External Recording Difference

7DDude

7DDude

Well-known member
Has anyone done a test as to shooting in 8-bit-4.2.0, 100mbps on the DVX-200 Vs shooting with an external recorder in 10-bit 4.4.4 Pro-Res HQ, even though the max output of the DVX is 10-bit 4.2.2 .both in 1080P HD and UHD? Can you really see the difference, if so, what are the differences usually. Also, what would be the benefit, if not visual? What recorders are any of you using? I'm looking to get the best quality I can, but, I don't want file bloat, if there is not much of a visual difference. Any links to samples would be great.
 
For most things there's not going to be a substantial visual difference. Maybe on banding in blue skies or on other gradients, but it's not going to be a night-and-day visual difference. You'll see fewer compression artifacts, you'll get better chroma keying, etc., but at the cost of the files being almost 9x as large so, you really have to determine whether or not it's worth it. Panasonic engineered the onboard codec to be "good enough" given that it can record on a cheap SD card, and it really is pretty decent in general. The external recorder will always be better, but the visual differences may not always be obvious.
 
I'd say the biggest plus is definitely in post. Like Barry said, fewer compression artifacts. The files are larger, but they absolutely fly on my mac compared to mp4 and even mov files. Im also getting a bit more leeway for grading on the 10 bit 4.2.2 files. Using the ninja assassin, which I believe has been recently upgraded/replaced by the ninja flame. Very positive results so far.
 
Last edited:
I know the gh4 isn't a precise match for the dvx200, but it also can output 10-bit 422...which I recently used on a green screen shoot and have to say it makes a huge difference to get a great key. So for 95% use the built in, for things that benefit from max quality then use the external. Things that benefit are when you have complex scenes with a lot of detail and potentially a lot of color correction and of course keying.
 
If you don't know what a huge difference 10-bit is compared to 8-bit (regarding video recording, obviously) then you'll be in for a mild shock [of joy] when you experience it the first time. Then there's 12-bit...but not with this camera. If you know the goodness of 14-bit raw with most pro-sumer/professional stills cameras, or 16-bit with larger format cameras, there is simply worlds of difference from what would be an 8-bit image. If you've ever tried to do heavy photo manipulation to a JPEG (8-bit) and then tried to do the same work to a raw file (14/16-bit), then you'll understand how important those numbers are and what they potentially mean outside of getting into the technical fiddly bits.

As it stands, the 8-bit internal image the DVX200 looks perfectly acceptable under most shooting conditions. However, sometimes you need a bloody green screen, or you need to do something a bit more cinematic. So, if you know you'll be manipulating the image in post a whole bunch (green screens and cinema use) then you'll want to record as much information from the sensor as you possibly can. DVX200 is robust enough to give you 10-bit 4:2:2 output. You can certainly hook it up to a computer, field recorder, just about anything you want and record up to 10-bit 4:2:2 in whatever flavor of codec you want and have a great time in post. And for even more latitude, I would strongly suggest shooting in VLog-L which will give you ~12 stops of visual dynamic range: 4 over, 8 under. 80% IRE zebras, waveforms and histograms are essential tools to have onboard, at this point...and, again, DVX200 is robust enough to provide them, precluding need of a capable external monitor such as my SmallHD AC-7-SDI, even, if you want to be thrifty.

My recommendation, thus far, is the Video Devices PIX-E5 (or E7) 4K recording video monitor. Sort of inexpensive and built like tanks. Comparable specs as other external field monitor/recorders....however, the most important features at their price is the fact that they record DCI 4K (what Panasonic calls "4K") at 24.00fps, which is precisely what DVX200 is capable of and the most compelling reason for me to purchase one. It'd be a shame to not take advantage of that capability with a lesser recorder...or to feel the need to spend much, much more on another with the same capability. The second-most compelling reason to buy the DVX200, and a feature of these Video Devices monitor/recorders, is 120 fps 1080p. DVX200 can do it and PIX-E5/7 can record it. So, when I want 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes in DCI 4K at 24fps (or FHD 120fps), the PIX-E5/7 is, at time of writing, the best way to go.
 
