PDA

View Full Version : Is RAW uncompressed necessary?



Belief Pictures
05-04-2012, 01:27 AM
Hey,

I'm just wondering here. Is RAW uncompressed necessary? I'm wondering if Apple ProRes will be adequate. BM's website states you can store 5x the video.

Chris

Michael Olsen
05-04-2012, 02:07 AM
Plenty of TV shows right now shoot 1080p Log ProRes on the Alexa. It is "good enough" and is a huge leap over the H264 codecs people have been dealing with from DSLR.

RAW a necessity? No. A welcome luxury? Definitely. Those stretching a media budget or unable to deal with the post required for RAW will very happy with Log ProRes, I think.

I hope that we'll get to see some uncorrected A:B footage or frames from the camera, showing the differences between the two.

Take a look at the footage section on these forums - even the JPEG screen captures are a relative pleasure to work with.

Grug
05-04-2012, 02:08 AM
Depends entirely on your needs. If you need the absolute utmost in video quality and grading flexibility, then uncompressed DNG gives you that. 99% of the time though, 10-bit 220Mb/s ProRes HQ is going to be more than adequate for the vast majority of distribution methods.

Samuel H
05-04-2012, 06:15 AM
long thread here talking about that: http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?82-Shooting-RAW-or-10-bit-4-2-2-Compressed

Belief Pictures
05-05-2012, 08:11 AM
It would seem shooting RAW is impractical being the large files it produces. I think most of us will shoot ProRes.

Brian@202020
05-05-2012, 08:54 AM
It would seem shooting RAW is impractical being the large files it produces. I think most of us will shoot ProRes.

Yes most will be shooting ProRes most of the time, but I know of at least 3 projects in preproduction currently that I'll be shooting that could benefit from 2.5K 12 bit RAW. Looks like one of them might happen before I get my BMC, so I might have to rent a Scarlet.

James Martin
05-06-2012, 06:18 PM
RAW will cripple a lot of workflow pipelines out there. But I think options are one of the strong points of this camera. Use RAW when you absolutely must have the utmost quality. Otherwise use something else.

As an Avid user I would point out that quite a number of network shows and some high end film commercials and films use DNxHD. They get by just fine. Oh and Avid will also read ProRes as well. So you don't lose any flexibility. Pick your file flavor and shoot/edit accordingly.

Tzedekh
05-06-2012, 07:24 PM
How about compressed raw? CineForm RAW is compressed, as is RedCode RAW. Even CinemaDNG currently supports lossless (2.5:1) compression and may eventually support lossy, higher compression ratios.

Philip Lipetz
05-06-2012, 07:33 PM
How about a paid CineForm RAW firmware upgrade to offset BM's additional licensing cost?

Barry Green
05-06-2012, 09:14 PM
How about a paid CineForm RAW firmware upgrade to offset BM's additional licensing cost?

Sounds like a brilliant idea.

Andrew
05-06-2012, 09:28 PM
Even CinemaDNG currently supports lossless (2.5:1) compression and may eventually support lossy, higher compression ratios.

I didn't know that. Very interesting. I wonder what it takes to implement compression with CinemaDNG. I'm guessing additional hardware and processing on the camera?

I'm excited about 12-bit raw, but a 2.5:1 lossless compression would be even better.

Paid Cineform upgrade sounds good too.

Tzedekh
05-06-2012, 09:52 PM
How about a paid CineForm RAW firmware upgrade to offset BM's additional licensing cost?
Sounds like a brilliant idea.
It would be even better still if the reduced per-frame data requirements effected by CineForm RAW enabled higher frame rates. BMD never said higher rates were impossible, only that the camera is currently limited to 30 fps.

Kenneth Fisher
05-06-2012, 09:56 PM
As a PC user, do you think playback performance will be any different when editing with DNxHD as opposed to Prores?

Or does it depend on the application? I like Vegas and use it whenever I can, especially for corporate work, but I have used Avid and Premiere as well.

John Brawley
05-07-2012, 05:08 AM
Sounds like a brilliant idea.

Well....

Not for a company that isn't really interested in doing "compression".

What is the *real* advantage of CF over ProRes LOG. In terms of end grading results, I'd suggest very little. So just shoot ProRes LOG if you're being miserly on disk space.

If you really love CF, then transcode to it.

They won't be doing "compression" anytime soon guys. Unless they do the biggest backflip ever...This is a RAW and UNCOMPRESSED camera. The concession for compression now was only to do an "edit ready" version for fast turnaround. And even then ProRes is the main game for it's support of logging metadata.

jb

mhood
05-07-2012, 05:50 AM
Sometimes a company's reality exceeds the vision (i.e., Nikon D90).

Samuel H
05-07-2012, 08:40 AM
Compressed DNG is lossless 2:1 (they say 2.5:1, but I've seen some real-world tests and would think even 2:1 is a bit optimistic, more like 1.9:1 or 1.8:1). Because it's lossless, I don't think BM would have any philosophical issues with that. Yet it's not a straightforward thing to implement: the processor in the BMC may not be able to run this fast enough. And then there's something else... SSD drives can run on-the-fly compression if they're writing uncompressed DNG, but won't be able to do this with compressed DNG (because that's incompressible data). So, anything you gain with using compressed DNG, you lose it on SSD capacity and writing speed. The same amount of footage can be stored in an SSD drive using compressed DNG and uncompressed DNG. The only gains you get are "less storage space when I copy this to my uncompressed desktop HDD". It may not be worth the trouble.

Tzedekh
05-07-2012, 08:51 AM
Yet it's not a straightforward thing to implement: the processor in the BMC may not be able to run this fast enough.
Maybe, but GoPro's David Newman has said that generating CF RAW in camera would take less processing power than ProRes.

Samuel H
05-07-2012, 09:12 AM
Yes, but I'd guess the processor in the BMC, being inherited from a previous BM product, has ProRes encoding accelerated in hardware. If CF RAW (or compressed DNG) can't be similarly accelerated in that processor, it's a dead end.

Steve Wake
05-07-2012, 10:18 AM
... So, anything you gain with using compressed DNG, you lose it on SSD capacity and writing speed. The same amount of footage can be stored in an SSD drive using compressed DNG and uncompressed DNG. The only gains you get are "less storage space when I copy this to my uncompressed desktop HDD". It may not be worth the trouble.

