Shogun - LUT support & DNxHR 4k

i find it amazing how fast Atomos implemented LUT support. Atomos is rolling out updates regularly - and CD got very silent recently.

I hope that CD still strives to fulfill their promises - LUT's, ProRes 2KHFR, 4K60p, Onion Skinning,...

we'll see!
 
paulcurtis said:
What does DNxHR get you that ProRes isn't at the moment?

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...
ProRes ain't that great, Paul. Several test results(which involved a great deal of pixel peeping) shows clearly that ProRes suffers a great deal in compression artifacts when there is motion in most of the frame, such as in a pan. ProRes works great for talking heads and other frames without much motion. Also, the new DNxHR codec is resolution independent, so, you can encode to a variety of resolution and framerates within the same codec. Admittedly, I'm talking very small differences, here.

What is a little disconcerting, at least to me, is how quickly other manufacturers can implement DNxYY or proRes 4444 compared to C-D. I could really get excited about the ability to record RGB, 12 bit or greater, if it were offered up, regardless of whether it was ProRes 4444 or DNxHR HQ.
 
Convergent Design is committed to adding AVID DNx to the Odyssey product line in a future free firmware update. We have staff dedicated solely to this development.

We recently announced our roadmap for the next several months and it is available on the blog on our website. 3D-LUT support will soon be available on the Odyssey7Q and Odyssey7Q+. We believe that our implementation of it will be thorough and highly useful to working cinematographers.
 
cuervo said:
ProRes ain't that great, Paul. Several test results(which involved a great deal of pixel peeping) shows clearly that ProRes suffers a great deal in compression artifacts when there is motion in most of the frame, such as in a pan. ProRes works great for talking heads and other frames without much motion. Also, the new DNxHR codec is resolution independent, so, you can encode to a variety of resolution and framerates within the same codec. Admittedly, I'm talking very small differences, here.

What is a little disconcerting, at least to me, is how quickly other manufacturers can implement DNxYY or proRes 4444 compared to C-D. I could really get excited about the ability to record RGB, 12 bit or greater, if it were offered up, regardless of whether it was ProRes 4444 or DNxHR HQ.
Click to expand...

I've been round the houses with my own tests on compression.

It largely depends on what level of ProRes you are using. I'm able to encoded legit prores under windows these days through Nuke (apple certified and all). Also there was a prores clone Miriazon which on the v2 was pretty good and offered the XQ flavour too.

But in my personal tests:

DNxHD : Quite a lot of encoding problems with superbrights and running in 32 bit float workflows - you'd get coloured speckles making the footage unusable, no updates from Avid to fix what are obviously bugs. Limited frame sizes and side by side on torture tests i found it worse that PR at the higher qualities. Both codecs are based on DCT. I got burnt big time on this a few years ago.

Cineform : Better quality like for like, based on wavelet compression. However application support for cineform has always been an achilleas heel. This is such a shame because as a codec goes CF is better than either DNxHD or ProRes.

I tend to record RAW and process footage and output 12bit 444 log based files as my master, i can be fairly confident that i have all the image in there.

I would hope that DNxHQ (or whatever it's called) has made improvements at all levels.

I don't really see the need to record 12 bit though, the range out of the camera fits into 10 bit log very easily. Recording 12 bit linear into a 12 bit container might seem like a good idea but compression works by compressing areas that the eye can't see and with a linear signal ALL your data is at the bottom end which is a candidate for compression. Therefore a normal compression scheme and linear light isn't such a good idea. IMHO

cheers
Paul
 
The problem is not only, that ProRes can't really be exported in Applications like premiere, the big problems is,
that ProRes runs slower on a windows platform - especially in Resolve. So working with DNx would be a advantage
concerning the workflow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top