Difference Between Footage Captured by AF100

A

alejaguevara

New member
Hi Everyone.

I did some interviews for a Documentary on The AF100 , PH mode at 1080 30p. I have footage in SD cards and Ki Pro also for comparation purpose. I was affraid to loose quality because of the compression but I compared The Images in my FCP project , and You can hardly see the difference. Even when you zoom it, it almost imperceptible.

I would like to know the difference between the footage capture in SDcards and the one capture in an External Recorder (Ki Pro in this case).

Can somebody explain the difference in this forum?

Thanks
 
Ki Pro using ProRes 422 or HQ offers 4:2:2 color space, I-frame structure, much less compression to due higher bit rates vs. 4:2:0, Long GOP frame structure, low bit rate. ProRes is also 10-bit vs. 8-bit for AVCCAM, but camera only processes down to and outputs at 8-bit.
 
I can imagine where you would not see a difference at all shooting interviews for a documentary. Since the camera is still putting out 8 bit, (my opinion is that the 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is irrelevant to what you were looking for) you wouldn't see any difference. All the processing of noise, banding (again more of an 8-bit then 4:2:0 issue in my opinion), etc you might be looking for a difference in is all happening before the footage hits AVCHD or the SDI out, so the results are identical. Where you would see a difference is if you started whipping the camera around and getting the codec to break down and reveal artificiality. its actually quite easy to do and doesn't require a lot of effort. Luckly and play back its not usually very perceptable but if you step through frame by frame you should see the difference. That will all be but eliminated in your Ki Pro footage. Look at it this way, you don't have to do any Log and Transfering now... yay!
 
Agreed, higher bit rate means less compression, so motion artifacts are much improved. 4:2:2 color space can be useful in grading and color correction, as well as compositing. The human eye can't see the difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, but computers can, similar to 4:2:2 and 4:2:0.
 
Thanks for reply.

I was worry about the image quality if I use low bit rate (24 mbps). I got the Ki-Pro ONLY thinking about this. For Documentary Interviews that I shot , I can't tell the difference.

I really appreciate your comments.
 
I am looking at a Nano for 2 reasons, one is not having to transcode which will save me a lot of time, and 2 is IF it will minimize banding. I know it's still 8-bit, but I see more banding in low-level gradients than what I get on my EX-1. Can anyone who has used the AF with an external recorder confirm if there is an improvement in banding?
 
Benjamin Eckstein said:
I am looking at a Nano for 2 reasons, one is not having to transcode which will save me a lot of time, and 2 is IF it will minimize banding. I know it's still 8-bit, but I see more banding in low-level gradients than what I get on my EX-1. Can anyone who has used the AF with an external recorder confirm if there is an improvement in banding?
Click to expand...

You will still have to transcode with the nano since it shoots in mxf format. This is one advantage of the Atomos or Kipro/mini
 
@Benjamin Eckstein

your right with the Nanoflash.. I sometimes edit directly from the CF Card if I am in a hurry... Just Drag and Drop into the FCP Timeline and start to edit.. no Time is lost...
 
You'll likely see a difference once you start color grading. You might want to try applying an identical heavy grade to both and see whether the KiPro footage exhibits less noise than AVCCAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top