Another possible "false economy" argument:

Is working with compressed RAW (CF or compressed DNG) significantly more work for the cpu? I know with RED, the decompression is a cpu task, which is why they sell the Rocket. Debayer and most everything downstream is gpu-intensive and is thus can be accelerated by CUDA card(s). If decompression is a gpu task, then that may create a bottleneck in marginal systems.

A happy compromise I'm thinking of is to just archive raw in a compressed format. I can run that overnight or on a secondary computer.

redgamma
05-07-2012, 08:40 PM
Red's r3d compression is jpeg 2000, and that does take a lot of cpu to decode. Cineform's compression is way easier to decode and encode. 4K playback is doable on a commodity i7 system. Red's jpeg 2000 needs a $5K card to decompress in real time, or a 32 core sandy bridge system running adobe CS6.

Andrew_HD
05-08-2012, 11:09 AM
Yes-CF is as easy to decode as ProRes (if not easier). I don't think that REDCODE decoding is as well optimized as CF. Cineform has been here already for long time and it has been heavily optimised for processing speed on modern CPUs.

laco
05-08-2012, 12:05 PM
Today I downloaded some sample cinemaDNG files from the Ikonoskop camera.
I was able to play, and grade it in real-time in Davinci...so why use cineform..

bumkicho
05-08-2012, 12:43 PM
It's like people ask, ask, and ask, but once they get it, they don't know what to do with it. I will shoot Raw whenever possible and expect to go through some bumps on the way. But also how wonderful it is to have ProRes if we need to use it. Add to that, if you want Cineform, you can get it cineform studio premium under $300. Man, aren't we fortunate to have all these options at our disposal.

Tzedekh
05-08-2012, 03:14 PM
Simple. If CineForm RAW is encoded in the camera, you get much smaller data requirements (and thus more shooting time on the SSD) while enjoying the benefits of raw mode. With lower data throughput, higher frame rates at 2.4K might theoretically be possible. I agree that there's much less reason to shoot uncompressed raw, then transcode to CineForm RAW. Then, unless you're going to delete the uncompressed footage, you've got even more storage to deal with.

Andrew_HD
05-08-2012, 04:19 PM
+CF support is 10x bigger than for DNG format and CF is overall less hardware demanding.

Jimmy Moss
05-08-2012, 05:35 PM
I don't think uncompressed will be an issue in the long run. If it were not for the flooding that destroyed WD's HDD operations, a 3 TB HDD would be 70 bucks now.

I bought a 2 TB drive for 70 a year ago before the flood... now they are 130$ for 2 TB

Tzedekh
05-08-2012, 05:39 PM
I don't think uncompressed will be an issue in the long run. If it were not for the flooding that destroyed WD's HDD operations, a 3 TB HDD would be 70 bucks now.

I bought a 2 TB drive for 70 a year ago before the flood... now they are 130$ for 2 TB
And prices have actually come down somewhat.

mintcheerios
05-08-2012, 08:04 PM
Cineform RAW directly to the camera would be convenient, but I think it's good enough to be able to shoot RAW and convert to Cineform RAW. If you wanted the camera to record directly to CF RAW in the first place, you wouldn't be losing anything by deleting the uncompressed RAW files after converting. Worried about the time it takes to convert? Assuming you'll be storing your footage on a drive other than the SSD you record on, converting to CF RAW to another drive may even be faster than copying uncompressed RAW footage simply due to file size.

If you just need an edit-friendly proxy, you can just make ProRes files from the uncompressed RAW, skipping Cineform altogether.

If you absolutely require the speed of shooting and editing right on the SSD you record to, you can just choose to shoot in ProRes and get practically 98% of the quality of RAW.

I think the only practical advantage of recording to CF RAW directly would be more recording time, which is of course welcome. But again, if recording time is that important to you, you always have ProRes with very close quality.


Today I downloaded some sample cinemaDNG files from the Ikonoskop camera.
I was able to play, and grade it in real-time in Davinci...so why use cineform..

Can you edit in real-time too with image adjustments and layers? If so, can I have your computer? :)

Andrew_HD
05-09-2012, 08:05 AM
As I said- there is really no need anymore for all proxy approach, at least not for HD. You edit, grade on final files, have full quality preview etc.

pharpsied
05-09-2012, 08:08 AM
Today I downloaded some sample cinemaDNG files from the Ikonoskop camera.
I was able to play, and grade it in real-time in Davinci...so why use cineform..

Workstation specs?

pharpsied
05-09-2012, 08:09 AM
Can you edit in real-time too with image adjustments and layers? If so, can I have your computer? :)

Amen!

laco
05-09-2012, 10:43 AM
Can you edit in real-time too with image adjustments and layers? If so, can I have your computer? :)
OK, so test specifications:

CinemaDNG files 2048x1092, 16bit, 3.4MB each file, coming from the Ikonoskop camera. (anyway, where can I find more test footages?)
DavinciResolve settings: Timeline is set to 1920x1080, 24fps.
System is a 2009 2.26Ghz MacPro with internal software RAID(cheap!), and one CUDA GPU(again, cheap one, not some Quadro card..)

I was able to get real-time playback up to 20 nodes (masks too). And CPU usage was still UNDER 30%...
Just to note how Resolve works: CPU power goes to decompressing, debayering RAW files. GPU power goes to nodes, grades, masks, etc.

So, I'm hopefully be able to grade BMC files natively without any problem.

pharpsied
05-09-2012, 10:52 AM
OK, so test specifications:

CinemaDNG files 2048x1092, 16bit, 3.4MB each file, coming from the Ikonoskop camera. (anyway, where can I find more test footages?)
DavinciResolve settings: Timeline is set to 1920x1080, 24fps.
System is a 2009 2.26Ghz MacPro with internal software RAID(cheap!), and one CUDA GPU(again, cheap one, not some Quadro card..)

I was able to get real-time playback up to 20 nodes (masks too). And CPU usage was still UNDER 30%...
Just to note how Resolve works: CPU power goes to decompressing, debayering RAW files. GPU power goes to nodes, grades, masks, etc.

So, I'm hopefully be able to grade BMC files natively without any problem.

