Odyssey7Q

if the option 1 records 4K @ 10bit (or even 12bit?) then i'd choose option 1.

if the option 1 records 4K @ 8bit only then i'd choose option 2

dan, can you tell us if it will be 422 or 444 if we record to the other popular codec?

sorry if i missed something in the last few weeks, i haven't been that active here unfortunately.

thanks!
 
Dear Brazzam,

You have very astutely stated why I asked the original question.

We did not want to make this decision for our customers, thus I posted the question.

Respectfully,


Dan Keaton
Convergent Design
 
Dear Stefan,

Thanks for posting.

We have 4K photosites to deal with. 4096 x 2160, each in 12-Bit Linear Raw.

One cannot obtain real 4K in 4:4:4 from this source. To do so, requires 6K or 8K photosites.

But, we can obtain 4K in 4:2:2.

The destination codec, in 4:2:2 is 10-Bits, thus this will be very high quality 10-Bits, obtained from a true 12-Bit Linear Source.

I hope this helps.

Respectfully,


Dan Keaton
Convergent Design
 
Dear Paul,

Thank you for posting.

I think I covered your concerns in my recent posts this morning.

Respectfully,


Dan Keaton
Convergent Design
 
Dan,

This might be asking a bit too much... but can we find out roughly how large a 1 sec. file would be in 4K and in 1080? As I haven't had access to much 4K content, I'm curious just how much larger the files are. Using common sense, I'd expect that a file with over 4x the pixels would be roughly 4x larger... given a consistent quality of image.

My first gut-response to your question was Option 1, but that was the "I want 4K so badly!!!" side of me that simply wants to finally see this camera's 4K capabilities first hand... and I cannot be certain that those individuals who are calling for 4K now are not reacting with the same thought process. Once I got over my techie-side's need to be on the cutting edge, the practicality of dealing with 4x larger files hit me as a bit of a headache.

I know my vote will not cancel out all the others' desire for 4K - and I wouldn't suggest that my opinion is any more valuable than theirs - but I thought that maybe getting a bit more information on the consequences of dealing with 10-bit 4K files might help swing some people to my side of the fence :)

If not, and the overwhelming majority of people still want 4K first, then I'll just deal, enjoy my new 4K capabilities, and simply continue recording some projects in 8-bit HD until the next firmware release for the 7Q is out.

- Alan
 
I will be joining brazzam as I vote for option 2

But both are good options.

Are we still looking at august for the 7q release?

Thank you Dan Keaton for letting us know
 
Dan Keaton said:
I think I covered your concerns in my recent posts this morning.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan you did,

Okay, 10 bits a limitation of the popular codec. However is the encoding in those 10 bits going to be linear, or log, or something else?
Popping 12 bit linear into a 10 bit log(ish) container would preserve the data values where they're needed most?

thanks
Paul
 
OPTION 2....it's a no brainer, for me. AFAIK, this is a present time production tool. I don't have the inclination, or the time, to play with capabilities that aren't real world production tools. This 4k stuff is experimental, with VERY limited applicability for the things I do. It just isn't practical to play with this pie in the sky stuff. If I had the resources to process 4K, I'd be shooting an F5, not an FS700. Beam me up, Scotty.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd love having option 2... but part of me can't help but want the new 4K recorder to actually record 4K when it releases. It seems a little silly to get it and then be working with it: "Oh, you got the new 4K recorder!" "well... it doesn't do 4K yet, in a couple of months..."

I wouldn't mind getting some file size comparisons, though. I still think my vote would be for option 1. Kind of the best of both worlds. While it reduces how much I can shoot in the field initially, it at least gives me a wider range of options overall.
 
option 1 definitely........ Dan, is there any footage yet in any of the formats from an fs700 + odyssey 7q?
 
Option 2!! 1080 444 10bit is waaaaay more useful right now than 4k for most of the jobs this camera is going for. Also, 10bit slog would rock.
 
jshbckr said:
Personally I'd love having option 2... but part of me can't help but want the new 4K recorder to actually record 4K when it releases. It seems a little silly to get it and then be working with it: "Oh, you got the new 4K recorder!" "well... it doesn't do 4K yet, in a couple of months..."

I wouldn't mind getting some file size comparisons, though. I still think my vote would be for option 1. Kind of the best of both worlds. While it reduces how much I can shoot in the field initially, it at least gives me a wider range of options overall.
Click to expand...

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but we will have 4k upon release, just not in the compressed popular codec
 
brazzam said:
Dan,

This might be asking a bit too much... but can we find out roughly how large a 1 sec. file would be in 4K and in 1080?
Click to expand...

Based upon the numbers they put up on their site, this is the math I came up with:
  • 2K RAW: 277GB/hr
  • 4K Compressed: 296GB/hr
  • 1080p Compressed: 74GB/hr
 
NextWaveG said:
Based upon the numbers they put up on their site, this is the math I came up with:
  • 2K RAW: 277GB/hr
  • 4K Compressed: 296GB/hr
  • 1080p Compressed: 74GB/hr
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, Tony. As I expected... about 4x larger files. I'm definitely on board for option 2 for now. As Dan said, the next feature update would be roughly 30-60 days afterward, so we're still talking this calendar year. I've waited this long for 4K, I can wait a bit longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top