Kinefinity new cameras

A mezzanine codec is one on a raised floor above and behind the really expensive front-row codecs. Just kidding. Mezzanine is French for "middle," and in the case of codecs they're talking about in the middle between highly compressed codecs and pure uncompressed video. ProRes, for instance, would also fall into this category, and is in fact often called an "intermediate" codec --- though that doesn't mean it wouldn't be just dandy as a capture or archive codec.

I did a bit of research and put the SMPTE standards in order:

VC-1: 2006: Windows Media 9. Comparable to H.264.
VC-2: 2008: Dirac. Wavelet, comparable to JPEG2000, a little bit worse than H.264.
VC-3: 2008: DNxHD. Like ProRes, though maybe not quite as efficient.
VC-4: (I can't find any hard information on VC-4)
VC-5: 2014: CineForm. Wavelet, a little less efficient than JPEG-2000 but many times faster to process. Can be used on 10-bit 4:2:2, 12-bit RGB, and 12-bit RAW (So I wonder if this is what Blackmagic and others use for their 3:1 and 4:1 RAW compression)

The standards do not really compete with each other, and later standards are not always better than earlier ones. SMPTE is just kind of throwing them out there.
 
But isn't H264 - or, 265, for that matter - only deemed inferior because that's what is being used on the lower end/consumer type cameras? Sony has their new XAVC480 codec, which is basically H264 at 480 Mbps in a Sony/XAVC wrapper. That, theoretically, should be as good as 422 HQ in ProRes, which is about 770 Mbps.
 
DLD said:
But isn't H264 - or, 265, for that matter - only deemed inferior because that's what is being used on the lower end/consumer type cameras? Sony has their new XAVC480 codec, which is basically H264 at 480 Mbps in a Sony/XAVC wrapper. That, theoretically, should be as good as 422 HQ in ProRes, which is about 770 Mbps.
Click to expand...

XAVC is quite a bit more than a wrapper around h.264, which is deemed inferior because it's so aggressively lossy. XAVC is usable in editing, and has quite a bit more leeway for grading than h.264. Obviously, the Long-GOP versions aren't nearly as flexible as the all-intra versions, which is why Sony's consumer cameras are limited to long-GOP versions while their professional cameras can record in the all-intra version. The data rates are, of course, considerably higher in the all-intra version of the codec.

I've worked with a bit of XAVC footage; it's a lot more flexible in grading than anything I've seen in h.264.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Take it from me, high frame rate ProRes is no small thing.
Click to expand...

This is one thing Blackmagic should get credit for. I owned an URSA (not MINI) for 10 months and the HFR (80/120fps in 4K) was stunning...some of the best high quality slow-motion I've ever seen in any camera. It's like a mini-fridge though, so I'm sure that made it easier.
 
Tamerlin said:
XAVC is quite a bit more than a wrapper around h.264, which is deemed inferior because it's so aggressively lossy...
Click to expand...
Ya but, off specs, it's lossy at these very low bitrates. I mean, when GH3 was released with 72 Mbps Intra in October, 2012, it was considered a "game changer". Nowadays, new SDXC cards can get up to 720 Mbps (90 MB/s).

Of course, I'd like to see the XAVC480 somewhere - NAB'16 would be a good place to demo it - but it looks like the a 10-bit Log at 480 Mbps in an H264 or its offshoots like Panasonic's AVC -Ultra will be sufficient for most uses.
 
Tzedekh said:
I wish they would go back to CineForm RAW, unless KineRAW has some technical advantage.
Click to expand...

KineRAW is suposed to be lossless. They probably don't have enough power for CineForm at the resolution and framerates they need.
 
Has anyone seen moving footage? The previous cameras biggest achilles heel was the rolling shutter performance which was quite poor. I'm wondering whether the Terra is the same or have they managed to improve that?

cheers
Paul
 
paulcurtis said:
Has anyone seen moving footage? The previous cameras biggest achilles heel was the rolling shutter performance which was quite poor. I'm wondering whether the Terra is the same or have they managed to improve that?

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

The 5K offering is supposed to have a global shutter option.
So that should fix the problem (in theory).
 
The 6k exists, and I saw one fully functional on the show floor. Hopefully that bodes well for their imminent release!
 
I'm considering the Terra 6K actually for my upcoming project. It's in the running with the Blackmagic URSA and Sony FS5 at the moment and it has seemingly the best of both of those RAW options, particularly the filmic look which is very good on the URSA as well. The basic package looks like the way to go since we're not using TC or extra HD-SDI monitoring or anything. However, I'm unfamiliar with their small battery option of "BP-30" batteries, does anybody know what those are? I tried searching online but all that seems to come up is Sony BPU-30 but I don't know if that's it or not. I'm going back today but I wanted to make sure in case anybody here knows.
 
I was looking at the Terra 5K, but then I heard that there might not be downsampling for ProRes.
 
I think that's planned, though hopefully they'll get more support from third parties like Redcode has. The only third party software that I know of right now that can ingest kineraw natively is Scratch.
 
From what I've read, you do Kineraw and then convert to Cineform RAW afterwards. I don't mind that workflow, a little bit of a pain as an extra step but, yeah, once support gets around then Kineraw will be able to be ingested natively like REDcode. I didn't get a chance to stop by NAB today, had other business in town but I'll stop by tomorrow for sure to check on the battery thing and to see if we should be looking at the 5K global shutter switchable Terra instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top