10-bit to 8-bit Workflow (Nanoflash)

KyleProhaska

KyleProhaska

Veteran
If I'm using an EX1r and Nanoflash to record at a bitrate above 100mb/s, 422, 10-bit...all of which the EX1r could give me, what advantage am I going to get in actually using a 10-bit image over say a 422 8-bit to Nanoflash from the newer Canon XF305.

I know the EX1r has advantage in the chips low-light, and perhaps a few other things and so does the Canon. However, if all of that was cast aside, what would the advantage be in editing, coloring, etc. in 10-bit color space (Prorez)? I can read about what 10-bit can give me over 8-bit on paper all day, but at the end of my workflow it's likely I'm going to Bluray or a DVD.

Unless I'm doing something heavily color-corrected, is that 10-bit REALLY going to give me a significant improvement seen at the end of the day (project rather)?

Just curious what people think. I'm in a toss up between those cameras as it is, but the 10-bit and 8-bit is a major difference in those cameras, with the rest of it being their lens, chips, in-camera codec if there's no nanoflash, etc.

Thoughts?
 
If you're recording to a Nanoflash you are recording 8-bit, regardless of the camera output. Nano records 8-bit, 422. The advantage is, as you already stated, recording less compressed video using Nanoflash. Editing in a 10-bit color space, such as ProRes, provides you with greater image fidelity.

Choosing between an EX1R and a CanonXF305? That's a tough one. I own an EX3 and love it but I wish it had the Canon's bit rate. Bigger chips in EX's equal slightly shallower depth of field and slightly better sensitivity. They are both excellent camera's.
 
I wasn't aware the Nanoflash was 8-bit only. That's a bummer...

Ah well that narrows the gap because then the EX1r's 10-bit output won't make much of a difference. I wonder what happens to the signal when it comes out of the EX and goes into the Nanoflash since it can only do the 8-bit compression?

I have a lot of confidence in Canon and have owned them for years...but the EX would do better in low-light. I plan on using a 35mm adapter on whatever I choose, so low-light is important but next time around I plan on having a budget worthy of enough lights so it's not TOO important to edge out the Canon.

Decisions...Canon would use CF cards like my DSLR, would be good to invest in only one kind of card too. That might push it over the edge.
 
If you want to record 10 bits, get the Ki Pro Mini. It's cheaper than the NanoFlash, and records to 10-bit ProRes, which is convenient is you're using FCP.

There are several advantages to 10-bit data. First, the colors hold up better when you do heavy manipulation. Second, there's less banding in large areas of one color (i.e. sky).
 
Hi there

I'm in a similar position and need to order a camera like tomorrow, for forthcoming jobs. I've been researching cams for 6 months and came to the decision that I would need two- the Canon XF305 and the AF101, for live events and more artistic work, respectively.

However, taking 2 cams with me everywhere would be a pain. I went the BVE (Broadcast Video Expo) at Earl's Court in London yesterday and had a good look around and asked quite a few questions, until the point I was sick of cams and information.

The cam that seems to possibly be a better choice is the EX3 (with Nano or similar). As the larger chip equals better in low-light, but it's not got the shallow DOF that the AF101 has. Nevertheless, you can swap lenses with the EX3 which you cannot do on the XF305. And the XF305 is really not that great in low-light as I've been using it a lot lately in various situations all over the world.

Questions

* Are EX3s used to shoot music videos? Like high-end ones that would be broadcast on MTV.
* Does the 35mm adapter for the EX3 actually work? How much is the cost?
* What kind of lenses could I expect the DOP to hire for music video shoots using the 35mm adapter? So I can get an idea of rental charges.
* Ki Pro Mini or Nano Flash?? I've always preferred Nano, but is 10bit that much more desirable than 8bit?
* Does the EX3 over/undercrank? Can it record 1080p at 60 frames/sec?
* Could that then be recorded to the Nano or Ki Pro?

I've done a lot of research on the XF305 & AF101 and now the EX3 has come into play late in the game, and it's been around a lot longer. The one thing I don't like about the EX3 is the auto-focus is very slow in the live environment with fast zoom action (MTV style shots). Of course manual is fine in controlled environment.

