Uncompressed is cool

C

combatentropy

Veteran
The Ikonoskop did not overheat and did not have a fan.

Almost all of the digital film cameras on the market today does a wavelet or similar compression with one or several CPU's. Each CPU draws electricity and adds heat to the camera.

The reason for us to not add any compression is then simple; we have no CPU's overheating the camera and draining the much needed juice from the battery. And not to forget - with no added heat we have no fans. So the A-cam dII is nearly silent.
Click to expand...

--- Ikonoskop, September 30, 2008
 
... A camera will never hold the same computing power as a PC or MAC to process images. Or at least not for another 10 years...
Click to expand...
I question that assumption, going back to the Dalsa Origin, ARRI D 20/D21, Panavision, Grass Valley LD, etc.
 
I recall Rodney Charters, then shooting (or just having shot some episodes of) the "Dallas" reboot, on some NAB based show around 2013-14. He was asked if they shot Raw and he said, "Nah, we're ProRes HD all the way".

PS. They were on ARRI Alexa.
 
DLD said:
I recall Rodney Charters, then shooting (or just having shot some episodes of) the "Dallas" reboot, on some NAB based show around 2013-14. He was asked if they shot Raw and he said, "Nah, we're ProRes HD all the way".

PS. They were on ARRI Alexa.
Click to expand...

I have yet to shoot a series with an HDR mandate which may explain why I have also yet to shoot a series with a raw workflow. ProRes4444 continues to be the pipeline requested by post for everything I shoot, even commercials.
 
Uncompressed does not necessarily mean cooler processing. You are moving a lot more data around at high speeds. Up to 2k/HD 12 bit raw it is reasonably practical, but the storage requirements and data transfer speeds quickly get out of hand at 4k or higher resolutions and higher bit depths needed for broader dynamic range support.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I have yet to shoot a series with an HDR mandate which may explain why I have also yet to shoot a series with a raw workflow. ProRes4444 continues to be the pipeline requested by post for everything I shoot, even commercials.
Click to expand...

Shhhh don't tell everyone that RAW and 4K isn't actually what everyone mostly watch !

JB
 
CharlesPapert said:
I have yet to shoot a series with an HDR mandate which may explain why I have also yet to shoot a series with a raw workflow. ProRes4444 continues to be the pipeline requested by post for everything I shoot, even commercials.
Click to expand...

And until camera manufacturers get their heads around the idea that 12-bit, 4:4:4, and simple drag-and-drop functionality are the things that make Prores stand out. They're going to continue to be confused by why people aren't excited to take up their highly efficient, but problematically "thin" 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs, that can't exist outside of nightmarishly dense folder structures.
 
Grug said:
They're going to continue to be confused by why people aren't excited to take up their highly efficient, but problematically "thin" 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs, that can't exist outside of nightmarishly dense folder structures.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm. Shot plenty of stuff 422HQ also, and we never had much trouble coloring that either. What makes it problematically thin in your estimation?
 
CharlesPapert said:
Hmmmmm. Shot plenty of stuff 422HQ also, and we never had much trouble coloring that either. What makes it problematically thin in your estimation?
Click to expand...

Prores422 HQ is generally fine (because it has a robust bit-rate, with the same level of compression as Prores4444), it's the h264 (and now h265) codecs like Sony's XAVC Class 300, that give you 4k @ 300Mbps 10-bit 4:2:2 or 1080p @ 80Mbps 10-bit 4:2:2 that are problematic, and break down a little too easily in the grade.

The upgraded XAVC Class 480 (on Sony's F5, F55 and Venice), which gives you 4k @ 480Mbps for regular speed recording is fine (h264 seems to just about pull level with ProresHQ at that level of compression). But very few manufacturers have pushed past 400Mbps for 4k 24p/25p capture with h264. So you end up with either somewhat thin 10-bit, or all-out raw recording - and always with these awful and complex folder structures to worry about.
 
I was always on team uncompressed.
In the late 90s/early 2000s I was schlepping a full blown workstation with a BM Decklink and a RAID to the shots, just to record uncompressed into the computer.
Also my workflow was 100% uncompressed till delivery - mind you, this was in the SD/HD days.

