EX1 4.2.2. external recorder worth it?

L

lowep

Well-known member
Looking at how to improve what can be squeezed out of the EX1, seems as if the only avenue apart from upgrading the camera to a newer model is an Atomos Samurai or similar external recorder that can record 10-bit 4.2.2 video from the SDI output. if I understand right the most significant difference such a step is likely to provide is more space for manouvering when color grading that I have seen in some forum posts compared to the difference between adjusting jpeg versus raw images from a DSLR. Coming from a still photography background I don´t know much about 8-bit 4.2.0 versus 10-bit 4.2.2 but I do see a big difference when adjusting jpeg versus raw DSLR files for example in Photoshop. Is the difference between 8-bit 4.2.0 versus 10-bit 4.2.2 so big you really can see the difference when color grading regular foootage or is it only relevant when it comes to green screen or similar exotic manipulation of footage ie is investing in an external 10-bit 4.2.2 for EX1 worth it or not?
 
I did some testing when I still my EX3 and recorded externally to an Atomos Samurai. My findings where that the Prores files from the Samurai were cleaner than the internal recording. Edges showed less compression as expected and although I never graded EX3 footage extensive it will provide more room for it when recording to 10-bit 422.
 
I wouldn't bother, 4k is here and even if you still work in 1080, down res'd 4k looks miles ahead of native 1080 footage. With that said, if your still making money with the ex3, I would just continue to do so without going to an external recorder, unless your doing extensive green screen work it's not going to be a very noticeable improvement over the web anyways due to re-encoding.
 
Would connecting the EX1 to an external recorder like the Ninja-2 via SDI to HDMI converter open up any alternate recording option than the EX1´s native internal-recorded 1080 format apart from the aforementioned 10bit 4:2:2? The main difference seems to be that the Ninja-2 has Pro-res recording, right?
 
Last edited:
Sttratos said:
It does make a difference. XDCAM 420 is quite bad by today's standards. If you need 10 bit 422 or not only you can know.
Click to expand...

Maybe the only way to find out is to try, though I also find good advice from experienced users is also very helpful.

I am interested to know what difference you find or found? Was it only when you pushed levels etc in post-production and viewed the result on a big screen or did you notice differences such as richer colors, more dynamic range, less pixilation etc...???
 
Last edited:
Just found this guide to HD formats from Sony that states there is a 16.67% increase in total recorded color samples from XDCAM-EX HQ MODE (50%) to HDCAM SR 4:2:2 (66%) compared to HDCAM SR RGB HQ 4:4:4 (100%) and also specifies the differences in recorded video bitrates:

XDCAM-EX HQ MODE: 35 Mbit
XDCAM MPEG HD422: 50 Mbit
HDCAM: 140Mbit
HDCAM SR 4:2:2/RGB SQ: 440 Mbit
HDCAM SR RGB: 880 Mbit

So the differences are real but how they translate into what we see is less easy to determine, right?

Here in this comparison video hardly any difference is noticeable, maybe because as one comment notes: "we are looking here at a 720p24 coded at 1.9 mbps downconverted export. How on earth are we supposed to spot the differences there are between 35 and 180 mbps in the original 1920x1080 files?" Makes me happy I am not the only clod-hopper :) The other comments are also quite pertinent.

Oh also for anyone else nerdy enough to have read this thread this far here is probably the most definitive answer one can hope for to the exact same question posted on another forum 6 years ago... nothing new under the sun.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top