ahalpert
Major Contributor
So ProRes hq would use a little over 2x the data to shoot 60p? I'm sure they would love that
GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
So ProRes hq would use a little over 2x the data to shoot 60p? I'm sure they would love that
NorBro
Major Contributor
I'm not sure what that channel was complaining about, but I doubt it was 810 Mbps XF-AVC for 60p. (It's half that for 24p.)
If it the camera shot ProRes HQ, it would be ~800 for 24p - and yeah, a little over 2x for ~1900 for 60p, which would be closer to the CRL data rates which I have a feeling he was providing (2.1 Gbps).
If it the camera shot ProRes HQ, it would be ~800 for 24p - and yeah, a little over 2x for ~1900 for 60p, which would be closer to the CRL data rates which I have a feeling he was providing (2.1 Gbps).
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Most of my clients to whom I send footage are receiving footage from me via the cloud. Off the top of my head, at least 6 this year. Only 1 (besides those 6) had trouble with the download and insisted on sending a drive. I hadn't worked for them since before the pandemic, and their studio manager sent it to my old address without asking if I still lived there. The drive and shipping costs are unrecoverable and they'll have to send another one.
So, I've shipped 2 or 3 drives this year and transmitted dozens of cloud transfers, at least 30.
Typically the footage is downloaded within 48 hours of me starting my upload. I'm sending 100-300GB usually at about 20GB/hour. They can download it at about 100GB/hour I'd say. So, I upload it over a day and they download it the next day. Or I'm uploading it to their account and it's automatically downloaded.
Another advantage of the cloud is it can go multiple places simultaneously. One of my wedding studios uses editors in the Philippines. Another one in Peru. Another in eastern Europe. (The other half still edit domestically.)
Their editor can download it and they can archive it at HQ simultaneously. If they need to reassign the edit, the footage is ready for someone else to download.
My auction house client just puts everything in the cloud, partly for archive and partly for sending to editors if they need to outsource. But they still overnight a drive or have me come pick it up if it's a super tight turnaround.
No one has complained to me about the compression quality. Most "cine" cameras are using H264 compression for their main codecs anyway. Many people have discovered they can't tell the difference between all-intra and long-GOP. I haven't done head to head tests on H265 vs H264 but nothing jumps out at me. would shooting everything in ProRes be nice? Sure. Better yet, prores raw. I'd care more about 444 and 12-bit than compression algorithms. But a lot of the stuff I'm shooting is not LOG and will be only lightly graded, so it's a less demanding application to begin with.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah I bet it was CRL. There's no sense in comparing 24p to 60p bitrates though. If they want 60p, they want 60p. (I'm not talking about CRL which is the same for both)
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
I was just more pointing out from the comment on the last page that 60p never did get the same equal data treatment in many cameras.
Even the 60p CRL is 10-bit and not 12-bit like 24p.
Something about high-resolution high-framerates has always hindered so much tech out there.
Even the 60p CRL is 10-bit and not 12-bit like 24p.
Something about high-resolution high-framerates has always hindered so much tech out there.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So true. In S&Q mode, HFR can really gobble up the juice though. The A7SIII tops out at 1.2Gbps in 120fps S&Q all-I xavc-s, which is a consistent increase from 240Mbps for 24fps and 600Mbps for 60fps. It may not be as high a bitrate as some other formats, but at least it's consistent with its own MB/frame standards
NorBro
Major Contributor
That's true for the framerates in each resolution, but there's a pretty big jump from 5.9K (2.1 Gbps) to 4K (1 Gbps).
There are are some other modes including a 2K mode that's 250 Mbps...go figure. I wonder if it looks nice.
Yeah, that's nice.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah but it's 8.8MP in 4K vs 18.7MP in 5.9K
I deliver to the cloud for some and on portable drives for others. Everything I shoot originates as log or BRAW, but I transform everything to 709/2.4 gamma and put a light color grade on it all for matching cameras before it goes out as UHD H265 10b 420 21.5 Mbps, so it all matches but leaves room for adjustment if desired or downscaling to 1080p. I hope in this day and age they would not do that but I'm sure some do. At least this way when it goes from UHD 420 to HD, there is color data equivalent to HD 444 available. But I can't worry about things I'm not in control of. No one complains though.
A random thought on the industry and its schedule of the new releases following the Covid year and a half. Engineers, obviously, have been working on something all this time but no one knows what's been postponed and what's been pushed forward. Then there's that chip crunch. I have a hunch that crunch is a bunch of phooey but there's some inventory that needs to be cleared out before new models come out. Normally, the lower non-pro niche is prepared for the Christmas season - announcements in September, shortages in and around Hanukkah. Pro models are the spring time (for Canon and Sony cams; autumn for Nikon and Pan).
NorBro
Major Contributor
The announcement schedule varies/has changed over the years pending life. Three major cameras, FX6, FX9 and C500 II were announced in the fall.
As far as new major cinema cameras...not sure what's really next besides RF cines.
Will be interesting to see what Sony does next.
Panasonic has released 2 cinema body cameras less than $10K in 12 years. Looking forward to the GH6 though.
As far as new major cinema cameras...not sure what's really next besides RF cines.
