Just for fun I recently tried using my Atomos Samurai with my AC-160 to bypass the AVCHD recording. I actually recorded both the AVCHD and the ProRes and compared them on a Premiere Pro timeline. I couldn't really see a difference in a dark theater with spot lighting. I also tried some color correcting and brightness level changes and I still couldn't see a huge difference. What am I missing here? Are the advantages barely perceptible? Could it be that the camera's chips aren't recording enough color information to make the bigger codec worth it like it might in a DSLR? Would there be an advantage when I export to another format from ProRes? If your processors are fast enough to handle AVCHD is it worth it to have a larger more uncompressed format?
AC160 Is it worth using Atomos Samurai with the AC-160?
- Thread starter nightfall
- Start date
Michael Carter
Veteran
I agonized over this myself, but never saw a single test that made me get my wallet out.
I think about the only DSLR that actually puts significantly better footage out through HDMI is the GH4 (can do 10-bit). Every test I've seen for DSLRs shows the horrendous blocking in the red channel, all the hallmarks of 8 bit 420. And I expect it's the same deal with the 130/160.
There are benefits - transcoding AVCHD to ProRes takes some time. But (at least on a mac) ProRes is much much easier on the system than AVCHD. it takes a lot of horesepower to decompress it on the fly. Macs have been sailing along with ProRes and ProRes HQ for years before they could natively edit AVCHD and H264. ProRes was designed from the ground up as an editing format. H264's a delivery format, and AVCHD was designed for acquisition with heavy compression, not editing.
If you get a GH4, you should see significant improvement via HDMI (but the to-the-card codec is pretty killer, on paper anyway). I'm kinda thinking "screw it all" and get a BMC for anything that's not run & gun, which is all I use the Panasonic for these days (where it totally excels I'll add).
I think about the only DSLR that actually puts significantly better footage out through HDMI is the GH4 (can do 10-bit). Every test I've seen for DSLRs shows the horrendous blocking in the red channel, all the hallmarks of 8 bit 420. And I expect it's the same deal with the 130/160.
There are benefits - transcoding AVCHD to ProRes takes some time. But (at least on a mac) ProRes is much much easier on the system than AVCHD. it takes a lot of horesepower to decompress it on the fly. Macs have been sailing along with ProRes and ProRes HQ for years before they could natively edit AVCHD and H264. ProRes was designed from the ground up as an editing format. H264's a delivery format, and AVCHD was designed for acquisition with heavy compression, not editing.
If you get a GH4, you should see significant improvement via HDMI (but the to-the-card codec is pretty killer, on paper anyway). I'm kinda thinking "screw it all" and get a BMC for anything that's not run & gun, which is all I use the Panasonic for these days (where it totally excels I'll add).
I tested a Blackmagic recorder about a year ago with my AC160 outputting SDI to the Blackmagic recorder. I could see some very minor issues with the AVCHD colour space on the edge of some flames shooting my fireplace. I did notice when I underexposed shot, the noise looked better on AVCHD, more even than the actual noise coming out from the camera. One test I didn't do was fast motion, it would have been interesting fro try some pans of complex textures, water etc, to see how it holds up. I've seen the AVCHD codec break down on shots like that.
If you shoot a lot of green screen, the better colourspace might give you cleaner edges, but I haven't tried this.
I think the bottom line is that AVCHD is a very solid codec. But a lot of broadcasters don't like AVCHD in programming, so recording direct to prores might also help with those limitations.
If you shoot a lot of green screen, the better colourspace might give you cleaner edges, but I haven't tried this.
I think the bottom line is that AVCHD is a very solid codec. But a lot of broadcasters don't like AVCHD in programming, so recording direct to prores might also help with those limitations.
Michael Carter
Veteran
That's only if a better color space is coming from the camera via HDMI. Just because the recorder can capture 10 bit, you don't get hi-bit quality if it's not there to start with.
If I record an old AM radio into protools with my high-dollar mics through my Apogee preamps into a 24 bit file, it's still gonna sound like an old AM radio.
I don't think very many cameras are outputting anything special. The AC series cams are putting out 8 bit, verified by a Panasonic rep on these forums.
For now, as far as I know, the only affordable way to get the most out of Prores recording is to use a BMD camera. Or a GH4 with an external recorder, and maybe the Digital Bolex. I've yet to hear any confirmation of lower end cameras (sub $3-$4k say) that are sending some serious bits out, until the GH4 - I've downloaded the manual and you can set the HDMI out for 10 bit (As I recall, it shuts off the LCD on the camera though? Or something...)
I do a lot of keying and I've really kept my eye out. Just wish the BMDs did 60p.
Hey Michael, I was referring to SDI output, not HDMI. SDI out of the camera is 8 bit 4:2:2 in a 10 bit wrapper which is significantly better than AVCHD 4:2:0. I don't know if the HDMi output is equivalent, I'm not a fan of HDMI, mostly because of the connectors
Last edited:
Hey Michael, I was referring to SDI output, not HDMI. SDI out of the camera is 8 bit 4:2:2 in a 10 bit wrapper which is significantly better than AVCHD 4:2:0. I don't know if the HDMi output is equivalent, I'm not a fan of HDMI, mostly because of the connectors
The live HDMI out of all camcorders is 4:2:2, has not yet been compressed. Still 8-bit, but 4:2:2 beats 4:2:0
Jeff