As for Vegas (I'm not an authority here, so please excuse any inaccuracies): I know for sure from experience that you can put ProRes on the timeline, and that you can render DNxHD (so I'm sure you must be able to put DNxHD on the timeline as well). As for CinemaDNG, I'm not sure, but the way that Vegas generally works is that it can handle any codec that you can install on your computer, so if Adobe has an installable CinemaDNG codec for Windows, Vegas should be able to edit it.
Other: BlackMagic Cinema camera!!!! 2.5k for 3k...
- Thread starter Mickey G
- Start date
As I said a while ago (March 2012 maybe?) Unless RED Cinema has a handful of patents to protect, they are now in trouble. This NAB is no "Gee see how far DSLR's have gone" anymore. This camera is what I call 'Leapfrog' technology. Preempting the incremental evolution, then trumping it! Now I have a week to spend searching patent aps to see who's cornering what
Red chose not to compete in this space under $10K last year, and went to higher-end pro market only.
It was perhaps their best decision since the creation of the Red One and compressed RedRAW.
Red is executing very well in the space they want to be now and in the future,
not lower res than where they were 6 years ago with the Red One.
I expect Canon, Nikon, etc will be battling in this under $10K space
with every other manufacturer to get to 4K RAW out asap over the next 3 years.
That said, what a great start in RAW cameras by Blackmagic-design,
and I expect their expertise with 4K data cards will come in handy next year
at NAB based on the potential huge success of this product.
I think the next iteration of RAW cameras will be when the
true benefits of competition democratize 4K at under $10K. You have to love progress!
Looks like some vegas users are importing pro res. Not sure what the exact workflow is. anybody know?
sounds promising. Does the prores run fast on the timeline? I know some edit better than others.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
Are there full res versions of these example vids to download? The still look good. Very organic look.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
As I said a while ago (March 2012 maybe?) Unless RED Cinema has a handful of patents to protect, they are now in trouble. This NAB is no "Gee see how far DSLR's have gone" anymore. This camera is what I call 'Leapfrog' technology. Preempting the incremental evolution, then trumping it! Now I have a week to spend searching patent aps to see who's cornering what
they're going for uncompressed CinemaDNG, I'm pretty sure RED can't have any patents on that
even if they went for the lossless CinemaDNG option (and I don't understand why this is not the used option), RED would have nothing on them
now, when you start going for more advanced tech (wavelet lossy compression), you may or may not get in trouble with RED (and Cineform?)
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Bugger. I watched the videos...couldn't help it.
I found myself, a number of times, watching a rack focus or a moving object waiting for it to be perfectly focused and be nice and sharp...but it never quite got there. Compression? Hopefully. Lack of sharpening in camera? Hopefully. Lack of sharpening in post? Hopefully. Lack of camera resolution? I hope not.
...shouldn't have watched those videos.
I found myself, a number of times, watching a rack focus or a moving object waiting for it to be perfectly focused and be nice and sharp...but it never quite got there. Compression? Hopefully. Lack of sharpening in camera? Hopefully. Lack of sharpening in post? Hopefully. Lack of camera resolution? I hope not.
...shouldn't have watched those videos.
Sunburst, Vegas can handle pretty much any codec that can be installed in Windows. I've edited ProRes in Vegas before, and it was completely transparent. However, you cannot render ProRes because Apple doesn't make the encoding codec available in Windows, AFAIK. I've also output DNxHD from it before, so I'm sure it can read it as well.
Danielvilliers
Veteran
I heard that you had to send the Camera to Santa Barbara, I don't know for the rest of the world, but this sucks a bit sending the camera by mail everytime you have to get a new battery. If it is like laptop battery it will like evry 1 to 1.5 year.
Matthew Bennett
Well-known member
They did it.
awesome. I still like the Vegas workflow the best. { really cant get into Premiere at all. And Avid is a no
go --- too restrictive on importing, hardware, etc . for adobe I like AE, but hate the reader - lol! }
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
I hear you, but take a look at the 1920 stills. Looks like the info is all there.
+1, In fact, some of us don't like Full Frame. The GH2/AF100 has been looking (as for as DOF) about right for my taste. I'm not saying that it's not popular or legit to like Full Frame, it's just not my thing. S35 is about all that I can handle...anything more is just annoying for my eye. (I recognize that with the right F-stop, it can be made to look nearly identical...so don't go there.)
$3K for RAW 12bit M4/3"like" DOF....DANG!!!! Best day ever!!!! Cheers!
The videos load extremely fast for me here in the office. My assumption is that it's the compression. The stills look a fair amount better, still soft at 1920 x 1080, but still looks like it's actually resolving a fair amount.
I agree and think the footage was appropriate and well presented. Thanks for taking the time, John.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
I found the stills on Mr. Brawley's site, pulled the JPGs into photoshop and gave a few different (and very light) creative sharpens. There is plenty to work with. Resolution no longer my concern. Next.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
I think the concern is noise from ISO 800 on, but John stated on cinematography.com BMD are trying to minimize it.
Only my second post on this forum. This seems like a really exiting thread to start with. I’ve enjoyed reading peoples thoughts and I thought I’d add some that haven’t been brought up yet.
For those interested in anamorphic for this camera there are obviously aspects such as lens flare that cannot be replicated, however:
One of the main points of anamorphic shooting is to utilise the full area of the film or sensor so to not throw away resolution. To crop a 1080p file to 2.39:1 you would only be using 803 vertical lines and throwing away 277. But with this sensor you have 1366 lines to start with, so to crop to 2.39:1 you are using 1017 lines. Plenty to downscale to 803. So for this aspect, I would say anamorphic is not needed for this camera.
One thing that has me puzzled is John Brawleys comments that the white balance is baked into the raw file.
Surely this is a mistake?
As I have been led to understand raw files have always had the advantage of being white balance neutral, so you can just choose the colour temperature in post.
Because this camera can also shoot non raw it will obviously have a white balance setting in camera. But surely this will have no affect on the raw data.
Can anyone confirm or refute this thinking?
For those interested in anamorphic for this camera there are obviously aspects such as lens flare that cannot be replicated, however:
One of the main points of anamorphic shooting is to utilise the full area of the film or sensor so to not throw away resolution. To crop a 1080p file to 2.39:1 you would only be using 803 vertical lines and throwing away 277. But with this sensor you have 1366 lines to start with, so to crop to 2.39:1 you are using 1017 lines. Plenty to downscale to 803. So for this aspect, I would say anamorphic is not needed for this camera.
One thing that has me puzzled is John Brawleys comments that the white balance is baked into the raw file.
Surely this is a mistake?
As I have been led to understand raw files have always had the advantage of being white balance neutral, so you can just choose the colour temperature in post.
Because this camera can also shoot non raw it will obviously have a white balance setting in camera. But surely this will have no affect on the raw data.
Can anyone confirm or refute this thinking?
