Someone in a previous thread said that we should be treating different Codecs as we would have looked at different film stocks ( maybe this is not a good analogy as my criterea for film stocks was grain, speed and colour palette - for Production it was cost).
Are the profusion of different Codecs a benefit or a pain in the arse? Apart from if they are recording in 422 or 444 8,10,12 bit RAW etc. I don't see them giving different looks ( Camera processing seems to be giving this in Log C, Slog ,Red Code, etc)- Codecs just process the information in different ways depending on the size of information stored. If we can store more information, for example record RAW, we have more resolution more colour information etc and more control in the grade and hopefully a better screening copy.
Going back to my thread title: am I right to be slightly dismayed that Sony are not using Prores for the internal Codecs - One of the reasons the Alexa has been so popular is its use of 12bit 444 Prores. Will the Mpeg 4 Codec have such ease of use? And will the XACV codec compare to Prores 10bit 422 ?
Are the profusion of different Codecs a benefit or a pain in the arse? Apart from if they are recording in 422 or 444 8,10,12 bit RAW etc. I don't see them giving different looks ( Camera processing seems to be giving this in Log C, Slog ,Red Code, etc)- Codecs just process the information in different ways depending on the size of information stored. If we can store more information, for example record RAW, we have more resolution more colour information etc and more control in the grade and hopefully a better screening copy.
Going back to my thread title: am I right to be slightly dismayed that Sony are not using Prores for the internal Codecs - One of the reasons the Alexa has been so popular is its use of 12bit 444 Prores. Will the Mpeg 4 Codec have such ease of use? And will the XACV codec compare to Prores 10bit 422 ?