Well that's awesome. The implication is exciting. I tried to edit the Ikonoskop DNGs in CS5 and it was painful on my i7 machine (PC) and I have a CUDA GPU also.

laco
05-09-2012, 11:09 AM
Well that's awesome. The implication is exciting. I tried to edit the Ikonoskop DNGs in CS5 and it was painful on my i7 machine (PC) and I have a CUDA GPU also.
Haven't tried editing. Premiere CS6 still needs the CinemaDNG importer?

pcenginefx
05-10-2012, 12:57 AM
Haven't tried editing. Premiere CS6 still needs the CinemaDNG importer?

Just tried importing a short CinemaDNG clip into CS6 without the importer - no go....doesn't recognize the format.

Samuel H
05-10-2012, 04:27 AM
bad adobe, no cookie :(

StephenH
05-10-2012, 05:30 AM
Oh! Darn! Now what am I going to have with my glass of milk:(

adam777
05-10-2012, 05:49 AM
OK, so test specifications:

CinemaDNG files 2048x1092, 16bit, 3.4MB each file, coming from the Ikonoskop camera. (anyway, where can I find more test footages?)
DavinciResolve settings: Timeline is set to 1920x1080, 24fps.
System is a 2009 2.26Ghz MacPro with internal software RAID(cheap!), and one CUDA GPU(again, cheap one, not some Quadro card..)

Was that a Dual CPU in you Macpro?
I was able to get real-time playback up to 20 nodes (masks too). And CPU usage was still UNDER 30%...
Just to note how Resolve works: CPU power goes to decompressing, debayering RAW files. GPU power goes to nodes, grades, masks, etc.

So, I'm hopefully be able to grade BMC files natively without any problem.

Was that a dual CPU in your macpro?

laco
05-10-2012, 05:51 AM
Was that a dual CPU in your macpro?
yes, two 2.26 cpus

Philip Lipetz
05-11-2012, 12:29 AM
That is eight real cores plus eight virtual cores.

pcenginefx
05-11-2012, 01:03 AM
So as a follow-up to to my previous post, I installed the CS5.5 DNG importer into CS6 to see if it still works and it does (thankfully).

63

Samuel H
05-11-2012, 06:28 AM
^ any comments on performance?

pcenginefx
05-11-2012, 10:26 AM
Premiere Pro CS6 indicates on my machine that I can play back the DNG clip in real-time (indicated by the yellow line above the clip) but it takes a few playthroughs to have it playback 100% smooth (the clip is a 1080p/24 sample file from Adobe). I have not done any long duration clips yet due to lack of sample clips online.

My machine specs are as follows:
Intel Core i7-970 @ 3.2GHz (Hexa-core+Hyperthreading=12 threads)
24GB RAM
Nvidia GeForce GTX 285
Windows 7 Ultimate
DNG footage was played back from an internal 2TB 7200RPM RAID 0 drive.

EDIT: I also want to note that the importer has no idea what the framerate of the source footage is, so when you import the DNG sequence, it says that it is a 1fps clip. To fix this, right-click on the footage and select Modify > Interpret Footage and input the proper framerate in the settings window that appears.

Samuel H
05-11-2012, 01:30 PM
nice
thanks

Andrew_HD
05-11-2012, 04:46 PM
It should be way easier to playback these DNGs- poor optimisations from Adobe- very poor, but it may change :)

laco
05-12-2012, 12:06 AM
It should be way easier to playback these DNGs- poor optimisations from Adobe- very poor, but it may change :)

why should it be easy? These are 12-bit RAW files.
Try playback a time lapse sequence from Canon CR2 raw files:)

Of course it would be nice to be accelerated by Mercury Playback Engine, we'll see.

Andrew_HD
05-12-2012, 06:05 AM
And? 12bit means nothing, it's not compressed like RED- just need well written debayering, which with current CPUs can be done. If Cineform can do it than there is absolutely no reason why it can't be done on RAW DNG. Premiere is not very well optimised at all- eg Edius NLE does not use GPU at all and it can play as many AVCHD files in RT as Premiere- all what you need is "good coding" :) Current DNG plugin just allows you to import files- it was never optimised- just written so it works- this is typical for Adobe- 1000 features, but made just to be there. If they want they can do it- this is not a problem with current CPU/GPU power. It may need a proper workstation (eg. 6 cores+), but it's not impossible or extremely difficult.

laco
05-12-2012, 12:59 PM
And? 12bit means nothing, it's not compressed like RED- just need well written debayering, which with current CPUs can be done. If Cineform can do it than there is absolutely no reason why it can't be done on RAW DNG. Premiere is not very well optimised at all- eg Edius NLE does not use GPU at all and it can play as many AVCHD files in RT as Premiere- all what you need is "good coding" :) Current DNG plugin just allows you to import files- it was never optimised- just written so it works- this is typical for Adobe- 1000 features, but made just to be there. If they want they can do it- this is not a problem with current CPU/GPU power. It may need a proper workstation (eg. 6 cores+), but it's not impossible or extremely difficult.

12bit means more data, that's all:) 5MB/frame RAWs are not easy to decode for a CPU, but with Mercury playback even RED 4K can be played real-time (at lower resolution of course)
I think Adobe didn't take the time to make it faster, because there wasn't a need for it... how many people edit Ikonoskop footage? Very few.

Of course the number of people using CinemaDNG will.. a bit.. change this summer:D

Andrew_HD
05-12-2012, 04:37 PM
Exactly- it's not impossible- there was simply no need for it :)

laco
05-12-2012, 06:01 PM
Exactly- it's not impossible- there was simply no need for it :)
but now there is the Ikonoskop, the Blackmagic CinemaCam, and the Aaton Penelope Dalta, all of these record in CinemaDNG.

So... let's wait for the Premiere CS6.1 update:)

Tzedekh
05-12-2012, 08:40 PM
I think Adobe didn't take the time to make it faster, because there wasn't a need for it... how many people edit Ikonoskop footage? Very few.
Really dumb on Adobe's part. It's their tech, and they've done virtually nothing to advance it. It looks like it's been two or three years since they've done anything with it. If they're so hot to promote it, they probably should've supported it in their own products -- and spearheaded development of high-quality, lossy (>2.5:1) wavelet compression, like CineForm RAW. Maybe that's why few companies have supported it.

Ivan
05-12-2012, 09:57 PM
Red's r3d compression is jpeg 2000, and that does take a lot of cpu to decode. Cineform's compression is way easier to decode and encode. 4K playback is doable on a commodity i7 system. Red's jpeg 2000 needs a $5K card to decompress in real time, or a 32 core sandy bridge system running adobe CS6.

