GH6 with ProRes

ha, no, I didn't say that; I don't think I ever used the word 'trash' to describe anything. If I really didn't like it, I'd probably insult it more. lol

I said...I can see why anyone who's been using REDCODE doesn't use anything else or doesn't want to, like there's nothing else in their minds because it's so good.

ProRes and R3Ds might be "industry-standards" but then that excludes a lot of people and their cameras...in a world where a lot of different cameras are used to make a lot of different videos.
 
I will add tho...one camera I think is extremely weak with its codec is the FX6. Whatever is going on inside that model, there needs to be more.

I don't know how the FX9 is but all of the Canons (and their XF-AVC) are great, to me.
 
anyone who accepts h264/h265 would accept prores (unless they have data constraints). the converse is certainly not true. and much of what i shoot gets converted to prores before being edited.

RAW is a trickier comparison. is it better than prores? (probably). or just good in a different way?

Brawley and Papert both said that they don't shoot raw for networks/streamers. They shoot prores 4444

Personally, I'm fine with 10-bit 4:2:2 h264/h265, but most of what I'm shooting is not for very demanding applications. (won't be radically transformed in post, won't be viewed super large or probably even watched in full resolution.) I still suffer from codec limitations sometimes (particularly with macro blocking in the shadows, although with a proper exposure I can typically avoid seeing that.)

but there are also plenty of people happily shooting 8-bit 4:2:0, which I've been avoiding like the plague for years. just because a lot of them are doing it doesn't make it industry standard and doesn't make it acceptable to my producers and editors
 
ahalpert said:
but there are also plenty of people happily shooting 8-bit 4:2:0, which I've been avoiding like the plague for years. just because a lot of them are doing it doesn't make it industry standard and doesn't make it acceptable to my producers and editors
Click to expand...

That's me. I guess it depends on where you are on the professional spectrum. I've never shot anything higher(unless you count film). I may love 10bit 4:2:2 but I wouldn't know. And don't necessarily want to use the file space. I even rolled back from shooting 4K to 1080p because I didn't need to store that much data.
Every once in a while my stuff gets output to local TV stations for political ads or whatever, but the vast majority is going to youtube/vimeo/social. I also get a lot of video sent by clients shot on their smartphone for editing, so anytime my C100s get used, they look like a Hollywood production by comparison. Despite being only 8bit 4:2:0.

Still, there is a part of me that's interested in 10bit 4:2:2, ProRes and so on. The part of me that recently starting making little indie films again. But then I wonder, how much do I really need it when I never have?
 
ahalpert said:
anyone who accepts h264/h265 would accept prores (unless they have data constraints). the converse is certainly not true. and much of what i shoot gets converted to prores before being edited.

RAW is a trickier comparison. is it better than prores? (probably). or just good in a different way?

Brawley and Papert both said that they don't shoot raw for networks/streamers. They shoot prores 4444

Personally, I'm fine with 10-bit 4:2:2 h264/h265, but most of what I'm shooting is not for very demanding applications. (won't be radically transformed in post, won't be viewed super large or probably even watched in full resolution.) I still suffer from codec limitations sometimes (particularly with macro blocking in the shadows, although with a proper exposure I can typically avoid seeing that.)

but there are also plenty of people happily shooting 8-bit 4:2:0, which I've been avoiding like the plague for years. just because a lot of them are doing it doesn't make it industry standard and doesn't make it acceptable to my producers and editors
Click to expand...

As we know, all of the above depends on the individual. But I think the newer/younger generation is/will be more flexible.

IMO, when you have a camera (Alexa) that has dominated and destroyed all competition at the highest-level of production for over 10 years, and it's a camera that has mostly been used in ProRes, it takes a very long time to change people and how they work.

If one is ever going to use a "If it ain't broken..." analogy, this is where you use it.

___

Everything is open to debate. 8-bit 4:2:0 might not be acceptable to your producers and editors, but either is shooting on an a7SIII to others.

And I think one reason many may accept H264 is because they want smaller files so it's not necessarily a given that they will accept ProRes because it may be too big. [You can drop down to LT or proxy but then what's the point.]

I definitely do agree that RAW is a trickier comparison because people are getting too comfortable with that feature and assuming it's all created equally.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Are you talking about the 10-bit 4:2:2 XAVC-I codec on the FX6? What's wrong with it? It's the same XAVC-I as all the other Sony cameras.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it breaks apart too easily, at least in my experience. I felt like it was easier to grade FS7 footage.
 
FWIW, H265 is available in 14-bit and H266 - with the specs finalized in the summer of 2020 - should be around the corner.
 
roxics said:
That's me. I guess it depends on where you are on the professional spectrum. I've never shot anything higher(unless you count film). I may love 10bit 4:2:2 but I wouldn't know. And don't necessarily want to us 4:e the file space. I even rolled back from shooting 4K to 1080p because I didn't need to store that much data.
Every once in a while my stuff gets output to local TV stations for political ads or whatever, but the vast majority is going to youtube/vimeo/social. I also get a lot of video sent by clients shot on their smartphone for editing, so anytime my C100s get used, they look like a Hollywood production by comparison. Despite being only 8bit 4:2:0.

