Super Compact Atmos Ninja-Star Recorder : $295

I agree with Mike on this one, esp at the price and not to mention the nature of Pro Res 4:2:2 as an editing format, while DSLR codecs aren't "meant" for editing. It's a cool device...it would even be nice with a C100/AF100.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Cfast card: Why?
Click to expand...

I don't know but doing a search in B&h all I could find were Cfast 2.0 cards which are too expensive , over $1000 and amazon has several companies I never heard of like Apacer with 128Gb Cfast cards for $365. But theres not that many Cfast 1 cards to choose from. I don't know what the deal is , maybe I'm searching wrongly but it feels like Cfast1 isn't getting a hold and everyones moving on to CF2 which is fine but the prices now are way too much. Making this lightweight cheap recorder a very expensive deal right now.
 
Mike Harvey said:
It depends on your intended purposes. Everything I shoot is AVCHD, and rarely is it an issue. Many folks aren't doing a ton of color correction, so there isn't a need for those higher bitrates. Raw or 4:4:4 is useless to my clients (and thus me), and I think I'm the intended audience for this recorder.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that but it would be nice to have a higher bitrate option, I don't see the point of it having a ProRes LT option. I'd pay double for 4444.
 
squig said:
ProRes 422 introduces artifacts in the shadows and blocky areas, ProRes 4444 doesn't. It's about the bitrate. 422 is ok in a lot of situations but if you push it too far it will break. 4444 is a lot more solid. I want 4444 for the Sony A7s, the only recorder I know that does it is the Pix240i. You'd think in a time when we're shooting raw and 4k people would be looking for higher quality than ProRes 422.
Click to expand...
Are you talking 8 bit or 10 bit?
 
How many cameras are true 10-bit over HDMI? I only know of one that's been confirmed. This should have had SDI input as well, then maybe it'd be a real "star".
 
Actually you all are right, CFast is pointless, whether it's 1.0 or 2.0, at least for this recorder.

Prores is only around 20-30 MB/sec., depending on framerate. Even Prores 4444 moves it up only to 30-40 MB/sec.

I think they should have gone with just CompactFlash, which should still have a long life ahead of it. Its bus handles up to 167 MB/sec., although the flash memory chips inside limit it to something below that. But they get faster every year.
 
Ian-T said:
Are you talking 8 bit or 10 bit?
Click to expand...

I'm talking megabits. I gave up on ProRes 422 a couple of years ago because there was too much compression for my liking. I've been converting all my H.264 and raw footage to ProRes 4444 since for cutting and grading. 422 HQ is fine if you don't push it to it too far which is something I tend to do a lot. Even with 8bit source footage I see a big difference between 422HQ and 4444 in the shadows.

I'm recording 95MB/sec with a 1000x card on the 5D MK3.
 
squig said:
I'm talking megabits. I gave up on ProRes 422 a couple of years ago because there was too much compression for my liking. I've been converting all my H.264 and raw footage to ProRes 4444 since for cutting and grading. 422 HQ is fine if you don't push it to it too far which is something I tend to do a lot. Even with 8bit source footage I see a big difference between 422HQ and 4444 in the shadows.

I'm recording 95MB/sec with a 1000x card on the 5D MK3.
Click to expand...

Well if you start with an 8 bit source it's a big difference because you are trying to stretch smaller shade of colors to reach a larger range of shades vs. starting from a 10 bit source with a great deal of shades of color. In other words....your acquisition camera already started off with issues. That's why you seen issues with the image when you pushed it. So for example a camera like the GH-4 would benefit more from this device than....just about any other DSLR out there.
 
Ian-T said:
Well if you start with an 8 bit source it's a big difference because you are trying to stretch smaller shade of colors to reach a larger range of shades vs. starting from a 10 bit source with a great deal of shades of color. In other words....your acquisition camera already started off with issues. That's why you seen issues with the image when you pushed it. So for example a camera like the GH-4 would benefit more from this device than....just about any other DSLR out there.
Click to expand...

Exactly, or even higher quality 8 bit cameras (there are differences between proper video cams and the DSLR quick/dirty recording) can maintain quality by bypassing the internal codec.
 
A good example is the Nex 5n which has banding issues, ProRes 4444 was noticeably better than 422.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top