I can playback my Epic 5K footage on a 5K timeline on my Laptop... realtime. With cs5.5...

mhood
05-12-2012, 10:00 PM
I can playback my Epic 5K footage on a 5K timeline on my Laptop... realtime. With cs5.5...

...and I got noplace on my first try at DNG on my laptop CS5.5. ProResHD only.

laco
05-13-2012, 01:37 AM
I can playback my Epic 5K footage on a 5K timeline on my Laptop... realtime. With cs5.5...
with 1/4 resolution? or 1/8?
Also epic5K is compressed, so you don't need that much of a HDD speed...

Grug
05-13-2012, 02:06 AM
Really dumb on Adobe's part. It's their tech, and they've done virtually nothing to advance it. It looks like it's been two or three years since they've done anything with it. If they're so hot to promote it, they probably should've supported it in their own products -- and spearheaded development of high-quality, lossy (>2.5:1) wavelet compression, like CineForm RAW. Maybe that's why few companies have supported it.

Why would they bother putting the time and resources into advancing it? With the exception of the Ikonoskop (which is hardly a mass-market camera), there's been nothing on the market that needed it.

John Brawley
05-13-2012, 07:47 AM
Really dumb on Adobe's part. It's their tech, and they've done virtually nothing to advance it. It looks like it's been two or three years since they've done anything with it. If they're so hot to promote it, they probably should've supported it in their own products -- and spearheaded development of high-quality, lossy (>2.5:1) wavelet compression, like CineForm RAW. Maybe that's why few companies have supported it.

Firstly, it's not a TECH, but an image standard. They created it and then made it an open standard.

The Cinema DNG version is the same as the more widely used DNG standard, except they add Timecode and Frame Rates. DNG is supported in the current version of Lightroom and lots of cameras including Leica use it as well.

jb

mhood
05-13-2012, 08:38 AM
I can open the DNG images in PhotoShop no problem...DNG sequences in Premiere are another story.

Samuel H
05-13-2012, 09:34 AM
Why would they bother putting the time and resources into advancing it? With the exception of the Ikonoskop (which is hardly a mass-market camera), there's been nothing on the market that needed it.

if they really want to push their format, it is them that have to take the first steps
adobe should be developing and supporting their format before anybody else starts to use it

Tzedekh
05-13-2012, 03:15 PM
Why would they bother putting the time and resources into advancing it? With the exception of the Ikonoskop (which is hardly a mass-market camera), there's been nothing on the market that needed it.
Why would Adobe have bothered with it at all if they weren't going to develop it and actively promote it? As I suggested above, maybe companies have been hesitant to use it because it's not particularly well developed. It's up to the standards developer to provide a good alternative before asking companies to sign on. As to whether there's anything on the market that's needed it, the same could be said for CineForm RAW, yet that's already a relatively mature product.


Firstly, it's not a TECH, but an image standard.
Sorry to disagree, but it's both. According to ISO (http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/supporting_services/image_technology.htm):

"A definition from a standards coordinating group in the 80s is still as good as any. They defined . . . image technology as 'any operations conducted on images that capture, synthesize, record, reproduce, convert, process, distribute, and display using photographic, electronic, computer or hybrid methods'."

I would consider adding timecode and frame rates and creating a recording standard to be covered by the above definition. But let's just agree to disagree.

Brad Ferrell
05-14-2012, 09:53 AM
Chill out. Is RAW uncompressed necessary? Yes.

I've been stuck on "what does RAW uncompressed necessitate?" for a few days.

I work on features - 12-20 TB of online storage, probably a RAID.

3 x 512GB SSD - two for the camera and one for the tower's startup disc.

More RAM

Another GPU

The list goes on. The camera is a great price, but MAN the list goes on. I'm not complaining but RAW may be biting off more than I can chew right now...

laco
05-14-2012, 11:13 AM
"what does RAW uncompressed necessitate?"

Luckily it depends on the project:) If we shoot a green screen music video, I'm happy to go with RAW.
If we shoot something longer.. then your never-ending list is activated:)

Andrew_HD
05-14-2012, 04:19 PM
Lets face it- BM made to good camera, so people can't cope with its possibilities and won't buy it :)

Kavadni
05-15-2012, 12:57 AM
My work in general is either talking heads (presentations and conferences), or Music Videos.
I will shoot all Music clips in RAW, the talking heads in DNxHD

Dan Pears
05-15-2012, 01:20 AM
My work in general is either talking heads (presentations and conferences), or Music Videos.
I will shoot all Music clips in RAW, the talking heads in DNxHD

This is pretty much the same as my work, talk heads and education promos 9-5 and music videos in between. I think ProRes will get me through my day-to-day filming a breez, still being gradeable, and then have RAW for creative projects.

Kavadni
05-15-2012, 01:26 AM
This is pretty much the same as my work, talk heads and education promos 9-5 and music videos in between. I think ProRes will get me through my day-to-day filming a breez, still being gradeable, and then have RAW for creative projects.

Dan, one thing we may have to decide on how we will deal with the noise. I haven't experienced it .. but reading suggests we will have more.
I already shoot DNxHD 220 and offline at 36 .. and if I don't have to push shots, the edit at 36 is fine .. no need for a reimport and online.

While I have had a quick play with Resolve, I don't recall if has any NR

laco
05-15-2012, 01:38 AM
This is pretty much the same as my work, talk heads and education promos 9-5 and music videos in between. I think ProRes will get me through my day-to-day filming a breez, still being gradeable, and then have RAW for creative projects.

It's funny a bit, most of the Alexa shoots are Prores. Now imagine if it's enough for a feature movie like Asterix and Obelix 3D, it will be enough for my "music videos" :)
Anyway, just to try it, I'll shoot raw, once.:D

Kavadni
05-15-2012, 01:45 AM
It's funny a bit, most of the Alexa shoots are Prores. Now imagine if it's enough for a feature movie like Asterix and Obelix 3D, it will be enough for my "music videos" :)
Anyway, just to try it, I'll shoot raw, once.:D

It will be enough in many situations .. I feel that the extra 3 stops will make it faster to set up lighting and/or give me a better result when the situation is such that I don't have as much time to walk around with a light meter and check the contrast range.

Kavadni
05-15-2012, 01:47 AM
It will be enough in many situations .. I feel that the extra 3 stops will make it faster to set up lighting and/or give me a better result when the situation is such that I don't have as much time to walk around with a light meter and check the contrast range.