Will be interesting to see what Sony does next.
Panasonic has released 2 cinema body cameras less than $10K in 12 years. Looking forward to the GH6 though.
A traditional business practice is to roll out the latest technology at the top of the market and then have it trickle down over the years. Which makes both R5 and A1 seemingly two anomalies ... except to assume so, one has to know the cost structure of the electronic components and, off those two, it's not as high as one might think. Still, the "older way", was to put 4K into C500, then 1D C, then slowly wait until others catch up. But, if one can make an 8K piece for $4,000 retail, one should be able to make 8K for anything above that amount too. But the price gap between R5/A1 and Monstro 8K is monstrous as well.
And, in the lower tiers, any video geared hybrid should be priced along with Pocket 4K/6K, except with the auto focus.
Any day now.
And, in the lower tiers, any video geared hybrid should be priced along with Pocket 4K/6K, except with the auto focus.
Any day now.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Why would they give the same price to an equivalent product with more features and R&D, more brand recognition and QC? Yes, the codecs are way better on the Pockets. (Although - do they offer anything highly compressed?) But I would expect a marginal price increase for canon/sony features just like BM charged more for internal ND
Marginal is OK but Canon and Sony will move a lot more units than BMD, so it's important for them to hit just the right price point. The real victim of the competition here might be ARRI. If CanoSonyc comes out with 8K models under $20,000, a lot of streamers will go for them over the LF's. ARRI will naturally has a response ready but it won't be able to come anywhere near the affordability of the mass market manufacturers.
When C300 came out, it became a staple on a lot of sets. And that was before the invention of the auto focus, which gives Canosonyc another edge in terms of production/workflow, even with a top focus puller.
As to the image quality, I like the Alexa look as much as the next guy but a professional grader can massage the same out of a high bit rate Log, let alone Raw data. And, at some point, the differences between a downsampled 4K/6K/8K is more than the market needs anyway.
PS. For the last year, Jared "Fro" Polin has been shooting his studio footage with R5 in 4K HQ and it looks as good as any Alexa. And much better the Camera Store/DP Review S1H. And, even if Alexa does look better to others, it's beyond the TV/monitor calibration for an average viewer. Looking great is more than good enough.
As to the image quality, I like the Alexa look as much as the next guy but a professional grader can massage the same out of a high bit rate Log, let alone Raw data. And, at some point, the differences between a downsampled 4K/6K/8K is more than the market needs anyway.
PS. For the last year, Jared "Fro" Polin has been shooting his studio footage with R5 in 4K HQ and it looks as good as any Alexa. And much better the Camera Store/DP Review S1H. And, even if Alexa does look better to others, it's beyond the TV/monitor calibration for an average viewer. Looking great is more than good enough.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Nah, because if they're using PL or large format cine lenses, they can't use PDAF anyway. I think there's a divergence of lens markets that would preclude the utility of Canon AF.
No, it's about dynamic range and color fidelity. Arri still has the best DR and the best color fidelity, especially at the edges of the exposure range.
Polin was never shooting on Arri, so the camera he chooses is immaterial to the question of whether Arri users will begin using high-resolution Canon cameras
EDIT: i think that canon 8K poses a much greater threat to RED. I've seen lots of RED users using EF lenses, and they obviously have a megapixel fetish
Last edited:
A) Canon is working on a new generation of cine glass, similar to what Sony already did with their 16-35. It may not take the very top tier but it's good enough for a "TV quality" production. Just like Varicam LT was.
B) There is enough DR in any dual gain sensor.
C) Colors are malleable.
D) The production companies and upper management are the one signing contracts on gear purchases and only a select group of directors and cinematographers has veto power over the gear on the set. And that group is getting smaller.
E) All I said about Fro was that his studio footage shot on R5 looks gorgeous. And that will be good enough for 99.9999999999999% of the viewers.
F) And I've been saying this about Red since I joined this site. ARRI is higher on the totem pole but are likely to face serious challenges from the top of the CanoSonycs, not in the $15,000-$25,000 range, but $25,000-$40,000.
B) There is enough DR in any dual gain sensor.
C) Colors are malleable.
D) The production companies and upper management are the one signing contracts on gear purchases and only a select group of directors and cinematographers has veto power over the gear on the set. And that group is getting smaller.
E) All I said about Fro was that his studio footage shot on R5 looks gorgeous. And that will be good enough for 99.9999999999999% of the viewers.
F) And I've been saying this about Red since I joined this site. ARRI is higher on the totem pole but are likely to face serious challenges from the top of the CanoSonycs, not in the $15,000-$25,000 range, but $25,000-$40,000.
Peter C.
Veteran
While can’t say I understand all decisions camera companies make I’m amused at the opinions stated here. They seemed to be based on a very narrow view… I own camera x and I believe pricing and features should revolve around my specific needs.
I often hear people over reacting to how a new camera will obsolete everything else. This seems to never be the case because as great a feature or new tech a camera might have, different segments in the industry have different needs. For example auto focus isn’t used in higher end cinema.
I often hear people over reacting to how a new camera will obsolete everything else. This seems to never be the case because as great a feature or new tech a camera might have, different segments in the industry have different needs. For example auto focus isn’t used in higher end cinema.