Barry_Green said:
For most things there's not going to be a substantial visual difference. Maybe on banding in blue skies or on other gradients, but it's not going to be a night-and-day visual difference. You'll see fewer compression artifacts, you'll get better chroma keying, etc., but at the cost of the files being almost 9x as large so, you really have to determine whether or not it's worth it. Panasonic engineered the onboard codec to be "good enough" given that it can record on a cheap SD card, and it really is pretty decent in general. The external recorder will always be better, but the visual differences may not always be obvious.
Click to expand...


Thanks Barry! I'm Loving my DVX-200 so far.
 
JRJphoto said:
If you don't know what a huge difference 10-bit is compared to 8-bit (regarding video recording, obviously) then you'll be in for a mild shock [of joy] when you experience it the first time. Then there's 12-bit...but not with this camera. If you know the goodness of 14-bit raw with most pro-sumer/professional stills cameras, or 16-bit with larger format cameras, there is simply worlds of difference from what would be an 8-bit image. If you've ever tried to do heavy photo manipulation to a JPEG (8-bit) and then tried to do the same work to a raw file (14/16-bit), then you'll understand how important those numbers are and what they potentially mean outside of getting into the technical fiddly bits.

As it stands, the 8-bit internal image the DVX200 looks perfectly acceptable under most shooting conditions. However, sometimes you need a bloody green screen, or you need to do something a bit more cinematic. So, if you know you'll be manipulating the image in post a whole bunch (green screens and cinema use) then you'll want to record as much information from the sensor as you possibly can. DVX200 is robust enough to give you 10-bit 4:2:2 output. You can certainly hook it up to a computer, field recorder, just about anything you want and record up to 10-bit 4:2:2 in whatever flavor of codec you want and have a great time in post. And for even more latitude, I would strongly suggest shooting in VLog-L which will give you ~12 stops of visual dynamic range: 4 over, 8 under. 80% IRE zebras, waveforms and histograms are essential tools to have onboard, at this point...and, again, DVX200 is robust enough to provide them, precluding need of a capable external monitor such as my SmallHD AC-7-SDI, even, if you want to be thrifty.

My recommendation, thus far, is the Video Devices PIX-E5 (or E7) 4K recording video monitor. Sort of inexpensive and built like tanks. Comparable specs as other external field monitor/recorders....however, the most important features at their price is the fact that they record DCI 4K (what Panasonic calls "4K") at 24.00fps, which is precisely what DVX200 is capable of and the most compelling reason for me to purchase one. It'd be a shame to not take advantage of that capability with a lesser recorder...or to feel the need to spend much, much more on another with the same capability. The second-most compelling reason to buy the DVX200, and a feature of these Video Devices monitor/recorders, is 120 fps 1080p. DVX200 can do it and PIX-E5/7 can record it. So, when I want 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes in DCI 4K at 24fps (or FHD 120fps), the PIX-E5/7 is, at time of writing, the best way to go.
Click to expand...

That's great Info JRJ! I like the Video Devices PIX-E5, might have to step up to that and see if I like it.
 
i was considering the blackmagic video assist (as an alternative to more p2 cards) to squeeze some more life, and longer shoot times out of my old hpx170.
anyone have experience on how the video assist holds up image wise against a pix-e or atomos product?
 
I have the Atomos Flame. I've tested the three flavors of ProRes and their varying file-size differences and 10 bit vs 8. I have not done green screen work yet with 10bit, so I can't speak to that.
I would agree that the difference between 8bit and 10bit for *most* work isn't much to cheer about. I could see the difference, yes, but again--I wasn't doing backflips. It was interesting..and yes I did appreciate having the option.
However----I love the Atomos Flame. Recording to SSD and editing straight off that instead of having to copy off to another drive is great. I wouldn't use that workflow with a ton of footage, but for some smaller quick jobs it's been great. It's a brilliant monitor to have even if I'm not recording to it. On the DVX, I am doing the "record to 2 codecs" option (2 cards), using a 4k master for editing, and a 1080 for backup. Or, editing with the 1080 and then re-linking to the 4K footage for final export. I've done the same workflow calling on the ProRes files off the SSD for final export. Cool stuff.
Final thoughts--I think it's great to have a monitor/recorder with those abilities even if you're not recording to it all the time.
 
wgzn said:
i was considering the blackmagic video assist (as an alternative to more p2 cards) to squeeze some more life, and longer shoot times out of my old hpx170.
anyone have experience on how the video assist holds up image wise against a pix-e or atomos product?
Click to expand...