Just thought.. you still get the 13:1 in the other codecs .. so I take that back :)

Spotts
05-15-2012, 02:35 AM
Just thought.. you still get the 13:1 in the other codecs .. so I take that back

So, I gather that all record codec options will provide the 13 stops of DR? I've been under the impression only the RAW option would provide this latitude.

laco
05-15-2012, 02:53 AM
So, I gather that all record codec options will provide the 13 stops of DR? I've been under the impression only the RAW option would provide this latitude.

Recording in LOG will provide the latitude. IMHO it doesn't matter if you record in RAW log, or Prores log, or DNxHD log, dynamic range should be the same, as it's the same on the Alexa too.
Of course it is possible that BMD uses a different log curve on compressed and raw formats, but I don't think that's happening.

Spotts
05-15-2012, 03:01 AM
laco, thanks for the clarification. Feel better about my pre-order now.

laco
05-15-2012, 04:57 AM
laco, thanks for the clarification. Feel better about my pre-order now.

It's just how I see things, although I'm not sure how will the MagicCam work.

Andrew_HD
05-15-2012, 07:20 AM
So, I gather that all record codec options will provide the 13 stops of DR? I've been under the impression only the RAW option would provide this latitude.

Go to exposure questions (part 3) and you will find an answer:

http://arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/learn/alexa_faq.html

Alex Primehd
05-25-2012, 10:15 PM
DNG workflow is specialty niche.

Cineform RAW, on the other hand, provides seamless, painless workflow, familiar and similar to any other video codec, including "regular" Cineform flavors.

CF RAW requires very low bandwidth - I was easily recording 2K resolution on a 5400rpm HDD with SI2K cam ! - try that with DNG.

Cineform RAW will also mean smaller file sizes. I seriously would prefer CF RAW on BMC to anything else.

Consider this example from the still photography world: say you are making a timelapse, with thousands of stills taken. Do you shoot in RAW? Not usually. Would it look better in RAW? A bit better, but diminishingly so... and the trade-offs would be enormous in the form of dramatically higher storage requirements, and slower workflow at every step. I think the same paradigm could be applied to BMC. Don't sell your hair to the pawn shop! Ask BM to implement Cineform RAW instead. :)

Brad Ferrell
05-26-2012, 10:44 AM
DNG workflow is specialty niche.

Would it look better in RAW? A bit better, but diminishingly so... and the trade-offs would be enormous in the form of dramatically higher storage requirements, and slower workflow at every step.

DNG Workflow, a specialty niche? Yes, but it will grow. RAW is the best image technology we have going.

A bit better, but deminishingly so? That is subjective opinion and I agree to disagree. Again, it's a "specialty niche" but it's where my work belongs. I've worked with RAW and compressed footage and compressed footage has always been a pain to grade and key. Again, subjective.

The "trade offs" of storage and workflow speed are not that important. Real-time color correction and noise reduction are what Resolve offers using RAW. My previous online workflow was not real-time. There is no trade-off there. Storage requirements? My Media100 had a SCSI RAID. Storage is cheap now.

I can say it's a lot to bite off, having to upgrade my system and develop another workflow, BUT I've had it with compressed formats. They're holding me back artistically and if its an esoteric niche this camera provides me to work in to get the best results, I'll take it.

Alex Primehd
05-26-2012, 03:21 PM
I am all for the highest quality.

At the same time, if the acquisition format won't let me do a solid roundtrip NLE - Compositor (read Adobe Premiere - After Effects), it is not going to work for me. How about Mocha. How about transcoding for web, Blu-Ray and DVD. All of the above works beautifully with Cineform.

I doubt that DaVinci, however venerable, will ever:

a) provide functionality of all of the above applications with their countless scripts + plugins, and
b) reach market penetration of Adobe

And then, there is a practical side of things. We all have to deliver projects on-time. What works better towards that end, DNG or Cineform? And if I can't deliver on-time (for myself or for my clients, don't matter) then all the theoretical advantages of uncompressed format become irrelevant, don't you think... :)

laco
05-26-2012, 04:35 PM
And then, there is a practical side of things. We all have to deliver projects on-time. What works better towards that end, DNG or Cineform? And if I can't deliver on-time (for myself or for my clients, don't matter) then all the theoretical advantages of uncompressed format become irrelevant, don't you think... :)

If you need to do something fast, why not use the Prores422HQ option? You can edit natively these files, you can roundtrip them in AE, Premiere, Davinci and so on...

JDB
05-27-2012, 01:23 AM
I think some of you are missing the point. If you want to shoot a format that you can bring in to your editor and start working away - pick Prores or DNXHD codecs. These codecs are designed specifically to be straight to edit codecs, and provide decent quality.

Now if you have the need for the extra resolution and higher bitdepth you choose to shoot in raw (in this case cinemaDNG). You would then transcode the raw files into a light version of DNXHD (ie DNXHD36) or Prores (ie Prores proxy) to commence editing, the. When you are ready to grade you bring in your EDL or XML into Resolve and relinking to you original CinemaDNG files to achieve maximum quality.

Now if people don't really know why they should bother shooting raw, then the advantages of RAW will probably not be advantageous for you. Stick with Prores or DNXHD and you will have nice quality footage to bring in to your favorite editor.

I suppose a metaphor for this could be whether you should drive a manual or automatic transmission car. Both have benefits, just pick the one that is most suitable for you. Some people never see the point of driving a manual car, and live quite happy driving around their Auto.

As for CineformRAW, I think a camera which can shoot three different flavours of is pretty huge. If one of the three options made available isn't good enough, then pick other camera. The more you ask for, the more delays, and cost of the product. Take a look at what happened to the Red Scarlet3k. I would spend more time trying to make suggestions to improve the camera with things that matter, such as time code support, and being able to choose both project frame rates as well as record frame rates.

JB

Alex Primehd
05-27-2012, 11:50 AM
IMHO, CineformRAW simply solves all the issues at once.

You want RAW at high bit-depth in-camera? - you got it, no need for other format like DNG.
You want low bandwidth video, good for instant playback in-camera, and real-time playback in post - you got it, no need for yet another codec like ProRes.

