any operator errors. Using it on a 3 camera shoot in Trinidad for ESPN next week. Wish I had my Nomad!!!

I have to say the Zaxcom file naming scene with the TRX900AA is pretty cool if you don't mind all the numbers. I like seeing TC in the name of the file. It would be great if the zax convert software gave you an option to turn that stuff off though.

I've used my Ambient lanc logger and lockit boxes with auxTC app, as well as the ERX IFB boxes. They also work great. Nomad interfacing with those ERX boxes will be great, and a huge part of why I'll get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...