H.266 VVC standard finalized

ahalpert said:
No I would rather not rent cards. Plus a lot of stuff I shoot gets transmitted to clients through the cloud. So it's nice to be compact before that.

Depending on the proxy workflow you use, you may not need a lot of data later either (eg if you transcode to ProRes proxy only).

And y'know a lot of times I shoot a lot of b-roll or event stuff, I can afford to edit it in a low-quality preview and color correct looking at a paused full-quality frame.

And if I'm shooting something commercial/narrative/music video then I'm not shooting as much and am happy to work with a less compressed codec with higher IQ.
Click to expand...

It's your world; I just sit back and enjoy the show. :violin:
 
My understanding is that H.265 was never really intended for acquisition, it was for distribution/transport. Also, when I first got my Mavic 2 Pro, my MBP couldn’t even natively play it(QT). Then I guess at some point Apple pushed out some updates, because QT began playing the H.265 files. The weird thing, QT plays them fine, but FCP, for me, wigs out, almost like the video card is going.
 
Run&Gun said:
My understanding is that H.265 was never really intended for acquisition, it was for distribution/transport.
Click to expand...

Intended inshmended. If you want to shoot Canon LOG on the 1DXmk3, then it will only do it in H265. And if you shoot 8K on the R5, you'll be thanking your god for the H265 option I bet.

But yeah, I'm sure Deakins has never shot a frame in H265 except on his phone...
 
NorBro said:
Yes, and they are better. CRL, Blackmagic RAW, ProRes RAW...much easier and nicer to work with then having a computer that's on the verge of melting trying to transcode 4K/60p H.265.
Click to expand...

but....

Aren't these all DISTRIBUTION formats ? That's what they're aimed at right ? Yes, you can have 12 bit, 444 but they're not optimised for acquisition and editorial. They're optimised for distribution no ?

Why would we WANT to shoot on a format like this over the established acquisition codecs ? Datarate ? That's it ?

JB
 
Sorry, what's the question?

In short, it doesn't really matter. With powerful computers and specs from companies being limited or available in only certain formats, we will use what we get or what we want.

I would like 8K ProRes from the R5, but I will not get it.

But for now, I will personally always choose ProRes, CRL, or REDCODE RAW. Recorders, C200, or REDs.
 
Run&Gun said:
My understanding is that H.265 was never really intended for acquisition, it was for distribution/transport. Also, when I first got my Mavic 2 Pro, my MBP couldn’t even natively play it(QT). Then I guess at some point Apple pushed out some updates, because QT began playing the H.265 files. The weird thing, QT plays them fine, but FCP, for me, wigs out, almost like the video card is going.
Click to expand...

Yep, H.265 is all I shoot with our X-T3s and I always transcode it to Prores or Prores LT on ingest. I just did a four camera edit that we shot UHD H.265. Transcoded to 1080 Prores LT on ingest, worked so well in a four angle multicam clip and even Prores LT is still 10-bit. This is for a client's YouTube channel, so 1080 Prores LT is great and small, about 90Mbps for most clips,
but we have the UHD H.265 masters shot at 200Mbps if the client wants to integrate some of the footage into other, higher end marketing pieces. It's a wonderful workflow, best of both worlds. I have a 12TB OWC T-Bolt 2 RAID four drive RAID that I have hooked up with an adapter to my iMac's T Bolt 3 port. It benches at about 600Mbps, which handles this great.

Unless you have serious horsepower, H.265 would never work for this.
 
Which software did you use?

I wish FCP X had a 4K --> HD ProRes transcoding option upon import.
 
John Brawley said:
Why would we WANT to shoot on a format like this over the established acquisition codecs ? Datarate ? That's it ?
Click to expand...


Yes, datarate is the only reason. Although if you're shooting something that needs to look good SOOC because it won't be graded and has a fast turnaround, then there's little harm from an image quality standpoint.