I used CineformRAW for a couple years with my SI-2K camera which had native CF RAW workflow. Absolutely gorgeous. Superb video with very low bandwidth/storage requirements. I was able to record 2K onto a 5400rpm 2.5" WD hard drive - for hours, without any issues whatsoever. Data transfer to the editing PC is also painless and fast due to small file sizes.

What's not to like? :)

laco
05-27-2012, 01:13 PM
IMHO, CineformRAW simply solves all the issues at once.

You want RAW at high bit-depth in-camera? - you got it, no need for other format like DNG.
You want low bandwidth video, good for instant playback in-camera, and real-time playback in post - you got it, no need for yet another codec like ProRes.

I used CineformRAW for a couple years with my SI-2K camera which had native CF RAW workflow. Absolutely gorgeous. Superb video with very low bandwidth/storage requirements. I was able to record 2K onto a 5400rpm 2.5" WD hard drive - for hours, without any issues whatsoever. Data transfer to the editing PC is also painless and fast due to small file sizes.

What's not to like? :)

Cineform RAW is - AFAIK - a _visually_ lossless codec.
CinemaDNG, is a truly uncompressed codec - and this is what clients will pay if they want this.

Alex Primehd
05-27-2012, 01:28 PM
It would be good to see A/B comparison between the CF RAW and DNG as implemented by BMCC.

My projection: in all probability, Cineform will be at least as good as BMCC's DNG at 200% magnification.

I heard that BMCC's DNG implementation is not, in fact, completely uncompressed either.

Please realize I don't work for Cineform, they just won my business over because I could not find anything better. In the years that I've been their paying customer, there was not a situation when Cineform was a limiting factor. In other words, something else will affect your video quality long before you get to CF limitations. Lens, lighting, sensor... So far CF has been stellar. Just make sure to set up your editing system right (with stable release that does what you want), and you'll be golden.

Samuel H
05-27-2012, 03:07 PM
from the bitrate numbers they've released, it seems they're using cinemaDNG completely uncompressed
2432 x 1366 x 12bits = 4.75 MB/frame
they actually say 5 MB/frame in the specs, which I guess includes audio: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/techspecs/


(this doesn't mean CF-RAW will look a lot worse, I haven't used it, but not many people seem to complain about the similarly compressed RED footage...)

Andrew_HD
05-27-2012, 03:10 PM
Cineform RAW is - AFAIK - a _visually_ lossless codec.
CinemaDNG, is a truly uncompressed codec - and this is what clients will pay if they want this.


And there won't be any visible difference even on a big screen :)

Brad Ferrell
05-27-2012, 03:50 PM
This Cineform vs. RAW thread is interesting. CinemaDNG is not video as you know it. It's a string of pictures much like a TGA or PICT sequence. There is no compression. It is uncompressed.

I've been working on pictures, video, music, and games on my computer for almost twenty years now. I archived most of my work from college with Quicktime. The codec I chose is unsupported now. I can never again view these files.

Flip side - the only files I have that still work and can go into a reel or anything for that matter are the sequences I saved as uncompressed image sequences. I'm not going to gamble on future support from Cineform or Apple for that matter and all of my projects timelines are image sequences. I've been burned by compression. It has no place in my workflow anymore.

John Brawley
05-27-2012, 04:50 PM
IMHO, CineformRAW simply solves all the issues at once.

You want RAW at high bit-depth in-camera? - you got it, no need for other format like DNG.


Except it's compressed. Even if it's "good" compression.

jb

Tzedekh
05-27-2012, 05:28 PM
Except it's compressed. Even if it's "good" compression.

jb
While that's true, what does it mean? Every format has its compromises, including CinemaDNG. Is totally uncompressed effectively better than mathematically lossless compression? Wouldn't it be better to offer, as an option, visually lossless (or even mildly lossy) compression if it afforded 12-bit raw? Even RedCode is compressed, as is the Sony F65's raw. This isn't a pissing contest. It's about offering the best tradeoff for the money. The sensor isn't 4K or very large, there aren't high frame rates, there are no XLRs, there's no lens mount choice -- in short, the camera is defined by compromises, judicious compromises that yielded a remarkabale product. A CineForm RAW option, if technically feasible and cheap to implement, would only improve the camera and likely reduce workflow burdens.

laco
05-27-2012, 05:45 PM
While that's true, what does it mean? Every format has its compromises, including CinemaDNG. Is totally uncompressed effectively better than mathematically lossless compression? Wouldn't it be better to offer, as an option, visually lossless (or even mildly lossy) compression if it afforded 12-bit raw? Even RedCode is compressed, as is the Sony F65's raw. This isn't a pissing contest. It's about offering the best tradeoff for the money. The sensor isn't 4K or very large, there aren't high frame rates, there are no XLRs, there's no lens mount choice -- in short, the camera is defined by compromises, judicious compromises that yielded a remarkabale product. A CineForm RAW option, if technically feasible and cheap to implement, would only improve the camera and likely reduce workflow burdens.

1. There won't be any workflow burdens if Adobe will start supporting CinemaDNG. Just as there isn't any burden in Davinci which can handle it real-time with a lot of nodes.
2. " It's about offering the best tradeoff for the money." In my case the best for me is: $3000 for uncompressed RAW. Without any compression.

Redcode is compressed because they couldn't write 4-5-6K raw to any media as of today. I'm sure if they could, they would.

"And there won't be any visible difference even on a big screen"
How do you know this exactly?:) I think if I push a footage to the limit in grading (for example a high-contrast B&W grade), then uncompressed will be far better choice.
I heard a lot of people that you can't really see the difference between REDCODE ratios like 3:1 and 6:1 but you can. And if you grade more, you will see more artifacts.

John Brawley
05-27-2012, 05:56 PM
How do you know this exactly?:) I think if I push a footage to the limit in grading (for example a high-contrast B&W grade), then uncompressed will be far better choice.
I heard a lot of people that you can't really see the difference between REDCODE ratios like 3:1 and 6:1 but you can. And if you grade more, you will see more artifacts.

Agreed.

You do see compression show up once you start pushing the images around, especially in low light. Uncompressed gives you more wriggle room.
jb

nickjbedford
05-27-2012, 06:02 PM
It's an interesting point. I'm a photographer who shoots raw (23mb .cr2 files with my current camera) and wouldn't shoot JPEG until I was forced to as I know what I can pull out of a raw file from a post processing point of view (it doesn't mean I cheat on the shoot because I'm shooting raw), but for video, raw is a very intensive route when it comes to storage for the portion of us who need to spare our budget for things other than terabytes of RAID or other capable storage systems for raw footage. So for me, even mathematically lossless compression would be completely fine. Photos have to stand up to the riggers of inspection much more than video because the frames aren't flying along at 25 per second. Small quality differences between a high quality video and raw source are negligible if shot and graded by someone who can use those formats to their capacity on set with production.