Well, theoretically, it should be identical or nigh unto it. SDI is a digital standard so the input signal is supposed to be identical, and ProRes is a standards-certified codec, so if it meets ProRes standards, it should work. Especially from an HPX170, which isn't a hyper-sharp camera, I doubt you'd see any difference between a PIX-E and the BMD. The big difference, obviously, is that the BMD is HD-only, but obviously that wouldn't matter for an HPX170.
 
Does recording externally make any visible difference with very fine details?
The image coming out from the DVX200 is gorgeous, but I find that noise reduction (and maybe the codec as well) smears some of the texture on subjects.
Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed by the overall image quality of this camera and all its functions...it's amazing for its price.
I'm just curious, would like to know if the image can be improved even more.
 
diegocervo said:
Does recording externally make any visible difference with very fine details?
The image coming out from the DVX200 is gorgeous, but I find that noise reduction (and maybe the codec as well) smears some of the texture on subjects.
Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed by the overall image quality of this camera and all its functions...it's amazing for its price.
I'm just curious, would like to know if the image can be improved even more.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. You're talking about the difference between 8 bit 4:2:2 in the internal compressed format, and 10 bit 4:2:2 in whatever codec you want. It is a gigantic difference in the subtle aspects of an image: graduated colors, perceived sharpness...when grading the image it will hold up better if you're using a codec like ProRes, for example. Those subtleties are the difference between cinematography and videography. You can control the image. Otherwise, just shoot what you can at 8 bit internal because "fixing in post" won't solve the horrendous lighting, spotty focus or poor composition. But when you're ready to control your image, squeeze every bit of information you can from the DVX200 in service to the story, now you can start thinking about diving into the pixels. Shooting with the grade in mind. Professional combinations of lighting, set design, wardrobe, styling and other aspects of production design, with composition, performance, writing and directing. Until then, shooting videos of things happening you have little to no control over...then you're just a videographer and 10 bits isn't going to help anything very much. If you're shooting an interesting video...interview, b-roll, whatever...then no one will care about the banding in the sky because you shot it in 8-bit internal. When you start painting with light and you know the technical meaning behind 10 bit, then you can start pixel peeping. But is it really vastly different for 99% of the work you will do with a camcorder? Not at all. But it goes well with Vlog L on a set...
 
Just to show what I was talking about, here are a few consequent frames of a test clip.
The visual echo (or whatever you name it) is strong and it's visible on the fingers while the hand moves.
Pardon the subject...it was just a test :)

The camera was set to 25p, shutter 1/50, ISO 500, OIS on, Scene file 4 (GH4 Still-like), latest firmware installed.

I do hope that a future firmware fix can solve it.
@Barry, do you know if Panasonic is working on that?

Thanks for your help

Visual echo frame_1.4.1.jpgVisual echo frame_1.4.2.jpgVisual echo frame_1.4.3.jpgVisual echo frame_1.4.4.jpgVisual echo frame_1.4.5.jpg
 
Yes. The echo is in every setting, in every shooting condition. It is less noticeable under ideal lighting conditions, but it is always present regardless of internal codec settings or output setting.
 
JRJphoto said:
Yes. The echo is in every setting, in every shooting condition. It is less noticeable under ideal lighting conditions, but it is always present regardless of internal codec settings or output setting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I spent half a year with everyone telling me I was imagining it and that no-one else could see it... I certainly hope this is being dealt with, but I'm doubting it somehow.
 
In my case, the DVX200 is so close to perfection that I wouldn't consider to send it back to B&H. It ticks too many boxes in my long list of desired features in a camera.

This is my day 6 with the DVX200 and I'm still in the testing phase...It will take 1 or 2 more weeks before I will confidently put it to work (I do stock videography).
When that day comes, if a picky agency like istockphoto would reject one of my clips for this visual echo thing, than I'll see how to deal with it.
I'm not bothering until then, but for sure this is something that Panasonic should look into (and fix I hope).

I wouldn't imagine me shooting only with high key style lighting, or videos with no subjects moving, just to prevent this artifact to show up in the dark portions of a clip :)

Cheers
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top