All help very much appreciated

Thanks
 
Nick,
I have an EX3 and I can tell you that unless you already own a 1/2" Lens or have a rental budget, you will probably never use anything other than the stock lens, which is a fine lens. There aren't that many 1/2" lenses in existence. Also, the lenses that are better than the stock lens cost more than the camera itself.

Music videos? Sure. High-end? They probably use high-end cameras like Red or Alexa. You can check out Michael Jackson's "This is it" to see the EX1 in a behind the scenes scenario (90% EX1 and 10% RED).

Not sure which 35mm adapter you are referring to. There are several companies that manufacture 35mm adapters; Letus, Red Rock, SG Blade..etc. There is a film on Netflix called "Monster's", whose story was a huge disappointment for me. It was shot using the EX3 with Letus Ultimate. The daytime scenes looked absolutely beautiful. Some of the night scenes looked horrible which I suspect is due to an inadequate lighting package. Maybe horrible is too strong of a word. The director did not use an external recorder but the footage was transferred to film, which helps aesthetically.

With 35mm adapters you can use any DSLR lens which are relatively cheap.

Ki Pro Mini or Nanoflash? That's a tough question of which I devoted a large chunk of my life researching. In the end, I went with the Ki Pro (not the Mini). 10 bit is more desirable than 8 bit. Whether it is "that much" more desirable is a question only you can answer. I will tell you that some people claim that recording 10bit from the EX1/3 offers no advantage because the noise floor is too low. They usually say it needs to be above 60db. It may be true, I don't know. If it is, that would mean that a lot of very expensive cameras don't benefit from 10bit either. Regardless, cameras are getting better and cleaner. Like the new F3. Super clean. Point being, 10 bit recorders are more future proof. Although, with either recorder, you will see a slight increase in quality.

EX3 does not do 60p at 1080. But it does do 60p at 720.

I believe you can record the 720 60p to a Nano. I haven't tried it with my Ki.

Okay, my hands are tired. Good Luck.
 
Wow! haha.. That's one of the best replies I've ever seen on a forum! Thanks! :-)

That certainly helps. I've spent the last 2 days (I went today too) at the BVE in London. Learnt so much in 2 days! Certainly helps actually seeing the equipment and talking to the pros! And just talking to loads of other people there helps loads too. And there were a few nice girls about :-)

After using the Canon XF305 for the last few months (hired) and using the EX3 once, seeing it in action and talking to quite a few EX3 owners. I've decided to go for the EX3. It's so annoying that almost every bit of kit is not the quite right piece of kit. There's always something with any kit that will make you go "Oh, really, bummer" :-( The EX3 is 1/2" which is great. 35mbs, 4:2:0, not so great but most people reckon it still gives a great image and not to get too hung up on the numbers. Although the guy from Sony says the extra colour from the HD-SDI does make a difference.

I almost bought a Nano flash before the show. Then I saw the Ki Pro Mini at the show, which with 10bit looks great, but 15watt power consumption was more than double the Nano, and seemed a bit heavier. Then someone said check out the Ninja. I really like the Ninja with it's display screen. However, it's HDMI only at the mo, with HD-SDI coming in April. Menu's are a bit whack but a 320 gig hard drive on-board and the unit sitting on the rear shoe on the EX3 = sweet. Plus only £700! When the Ninja is HD-SDI it will blow the competition out of the water IMO. As long as you don't mind pro-res. :-)

Shame the EX3 doesn't do 60p at 1080, but not many cams do at that range unless the AF101 gets a hack. I like the Sony F3 too, but they need to sort out the chroma on that also. Met the guy from HDWarrior. He was filming with the AF101 and Nokton Voigtlander. Nice chap. I was surprised that I was actually explaining to people about the 0.95 lens too. Not a complete amateur then. LOL.

I saw Monsters at the Curzon Soho in London. I enjoyed it. It did look budget to me, but had no idea at the time is was EX3. Why didn't they use a Nano?? Seems a bit crazy not to. I didn't notice the poor night-time scenes too much I was genuinely enjoying the film. So I guess to the untrained eye, it didn't really make a difference.

One thing I've learnt from all this research over the last 6 months is, buying a digital camera and accessories is a pain in the ass! Be glad when all purchases are made so I can concentrate on creative content.

Thanks again for your input.

PS will come back to you on 35mm adapters. Need more info on those....
 
Yeah man if you're brand new to all this stuff it is very overwhelming.