Of course uncompressed is technically the very best solution, but if ProRes from an ARRI is an acceptable format for high end productions, losslessly compressed raw from a budget cine camera is certainly acceptable.

If CineForm RAW or even 2.5:1 compressed CinemaDNG was implemented, I'd probably start shooting raw for the majority of things, but right now, I'm not too worried about using ProRes in particular. Expose and light shots properly and any of the three formats will be a boon to use :)

Tzedekh
05-27-2012, 06:08 PM
2. " It's about offering the best tradeoff for the money." In my case the best for me is: $3000 for uncompressed RAW. Without any compression.
And that wouldn't change if CineForm RAW were offered as an option in addition to CinemaDNG. You could have uncompressed, and others could use CineForm.

laco
05-27-2012, 06:09 PM
Agreed.

You do see compression show up once you start pushing the images around, especially in low light. Uncompressed gives you more wriggle room.
jb

That's what I fear from. Also it is a privilege in the video world to be able to record uncompressed RAW video. This will be huge for a lot of "information-demanding" shoots like green-screen - so I hope this will attract clients.
Also... No one who shoots RAW in the photo world is begging for a compressed RAW codec.
Even if it's takes a lot of space, and maybe it needs a faster machine to be able to work on it, you pay the price for the best way to capture an image.

And also, I don't really get - if you want a faster workflow - why Prores isn't an alternative. If it's good for Alexa users...:)
BMD gave us uncompressed RAW, Prores, and DNxHD in a 3000$ camera. And people want CineformRAW:) I'm praising this company because maybe I can forget the h264 codec for a good time:)

laco
05-27-2012, 06:11 PM
And that wouldn't change if CineForm RAW were offered as an option in addition to CinemaDNG. You could have uncompressed, and others could use CineForm.

That's true, but do we know what would be needed to include the CineformRAW recording in the camera?
License?
Of course I'm not against anything, but I simply don't understand sometimes why it's a so much requested thing:) that's all.

nickjbedford
05-27-2012, 06:13 PM
No one who shoots RAW in the photo world is begging for a compressed RAW codec.

But then again, you're not taking 25 20mp raw photos per second for 5 hours :)

Tzedekh
05-27-2012, 06:14 PM
. . . for video, raw is a very intensive route when it comes to storage for the portion of us who need to spare our budget for things other than terabytes of RAID or other capable storage systems for raw footage.
That workflow issue won't go away when Adobe starts supporting its own standard. Uncompressed CinemaDNG at 2.5K uses about 20% more disk space than Epic 5K footage at 5:1.


Of course uncompressed is technically the very best solution, but if ProRes from an ARRI is an acceptable format for high end productions, losslessly compressed raw from a budget cine camera is certainly acceptable.
Even mildly lossy raw would be as acceptable as ProRes, and in some ways better.

Tzedekh
05-27-2012, 06:19 PM
That's true, but do we know what would be needed to include the CineformRAW recording in the camera?
License?
David Newman said licensing would be cheap.


Of course I'm not against anything, but I simply don't understand sometimes why it's a so much requested thing:) that's all.
Unlike ProRes or DNxHD, it has nearly all of uncompressed raw's advantages, plus additional ones.

Alex Primehd
05-27-2012, 07:39 PM
No one who shoots RAW in the photo world is begging for a compressed RAW codec.

In photography, just like in videography, it all depends on the usage. If I shoot individual stills, you bet I use RAW. If I shoot timelapse, RAW becomes a huge burden. If I shoot an HDR timelapse, RAW is virtually out of the question.

And timelapse is usually no faster than 1 image every 3 sec. With 24p video, you get 24 images every second, so it's at least 72 times more frequent with video than the fastest photo application.

Point is, you hit diminishing returns quality-wise by going completely uncompressed with video, yet you pay too much in form of bandwidth and storage costs.

I never had a problem with CineformRAW, including green screen work. You are much more likely to have completely unrelated issues, such as unevenly lit background, artifacts introduced by the camera sensor, artifacts introduced by the lens used, etc etc - way before you get to the limitations of the CineformRAW codec.

nickjbedford
05-27-2012, 08:03 PM
Is this getting a bit off topic? I'm sure CineForm RAW is great and fantastic and BMD should look into implementing it, but the O.P was talking about the formats available in the camera that don't require both implementation and licensing. You've said many times over the benefits of CF RAW.

Brad Ferrell
05-27-2012, 08:16 PM
I see two groups here, those that welcome the design of the workflow for uncompressed RAW the camera presents, and those that are into the various flavors of compressed video, including Cineform RAW.

For me, one of the few welcoming the change from compressed video to RAW, I'm more concerned now that public opinion will drive BMD to capitalize on the mass audience this camera will serve instead of moving toward greater resolution sensors and other high-end features.

You can always render your CineformRaw files from the CinemaDNGs, quite quickly if I've read it right, and throw the masters away. If they're so much alike this should not bother anyone interested in saving room on their HDs. As far as Mastering in CineformRAW over uncompressed RAW, I'm not interested. It contains a codec which makes archiving and longevity insecure and compromises the integrity of the master. What if GoPro sells it to another company who takes it in a different direction?

Although I'm outnumbered, I don't want to get left out. How much more will I have to pay for them to include CineformRAW to make you happy? I don't need it. Adobe will support this camera, I'm sure of that. It's like when the P2 cards came out and Adobe had to release an update to accomodate the HVX. I didn't have a licensed copy of CS3 at the time and couldn't get the update, so I tried Cineform instead. It was like $300.00 and I payed it to see the footage I had created. It was a good product and it helped in grading to get the bump up to 10 bit from 8 but we're not talking about that now, we're going from Uncompressed to Compressed.

To get back to the OP, is RAW uncompressed necessary? Yes, it is for me. I want uncompressed RAW video to work with. That's what has been offered.

Somewhere in this thread, I asked what does it make necessary. Again, this means feature films and shorts.

