FS5: Out of curiosity, how is the lower bitrate recording quality? (e.g., 35Mbps, 60Mbps)

drboffa

drboffa

Well-known member
The title pretty much sums it up: I'm just curious to know anyone's thoughts on either the 35Mbps recordings in HD or the 60Mbps in QFHD.

The 50Mbps in HD is already pretty lean so I've never felt the need to go 35Mbps. On one occasion I was starting to get a little concerned about running low on media after a couple days of interviews and b roll in 4K, but even then I didn't end up switching to the 60Mbps codec (and was totally fine in the end).

I think I played around with the 35Mbps in HD once and it seemed pretty fine, although I wasn't really stressing it with anything too challenging.

So for those of you who have used used the lower bitrate codecs (or those of you who do so regularly) I'd love to hear your thoughts or experiences.
 
IMO, you'd be hard-pressed to see a difference.

It's only in post when you apply a lot of manipulation that you may see the lower data stressed more when analyzing under a magnifying glass, but no one would ever notice with online delivery/compression.

You'll start to see more of a difference with tremendous changes in compression.
 
Remember that the EX1, EX3, F3 and F355 all topped out at 35mbps
They all were able to look great when shooting wysiwyg, or shooting in cinegammas with minimal post adjustments.
Of course the F3 started to bring s-log into the mix -- originally only through the 4:4:4 upgrade, but later allowing an s-log gamma to be recorded internally.
I was never a fan of the 35mbps recording for s-log. I thought it stretched the image too far. I did shoot one feature in s-log with the F3 recording to a Gemini 444 and that looked fantastic. However I still recall a problem with one shot in post where the post house couldn't find the original 444 footage during the conform and used the internal s-log recording -- at the color correct session I jumped out of my seat when I saw it because the difference was so huge - and then demanded that they go through the backup drives to find the shot (which somehow they had forgotten to do.) So if you're shooting at the lower bit rate I'd highly recommend staying away from Log!
 
OnSet said:
Remember that the EX1, EX3, F3 and F355 all topped out at 35mbps
They all were able to look great when shooting wysiwyg, or shooting in cinegammas with minimal post adjustments.
Of course the F3 started to bring s-log into the mix -- originally only through the 4:4:4 upgrade, but later allowing an s-log gamma to be recorded internally.
I was never a fan of the 35mbps recording for s-log. I thought it stretched the image too far. I did shoot one feature in s-log with the F3 recording to a Gemini 444 and that looked fantastic. However I still recall a problem with one shot in post where the post house couldn't find the original 444 footage during the conform and used the internal s-log recording -- at the color correct session I jumped out of my seat when I saw it because the difference was so huge - and then demanded that they go through the backup drives to find the shot (which somehow they had forgotten to do.) So if you're shooting at the lower bit rate I'd highly recommend staying away from Log!
Click to expand...

Good points, and thank you for your personal insight.

I recently rewatched the indie film Safety Not Guaranteed, which was shot internally on the F3 prior to the availability of the s-log update (according to what I've read online, at least). Aside from a few scenes that were really pushing things (some very dark shots) I thought it looked pretty great overall.
 
OnSet said:
Remember that the EX1, EX3, F3 and F355 all topped out at 35mbps
They all were able to look great when shooting wysiwyg, or shooting in cinegammas with minimal post adjustments.
Of course the F3 started to bring s-log into the mix -- originally only through the 4:4:4 upgrade, but later allowing an s-log gamma to be recorded internally.
I was never a fan of the 35mbps recording for s-log. I thought it stretched the image too far. I did shoot one feature in s-log with the F3 recording to a Gemini 444 and that looked fantastic. However I still recall a problem with one shot in post where the post house couldn't find the original 444 footage during the conform and used the internal s-log recording -- at the color correct session I jumped out of my seat when I saw it because the difference was so huge - and then demanded that they go through the backup drives to find the shot (which somehow they had forgotten to do.) So if you're shooting at the lower bit rate I'd highly recommend staying away from Log!
Click to expand...

I think you'd see a difference with the 12-bit 444 (or maybe even 10-bit if the hardware limited it). Also assuming it was up in the 200 Mb/s range for 1080/24p on the Gemini.

___

On a related note, you could see some differences with recordings on the C200 below (internal 8-bit vs. external 10-bit vs. internal RAW).

In this case, not much of a difference between 8 and 10, but a huge pop with RAW:

https://youtu.be/jxnWBFne7IE?t=95
 
NorBro said:
I think you'd see a difference with the 12-bit 444 (or maybe even 10-bit if the hardware limited it). Also assuming it was up in the 200 Mb/s range for 1080/24p on the Gemini.
Click to expand...

As I recall the dual link output was 10 bit 4:4:4.
The Gemini recorded uncompressed DPX files, so the data rate was HUGE!
I think I got about 42 minutes from a 512 GB SSD!
 
Yeah, I already forgot it offered uncompressed too. That's pretty insane considering it was 1080p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top