IMHO:

Ki Pro Mini for the best quality. So for movies, music videos, sit-down documentary interviews...good times. Reality TV type stuff...not so good times. I really see that thing needing juice from the wall.

Nanoflash for an in-between plus tons and tons of features that the Ki Pro Mini doesn't have. Much better for run and gun due to size and battery consumption. If it had 10-bit video it would be the hands down winner.

I'm not really familiar with the Ninja so I won't comment.

And yeah, 35mm adaptors is where it's at if you want to shoot 35mm film looking movies. I don't have the money to rent that stuff so the narrative stuff I've done has been with the stock EX1 lens. You can see my demo reel at http://vimeo.com/9291390 . Short films starts at 1:30. In order, the cameras used (for each cut after the Short Films text on the reel) were
Panasonic HVX200
HVX200
Sony EX1
EX1
JVC HD100 (1:41-1:50), non-HD sourced
from 1:51 2:06 - EX1
Last few shots were Panasonic HVX200

Again, all with the stock lenses on the cameras. No adaptors and no color grading.
 
Just to expand a bit on what adam said (and not disagreeing with him at all.)

adamr316 said:
Ki Pro Mini for the best quality. So for movies, music videos, sit-down documentary interviews...good times. Reality TV type stuff...not so good times. I really see that thing needing juice from the wall.
Click to expand...

The Nano uses a lot less juice and can operate just fine as low as 7 volts and as high as ~17 volts (as I recall). I don't know any other recorder that does this.

The Ki Pro Mini only records to ProRes. If you want to share or work with PC users it can be a pain. The Nano outputs several formats such as MXF for PCs, but also MOV. The Nano has several other features too numerous to list, but you can down load the manual or overview.

I haven't looked at the most recent specs with the Ki Pro Mini, but the Nano (upgraded many times over with free firmware upgrades) has higher possible bit rates.

adamr316 said:
Nanoflash for an in-between plus tons and tons of features that the Ki Pro Mini doesn't have. Much better for run and gun due to size and battery consumption. If it had 10-bit video it would be the hands down winner.
Click to expand...

Other than a few Sony cameras most other cameras such as the AF100 have 8 bit out put so there is no advantages with the Ki Pro Mini (and some disadvantages). I run a Nano on an EX1. While you may get banding with extreme grading of large open areas I have yet to see it.

OTOH, I think the best practice is to set the picture profile colors close to what you want so there is little grading to do. This may be why I don't see banding. Ordinary color grading with 8 bit really isn't much of an issue. If it were all those other cameras would be having problems with their normal output. In reality you can grade the output of most cameras just fine.

In fact the Nano files are better to color grade than most camera files (and even those are not bad) due to the fact that the Nano has 200% more color data than regular EX1/3, AF100, etc files. In addition, the artifacts are reduced to almost nothing at bit rates 100-140 and above.

The results for green screen and grading have actually been great with good starting footage. 10bit will give you some more room to work if you screwed up.

adamr316 said:
I'm not really familiar with the Ninja so I won't comment.
Click to expand...

Unless it was really recently released the Ninja isn't out yet. The Ki Pro Mini was just recently released.

I just know that when I mount the Nano on the camera and set it to timecode trigger all I need to do is put the start button on the camera and voila, dual recording. :)
 
Last edited:
Ninja is not out yet, but dropping soon. Had a good "play" with it at BVE London. Lightweight, good screen (res not great but good size), hard-drive for massive storage capacity, 10bit recording. And only £700! About 60+% cheaper than a Nano! HDMI now for all the DSLR crew, but SD-HDI dropping around April. Has it's own batteries for power supply, comes with 2, which will last about 2 hours. Downside at the mo is the menus are clunky, and you have to press record on the unit as well as the cam, if you desire cam to record too. Otherwise, big storage, cheap, light, fits nicely on rear shoe of EX3. No doubt firmware upgrades will eradicate minor flaws.
 
No time code trigger on the Ninja? That would nix it for me. There would be too many times when I'd forget to start both.

Shooting my feature I regularly run both the camera and the Nano off of one U96 battery all day (shutting it off for long breaks). I just keep another battery just in case but rarely need it.