And even as far as image quality is concerned, it seems like H265 holds up relatively well to ProRes even when they're being graded. But obviously it's way faster for the computer to work on ProRes.
 
puredrifting said:
Yep, H.265 is all I shoot with our X-T3s and I always transcode it to Prores or Prores LT on ingest. I just did a four camera edit that we shot UHD H.265. Transcoded to 1080 Prores LT on ingest, worked so well in a four angle multicam clip and even Prores LT is still 10-bit. This is for a client's YouTube channel, so 1080 Prores LT is great and small, about 90Mbps for most clips,
but we have the UHD H.265 masters shot at 200Mbps if the client wants to integrate some of the footage into other, higher end marketing pieces. It's a wonderful workflow, best of both worlds. I have a 12TB OWC T-Bolt 2 RAID four drive RAID that I have hooked up with an adapter to my iMac's T Bolt 3 port. It benches at about 600Mbps, which handles this great.

Unless you have serious horsepower, H.265 would never work for this.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, a humble Radeon 580X has the same h264/h265 hardware acceleration as the Radeon VII (which can playback and cut through 400mbps h265 like butter.

That’s a $200 USD investment (assuming you don’t need an eGPU enclosure) to remove any transcoding from the process.
 
I think compression is a big win for documentary generally if they need higher res. My first gig was assisting at the doc company that made Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work, which won awards at Sundance. They shot it on the HVX200 - in 720 instead of 1080 to save disk space! (I'm sure Rivers didn't mind.) Docs shoot a loooot
 
Only if compression is the best choice.

True professionals will always have more media rather than settling on a format that is not the best fit.

H.265 may very well be the best fit, but just saying; people aren't going to sacrifice an opportunity to shoot REDCODE RAW for H.265 because the latter's compression is better [even though you can drop the ratio with the REDs but that's not why you use RED cameras].
 
That's not true at all in the doc world, NorBro. There are plenty of "true professionals" working there who don't have a commercial or narrative budget to play with but end up shooting 100x or 1000x as much footage. So, yes, they would give up redcode RAW because it's too big. Did you not read my example about shooting at 720p? That was at a very successful and established doc Production company.
 
Grug said:
My new 5,1 with a pair of Radeon VIIs in it (which can have hardware acceleration enabled, albeit only for one card at a time) can cut and playback H265 like butter.
Click to expand...

Sounds nice.

So, you confirm that HW accel. is actually working? I've read so many "yes, it's working" only to see retractions soon after, or at least some serious bugs.

Would be great with a reliable confirmation.
 
ahalpert said:
That's not true at all in the doc world, NorBro. There are plenty of "true professionals" working there who don't have a commercial or narrative budget to play with but end up shooting 100x or 1000x as much footage. So, yes, they would give up redcode RAW because it's too big. Did you not read my example about shooting at 720p? That was at a very successful and established doc Production company.
Click to expand...

I read your example the first 10x you posted it here.

720p? That was back in the 1800s.

If you have a budget, which is certainly understandable, but you're shooting 100x or 1000x more footage (especially 4K or 8K) than a camera with H.265 is truly not the right option, IMO.
 
NorBro said:
720p? That was back in the 1800s.
Click to expand...

Bro, I graduated college and started that job in 2009. That 720p movie came out in 2010. And won awards at Sundance. And made money.

What would you suggest for someone shooting thousands of hours of 4K who needs to save money on hard drives?
 
ahalpert said:
Bro, I graduated college and started that job in 2009. That 720p movie came out in 2010. And won awards at Sundance. And made money.

What would you suggest for someone shooting thousands of hours of 4K who needs to save money on hard drives?
Click to expand...

lol, obviously it wasn't the 1800s; I just think your comparison is extremely out-of-touch. Come on, man...720p HD vs. 1080p HD on the HVX200?

You don't need to prove your point by repeatedly saying something is successful and made money.

Congratulations, but it has nothing to do with the camera and its compression.

[Are you now going to tell me that because you had more space you captured more shots so the edit was better?]

___

Save money on hard drives? I honestly don't know if this is a real question?

I feel like your reasoning is conflicted...a camera operator has to shoot 4K (even if it's for future mastering), but then needs to save money on hard drives? It shouldn't work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top