Any point recording 10-bit from AF100?

E

evero

Member
We're planning to use a PIX240 recorder with AF101, and I have several choices regarding format and quality.

My initial idea was to use ProRes 422 145Mb/sec 10-bit codec.

The PIX240 can record in:
- Apple ProRes (Proxy/LT/422/422HQ 10-bit)
- Avid DNxHD 36, 145, 220 Mb/s, 8- and 10-bit

The primary use is for student film making. We edit on windows PCs with Premiere Pro CS5.
Is the ProRes 422 10-bit a good choice?

... And is there any point recording 10-bit from the AF100, when the signal technically is 8-bit flattened in a 10-bit stream? Or is it a good thing to record in 10-bit anyway?
(I know it won't be the same as 10-bit footage, but still, maybe e.g. added gradients etc would hold better if the footage is conatined within a 10-bit format? Sorry if I'm on the wrong track here...)

Thanks!
 
I have the Pix240 and honestly there isnt much difference between the footage from that and the internal codec.

I mainly use it for clients who need ProRes or DNxHD native footage.
 
mcgeedigital said:
I have the Pix240 and honestly there isnt much difference between the footage from that and the internal codec.

I mainly use it for clients who need ProRes or DNxHD native footage.
Click to expand...

I have a Samurai on order (need it for a different project with our EX3) but I'm planning on using it on our AF-100 as well...so are you saying bypassing the internal compressor and recording the image direct from the sensor in ProRes 422 (4:2:2: vs 4:2:0: with padded 10bit) shows no noticeable difference than the native AVCHD? What about an increased range in post for color grading?

I hope the only advantage isn't just not having to transcode to ProRes in our FCP workflow...
 
robzila27 said:
I have a Samurai on order (need it for a different project with our EX3) but I'm planning on using it on our AF-100 as well...so are you saying bypassing the internal compressor and recording the image direct from the sensor in ProRes 422 (4:2:2: vs 4:2:0: with padded 10bit) shows no noticeable difference than the native AVCHD? What about an increased range in post for color grading?

I hope the only advantage isn't just not having to transcode to ProRes in our FCP workflow...
Click to expand...

Moore difference then this, I don't think so.

Woods AVCHD.jpgWoods DNxHD.jpg

Look in the sky, the DNxHD witch i suspect is not that different from the others have more latitude.
Besides that, the pictures look "the same"
 
Because this keeps coming up repeatedly , may I relate how I see it.

I dual record AVCHD as well as a Prores flavour from the Samurai ( Usually Prores422)

I see no visual difference in a Premiere timeline (switching between the 2 identical clips), although the scopes indicate a difference is there.

Now here is the thing. One cant test the difference in something like Da Vinci Resolve because Resolve can not open AVCHD files (natively).
What I can say is that Prores (natively) in Resolve is super smooth and easy to work with in the higher end controls. (Secondary, Qualifier, HSL,Key, Mask/matte )
There is a lot of subtle CC and grade achievable especially in secondaries which are the important part of the grade.

If one only does basic primary grades in Premiere / FCP / whatever...you may never "feel the difference" of using 4:2:2
 
Thanks Shooter,

Since our projects get graded at a professional CC house in Burbank (full DaVinci suite), I am confident that we are providing them the best possible image we can get out of the AF100. We are also going to be sending them footage from the EX3 (Samurai, prores422, true 4:2:2: 10bit) and I am curious to see if there is any difference in their ability to push the images from the two different cameras.

I'll try to post any findings once I get to that point in the project.
 
In my experience looking at pixel level AVCHD internal vs PRORES external recording reveals a smidgen more detail in the PRORES file. When you start to pull the footage in post, PRORES holds much better also.
 
editman said:
In my experience looking at pixel level AVCHD internal vs PRORES external recording reveals a smidgen more detail in the PRORES file. When you start to pull the footage in post, PRORES holds much better also.
Click to expand...

Prores was designed to be an editing format. AVC is a compressed format using some very sophisticated
inter-frame compression that requires the NLE to scan back to find a full frame and then move forward
applying the inter-frames until the edit point. As a result, there's a lot of disk activity and computer
crunching with AVCHD as compared to Prores. Luckily, with SSD drives and multi-core processors, you
hardly notice the difference anymore.

But, to AVCHD's credit, the clip sizes can be a factor of 10x smaller ( 3Gig ProRes ~= 300Meg AVCHD )

jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top