Advantages of recording 4:2:2 to an external device with A7s2/A73?
- Thread starter Mark-P
- Start date
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
I know a few people will probably get on my case about my answer but, in my years of experience with all these technical terms and specs, unless you are projecting in a theater or a really really big tv, the whole 10bit vs 8bit 4:2:2 vs X debate is a bit pointless. The best scenario is when you are keying things, then color space is pretty important. For me, I work with the Panavision HD900F (panavised Sony F900) which internally records 3:1:1 8bit on Tape. For web based projects and even color correction (which i honestly dont do much if any of) the image holds just fine. If i was in your position i'd invest whatever money i had on an external recorder and put it toward even nicer lenses or a neat support rig that could add an interesting perspective to your shots. The digital revolution has created this superficial chase for most of us where if its not shooting 10bit 4:4:4 super duper raw mode then people feel like they are in the dust. Its just me, im a bit old school in my creating.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Well i guess i meant like a theatrical screen in terms of size. There have been plenty of films shot and distributed in color space less than 4:2:2 and they have looked great. Most cameras still shoot 4:2:0 or 8bit in terms of depth. I remember way back in 2003 seeing Once Upon A Time In Mexico on the big screen and it looked great! and that was even on a 35mm film print, not a digital projection like what is common place now. That film was shot on an F900 like what i have using the HDCAM 8bit tape compression. 4:2:0 looks just fine on larger TVs as well. I've watched my share of stuff on my 55in 4K tv thats 1080p 4:2:0 and so on and all looks okay to me.
TubEfingers
Well-known member
There is a huge difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 that is definitely worth spending money on,
with 4:2:0 footage, the colours are thinner and visually much less satisfying, really see it in reds and skintones - there's a richness there in the 422 colour palette that looks so much better,
I really noticed it going from the Panny HVX/HPX P2 422 series of cams to the HMC SD 420 cams, its hard to describe but once you've seen the difference its hard going back to 420.
with 4:2:0 footage, the colours are thinner and visually much less satisfying, really see it in reds and skintones - there's a richness there in the 422 colour palette that looks so much better,
I really noticed it going from the Panny HVX/HPX P2 422 series of cams to the HMC SD 420 cams, its hard to describe but once you've seen the difference its hard going back to 420.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
eh, i have to disagree. I mean, if money is no option, of course we would all use the best of the best, but, most of us are on tight budgets and when i have to think about whats most important and the platforms i share my personal and paid work on, i really dont pay attention to the color space BS as much as when i was inexperienced in it and following "trends".
Andrew Stone
Veteran
The trick is to nail the colour in camera. If you don't 4:2:0 8 bit doesn't leave you much latitude to yank on the sliders in the NLE or POST. Mike does have a point BUT you have to nail the colour in camera or things can get get ugly on unsalvagable. 4:2:2 10 bit generally allows you latitude to pull colours and possibly chroma into line, when the original footage is not close to reality or intended tone and colour.
Lighting is also a big part of the picture, in terms of the potential degree of success that you are going to have with your shooting. You control your light and give it enough, working with your footage successfully is going to be way easier and give you more of a chance of success.
Of course, these are huge generalizations but enough light in the right places is going to have a bigger detminate in the success of your footage than almost anything else. 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 be damned in relation to the power of light and in the correct places.
Lighting is also a big part of the picture, in terms of the potential degree of success that you are going to have with your shooting. You control your light and give it enough, working with your footage successfully is going to be way easier and give you more of a chance of success.
Of course, these are huge generalizations but enough light in the right places is going to have a bigger detminate in the success of your footage than almost anything else. 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 be damned in relation to the power of light and in the correct places.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Agree with everything he says here. Color correction in heavy use does enjoy a richer color space
TubEfingers
Well-known member
Have to disagree on this Mike, I can be cynical about "motion cadence" and other pixel peeping jargon but there's a glaring visible difference between 420 and 422!!
If i get time over the next day or two i'll post a still of the same shot from my AF101 (AVCHD 420) and my EVA (Long GOP 422) and get your opinion on the differences between the two, i'd be surprised if you cant see the benefits of the extra colour in there.
If i get time over the next day or two i'll post a still of the same shot from my AF101 (AVCHD 420) and my EVA (Long GOP 422) and get your opinion on the differences between the two, i'd be surprised if you cant see the benefits of the extra colour in there.
NorBro
Major Contributor
While I don't doubt you see a difference in the color space between the two cameras, it's probably worth considering the 7-8 year gap between the two pieces of technology. For very high end cameras (ARRI) there are less differences over the years, but I'd assume everything is astronomically better on the EVA1 vs. the AF101, including the sensor and other hardware, processing, resolution, colors, etc.
Thanks for the replies.
Does the fact that the color space is designed to be 4:2:0 and it is capable of being recorded in 4:2:2 via the external monitor have any potential to affect the quality of video being recorded in a negative way? In other words, since the video feed is going from the camera to the monitor and is being tweaked to change the way it is compressed and also change the color space is there a likelihood that it could have a negative impact in some way?
Thanks.
Does the fact that the color space is designed to be 4:2:0 and it is capable of being recorded in 4:2:2 via the external monitor have any potential to affect the quality of video being recorded in a negative way? In other words, since the video feed is going from the camera to the monitor and is being tweaked to change the way it is compressed and also change the color space is there a likelihood that it could have a negative impact in some way?
Thanks.
Same. It's not just the technology gap. You can see it with footage from an XF100/300.
Barry_Green
Moderator
As others have said, that wouldn't be a valid test, because everything else changed between the two cameras too.
If you want to do a direct comparison, the easiest way would be to take a shot in 4K/30p 4:2:2, and the exact same shot in 4K/60p 4:2:0 and extract a still from each. That way you're keeping all the other variables identical, and only changing the 4:2:0/8-bit vs. the 4:2:2 10-bit.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Yeah, i do not think comparing an older camera with a newer camera is a good idea. I agree with mr green in that you should find a camera that can shoot both color spaces at the same resolution and compare to your hearts desire.