Still, there is a part of me that's interested in 10bit 4:2:2, ProRes and so on. The part of me that recently starting making little indie films again. But then I wonder, how much do I really need it when I never have?
Click to expand...

it's possible that I'm being too hard on 8-bit 4:2:0. you hear lots of people saying how great it looks from the c200, for example

my feeling is that I wouldn't want to shoot LOG in 8-bit. 4:2:0...maybe not as big of a deal in that regard...but honestly, I'd rather be shooting 4:4:4 anyway if I had it available internally at reasonably small bitrates

some of my clients mandate codec/specs. some just mandate that the mirrorless cameras match fs7/fx9 (so, same thing)

most of my wedding studios would accept 8-bit 4:2:0, because I know that their other freelance shooters are giving it to them. but they also generally tell me that they prefer the way my footage looks. (probably more due to my tweaked picture profiles than the bit-depth... but it's all in the mix...) and consequently, I've negotiated higher rates than the other shooters on their rosters

so, take it all with a grain of salt. but I think you'd like 10-bit 4:2:2. I'd like to shoot 12-bit 4:4:4 (ideally compressed, as DLD suggests)
 
DLD said:
FWIW, H265 is available in 14-bit and H266 - with the specs finalized in the summer of 2020 - should be around the corner.
Click to expand...

In one way, it makes sense for more of these formats to make it into more cameras (H265 certainly has) because of increased computing.

Maybe if computers were better in 2007-ish, we'd see more options catch on, or being created. But ProRes was one-of-a-kind, from Apple. [Along with Avid formats although I'm not sure how they were received in some cameras.]

I remember it took just about all the patience in the world to get through a project with Motion JPEG (from Canon cameras).
 
ProRes is a happy medium. it's compressed, but large enough that it doesn't have to cut corners and risk artifacts. there's like zero generation loss. my clients who care always export prores masters of their finished edits for reusing shots from in the future. I don't think it's just an historical accident that prores is the industry standard. it serves a specific purpose and it does it well
 
I have a drive that has 2000+ H.264 archives.

Tests, real paying projects, random clips, RAW footage spanning 1-2-3 hours, anything and everything organized in an elite manner...all in H.264 straight out of FCP [X] and nothing else, so I hear that loud-and-clear.
 
roxics said:
Still, there is a part of me that's interested in 10bit 4:2:2, ProRes and so on.
Click to expand...
It all comes down to one question: Are you going to grade in post or not? Because if you're not going to do any serious grading, then the visual differences between 10-bit 4:2:2 and 8-bit 4:2:0 is non-existent 99.9% of the time. The benefits of 10-bit really only come into play when you start pushing the footage around in post. So if WYSIWYG footage is all you need, then stick with 8-bit and enjoy the smaller file sizes. .
 
if it does 300fps with a full readout, then you're getting something quite interesting there. if it's mushy crap like what's available >120fps on other cameras right now, then who cares.

but I remember the rumors saying that it can readout at 300fps...
 
filmguy123 said:
The 8-bit/10-bit/ProRes/RAW argument is a circular argument in ways, and will always revolve around use case and need. It's not like a piece of stunning cinematography won't impress people if it's in 8-bit 420 (I would know, I still have old shots from 10 years ago people comment on, shot from an AF100 on an old vintage mid-range minolta lens in 420 8-bit pixel shifted 1080p). So unless you are pinpointing in specific terms what a person is after or likes/dislikes/needs, it's sort of pointless, right?

For me, 10-bit 422 holds up very well to being pushed and pulled around in post, and if I need to push something so much that I need RAW or ProRes than its because I messed up the shot. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, so if it were easy and cheap enough to always shoot RAW then of course I would. But all of these things have costs. If 5% of my footage would have benefited from RAW, but to shoot RAW means a constant 300% increase in cost/workflow complexity (fiscal + time), I will shoot 10-bit 422 to gain a massive advantage in all other metrics 95% of the time. That is in the context of a small business, one man band, home office. I am sure that calculation is very different for a studio working on larger budgets and teams than me, and for someone like Roxics working with iPhone footage and delivering 1080p web content and not shooting polar bears in Alaska for National Geographic, the benefits of jumping up from 420 8-bit are likely miniscule.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
Right now, full-frame sensors dominate most of the professional photography world (with the latest and greatest chips from Canon and Sony), but it will be interesting to see what that community thinks of it. (I know there are larger formats but they are becoming more niche every day.)

I don't think many will accept a MFT camera (at least the ones not being paid to), but we'll see.
 
filmguy123 said:
For me, 10-bit 422 holds up very well to being pushed and pulled around in post, and if I need to push something so much that I need RAW or ProRes than its because I messed up the shot.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is entirely true. Grug, for example, seems like a careful fellow. But he says that the internal codec on the FX6 is insufficient for the grading he wants to do in scripted drama. (Though I think he blames it on the bitrate rather than the bit-depth and chroma subsampling...)

But for my work and my purposes, I agree with you. If I don't screw up the shot, I really didn't need RAW. And after years of shooting WYSIWYG 8-bit with <10 stops of DR, I find it difficult to screw up a shot that badly with what's available now
 
ahalpert said:
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Grug, for example, seems like a careful fellow. But he says that the internal codec on the FX6 is insufficient for the grading he wants to do in scripted drama. (Though I think he blames it on the bitrate rather than the bit-depth and chroma subsampling...)
Click to expand...

He's pointing his finger at the wrong thing. The codecs on the FX6 are exactly the same as Sony's other cinema and ENG cameras. What he (and me too) is running into is the limitations of the camera itself -- regardless of what codec is chosen. The FX6 is a nice camera for the price, but it's not a great camera.
 
Doug Jensen said:
He's pointing his finger at the wrong thing. The codecs on the FX6 are exactly the same as Sony's other cinema and ENG cameras. What he (and me too) is running into is the limitations of the camera itself -- regardless of what codec is chosen. The FX6 is a nice camera for the price, but it's not a great camera.
Click to expand...

But he's happy with the external raw recordings from the fx6. That's what he's comparing the internal codec to and thats his primary recording format for bigger jobs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top