Still try to keep my workflow as uncompressed as possible, when it comes to VFX.

I'm exclusively shooting RAW since the first RED and can't go back to anything less ever.

Someone still remember the DIY RAW/lossless experiments for the HVX and the raw hack for the DVX?
The latter made me join this board :-)
 
Postmaster said:
I was always on team uncompressed.
In the late 90s/early 2000s I was schlepping a full blown workstation with a BM Decklink and a RAID to the shots, just to record uncompressed into the computer.
Also my workflow was 100% uncompressed till delivery - mind you, this was in the SD/HD days.

Still try to keep my workflow as uncompressed as possible, when it comes to VFX.
I'm exclusively shooting RAW since the first RED and can't go back to anything less ever.
Click to expand...

+10! I loathe compression. With TB3 and fast storage, my laptop can run uncompressed broadcast i-frame HD YUV (30MB/sec) more efficiently and with higher quality output from my NLE than any of the current compressed codecs, including Prores.
Comparing 4:2:2 HQ Prores to 12 or 16 bit Bayer raw for color grading is like comparing a 12 stick box of Crayolas to my wife's 300 stick set of Sennelier pastels.
Mind you none of this matters much for YouTube delivery.
 
Uncompressed is within reach at reasonable resolutions:

GbpsMB/secGB/hr
12-bit 2880x16201.3160576
10-bit 4096x21602253911

Those are my favorites. The first is the resolution of the Alexa, 1.5x HD. I believe it reliably downsamples to HD without moire. There is a global-shutter sensor from Sony with 13.3 stops. It has a bit more resolution, but assuming it can output just a Region of Interest at this res, it would be S16 in size (IMX420).

The second is 4K, for those of you who have to shoot for Netflix. I know it will not be 4K after you debayer it, but you know I'm already cool with 2K. Uncompressed probably doesn't appeal yet to those who feel they must have 8K.

Both of those resolutions have an ergonomic property, particularly at those bit depths: it's easy to calculate recording time. The first works out to about 10 GB/min. So you just move the decimal point by one. For example, a 512 GB card would record about 51 minutes. Actually you get a couple of minutes of padding. It would be just over 53 minutes. As for 4K, it works out to about 1 TB/hour. Again, it gives you a few minutes of padding.

When the Ikonoskop came out, they had to invent their own cards to handle the data rate. Today's cards can handle it.

Gbps
CFExpress16
SDExpress31.5

Both Ikonoskop and Digital Bolex also fought with the CCD. It took them a long time to calibrate it. With the CMOS from Sony, I would expect them to have an easier time today.
 
12 bit data rate is pretty much in line with my Bolex. I get 90 minutes plus on 477 GB usable of a 500 GB SSD at 2048x1152. The camera doesn't shoot it, but lossless 10 bit 4:4:4 Cineon log compressed with Slimraw is indistinguishable. I mostly offload the camera via Slimraw to Cineon log. Roughly 2:1 compression. Kodak CCD is a bear to calibrate, but it produces lovely images and a much broader color gamut than the Sony sensors.
Joe Rubinstein is still exploring developing a new 4K Bolex, but hasn't found an off the shelf global shutter sensor with the requisite IQ potential. Komodo beat him to the punch I think. That little beast is shaping up to be a spectacular camera.
 
Last edited:
Combat,

They just need to make a slightly larger 4K sensor that has a 2K s35 crop, and there you go. Will be a “4K” camera for those that don’t mind the larger crop, and will allow for proper anamorphic.

Done and done. Easy.
 
That would work too :)

By the way, there is a nice cascade at 230 pixels per millimeter:

S1628801.5 x HD
4/33979~UHD
S3557251.5 x UHD
FF82808K+

But an 8K FF camera is another beast, and now I'm beginning to stray outside of my premise, which was mainly about the ergonomic advantages of an austere feature set.
 
Last edited:
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
combatentropy said:
That would work too :)my premise, which was mainly about the ergonomic advantages of an austere feature set.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are getting closer. Would love to see a good sensor in a simple ergonomic camera.

So many cameras have gotten pretty close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top