Another thing is the Nano has been out long enough there are used ones around now for cheaper prices. They are solid state so almost no moving parts. Not much to wear out so no reason to not buy a used one if you can get a good price.
 
no TC trigger, and only 10-bit over hdmi. Which no camera outputs. I personally don't understand why one would spend a thousand dollars or more on an external recorder, just to stay in 8-bit land of 256 colors, but to each his own.
 
Not really, as your display is 8-bit. As well as the output on your pc's graphics card, as well as everything else in your system for the most part. (assuming you aren't running a quadro sdi card to a cine-tal monitor or something) It's benefit is as an acquisition/post codec, for grading/color work. With 10-bit, you have 1,024 distinct levels of each channel to push around, manipulate, and change, instead of the tiny 256 you get in 8-bit space. 99% of the "falling apart" people run into when doing heavy color work is due to reduced bit depth. 4:2:0 and other levels of chroma subsampling almost never cause grading to "fail", it mostly effects the picture when you have two very highly saturated colors pitted right next to eachother, and in grading you try to pump up the saturation. Then it will kind of "wash out" or get blurry along the edge. In my grading experience, the advantages of 10-bit definitely outway the advantages of 4:2:2, for color work. But that's a moot point, as with all 10-bit recorders out there you get 4:2:2 anyway :) I have done a few tests with 10-bit 4:2:2 masters. I developed a very heavy grade, with secondaries based on hsv values, really pushing the images response curve far away from what was originally captured. I then bounced the source down to an 8-bit 4:2:2 file, and a 10-bit 4:2:0 file. (took a bit of scripting in avisynth to get 4:2:0 subsampling in a 10-bit codec). Anyway, when putting the heavy grade on these downsampled versions, the 10-bit held up and was almost identical, although 4:2:0. The 8-bit 4:2:2 however - oh lawd. Banding, banding everywhere. Lots of odd things in the shadows and highlights as well. It's up to the end users goals I guess. but tons of bit depth is hard to beat. Not to mention for greenscreen, the keyer has 4 times as many levels of green to look for, isolate, and compare to the 1,024 levels of other channels. A bit more accurate! 4:2:2 is still great and very important for keying work though.
 
Fohdeesha said:
no TC trigger, and only 10-bit over hdmi. Which no camera outputs. I personally don't understand why one would spend a thousand dollars or more on an external recorder, just to stay in 8-bit land of 256 colors, but to each his own.
Click to expand...

8-bit video is not 256 colors. If it were our footage would look like GIF image files. Instead it has 256 varying levels of brightness per primary color, which appears to eye as high precision color bit depth images. So PER CHANNEL (Red, Green, Blue) there are 256 possibilities, so roughly 16.8 million colors (256x256x256 for you math geeks). Now of course this color information is subsampled due to 4:2:0. I'm not even going to get into that (see below if you wanna geek out). But our displays are compromised, with the average monitor being dithered 18-bit (total) resolution. With 10-bit video we have 1,024 possible colors per channel. So 1024x1024x1024 = 1,073,741,824. 1 billion possibilties vs. 16.8 million possibilities. Yes, 10-bit video does make a significant difference in color correction applications.

If you have Photoshop open a new document that is RGB color mode and 8-bits. Click on the Set Foreground color square and notice in the RGB section you can type in any value between 0 and 255. 0, 0, 0 is black and 255, 255, 255 is white.

More info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bits_per_pixel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

Speaking of color depth, Adobe should get rid of the Web colors tick box. That thing is so dated and it confuses users unless they know wtf it is. Seriously people with computers that are 20 years old need to get with the times, LOL.
 
Last edited:
That whole post was written under the assumption that the reader knew and assumed I was speaking bpc. Notice how I said "distinct levels of each channel" :)

And yeah, when cs5 came out and that box was still there it kind of made me LOL
 
Last edited:
Fohdeesha said:
That whole post was written under the assumption that the reader knew and assumed I was speaking bpc. Notice how I said "distinct levels of each channel" :)

And yeah, when cs5 came out and that box was still there in kind of made me LOL
Click to expand...

OK, cool. I'm sorry I misundersood you Fohdeesha. I just wanted to clarify before someone else made a hissy fit, LOL. I've attached two images to show the difference between 8-bits of total bit depth (approx. 2.7 bits per channel) and 24-bits (8 bits per channel). This is what the internets used to look like before it went mainstream.

courthell-stu.jpgcourthell-stu.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top