Camera - $3000.00
Rig - $1500.00
Battery - $1000.00
Zeiss ZF.2s - three lenses - $4000.00
New Motherboard - $300.00
RAM - 32 GB - $300.00
SSD for camera - two 265GB - $600.00
Nvidia GTX 570 - two for PP and Resolve - $700.00
Internal 4TB Array - free - I already have this
External 12TB array - $900.00

To put it in perspective around $13K to get up and running with a 12bit 2.5K RAW workflow. If CineformRAW were implemented, it would have saved me some money, but can you tell me that pixel for pixel my compressed CineformRAW image would be IDENTICAL to my CinemaDNG both coming off the same sensor? I have my doubts but we'll see. I'm not against it, but I do see it as a compromise as it was the uncompressed footage that got me so excited in the first place.

nickjbedford
05-27-2012, 08:44 PM
External 12TB array - $900.00

OOC, what array are you planning to use? Not sure if you've mentioned it elsewhere.

laco
05-28-2012, 03:01 AM
In photography, just like in videography, it all depends on the usage. If I shoot individual stills, you bet I use RAW. If I shoot timelapse, RAW becomes a huge burden. If I shoot an HDR timelapse, RAW is virtually out of the question.

It depends on the job I think. Sometimes I also shoot time lapses in jpeg, but if the rest of the project shot in better quality (for example 10bit video), then I'll shoot RAW. imho RAW is never out of question, you just need a client who pays the extra hard drives/time:)


I see two groups here, those that welcome the design of the workflow for uncompressed RAW the camera presents, and those that are into the various flavors of compressed video, including Cineform RAW.

I see two groups too:
- those who want this camera as it is, maybe with little changes (compressed format options like Prores444, or Prores422 (not HQ), ISO options between the current 400-800-1600 options, GUI features, time code, etc.etc.)
- and those who would like a different camera (m4/3 mount, bigger sensor, etc.)

andrew cheng
05-28-2012, 04:15 AM
It is BM's camera, we should fully understand the unspeakable business strategic reason why CF couldn't be implemented in BMC, just as RED did not adopt CF years ago and had ignited exactly the same R3D vs CF argument on reduser .:)
Compressed 2:1 cinemaDNG or 4:4:4 prores/dnxhd as a alternative option/firmware update after BMC hitting the market might be a better and realistic suggestion to perfect this camera.:cool:

Brad Ferrell
05-28-2012, 08:46 AM
OOC, what array are you planning to use? Not sure if you've mentioned it elsewhere.

I do my shopping at newegg, so I'm looking at:

ICY DOCK MB561US-4S-1 4 x 3.5" USB2.0 & eSATA Aluminum HDD Enclosure for Mac & PC and Western Digital Caviar Green WD30EZRX 3TB IntelliPower SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive x4. Couldn't get URLs for you, I apologize but googling will get you more information.

Not sure if I need a controller card or if the motherboard has eSata. If prices on HDs come down, I'll pick up four 4TBs for the RAID.

Paul Stephen Edwards
05-28-2012, 09:50 AM
I see two groups too:
- those who want this camera as it is, maybe with little changes (compressed format options like Prores444, or Prores422 (not HQ), ISO options between the current 400-800-1600 options, GUI features, time code, etc.etc.)
- and those who would like a different camera (m4/3 mount, bigger sensor, etc.)

I believe you'd see those two groups on any forum about any product. :) It's just more pronounced since we're dealing with something that hasn't been released yet.

Brad, thanks for all the specific hardware data.

Andrew_HD
05-28-2012, 10:51 AM
I do my shopping at newegg, so I'm looking at:

ICY DOCK MB561US-4S-1 4 x 3.5" USB2.0 & eSATA Aluminum HDD Enclosure for Mac & PC and Western Digital Caviar Green WD30EZRX 3TB IntelliPower SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive x4. Couldn't get URLs for you, I apologize but googling will get you more information.

Not sure if I need a controller card or if the motherboard has eSata. If prices on HDs come down, I'll pick up four 4TBs for the RAID.

Forget about Caviar greens and RAIDs- use at least blue ones or black. Greens are not designed to work with raid controllers at all. WD does not even advise to use blacks with hardware RAID cards, but they do work ok. Never tried blue ones.

Tzedekh
05-28-2012, 11:05 AM
It is BM's camera, we should fully understand the unspeakable business strategic reason why CF couldn't be implemented in BMC, just as RED did not adopt CF years ago and had ignited exactly the same R3D vs CF argument on reduser .:)
Compressed 2:1 cinemaDNG or 4:4:4 prores/dnxhd as a alternative option/firmware update after BMC hitting the market might be a better and realistic suggestion to perfect this camera.:cool:
What was that reason?

I would guess that Red didn't adopt CineForm for any number of reasons, primary among them the problem that Red couldn't control the development of the codec as it had controlled virtually every other aspect of the Red One. Since BMD offers only industry-standard codecs, that shouldn't be an issue. Also, MJPEG 2000 (upon which RedCode RAW is based) yields somewhat smaller file sizes, desirable at higher resolutions and quality levels. Even though CineForm is a somewhat less efficient codec (relative to file size), it's faster and simpler and thus easier to implement. It doesn't require a RedRocket. Another reason for BMD to include it.

Why would 4:4:4 ProRes be any more realistic? My argument is for preserving the benefits of raw while reducing the data throughput and storage burdens to levels similar to those of 4:2:2 ProRes or DNxHD.

Alex Primehd
05-28-2012, 11:07 AM
May I recommend these 3TB drives: Barracuda ST3000DM001 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005T3GRLY/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=wadsite-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B005T3GRLY)

I have a very good experience using them for about a year now in both internal and external enclosures, Raid 0, 10, 5, 6, and JBOD. No issues. I don't see the need to upgrade to the officially server version of these drives - judging by other users' feedback, server version is not more reliable in real world.

As usual, you want to test each drive first with Seagate SeaTools (http://www.seagate.com/support/downloads/seatools/) software before using it in your system.

laco
05-28-2012, 11:51 AM
Why would 4:4:4 ProRes be any more realistic? My argument is for preserving the benefits of raw while reducing the data throughput and storage burdens to levels similar to those of 4:2:2 ProRes or DNxHD.

Just asking, what are the advantages/benefits of using compressed RAW over prores?
White balance in post? This is done on a 50mbps codec:
133

Tzedekh
05-28-2012, 12:37 PM
I can't see the image.

But, to answer your question, compressed raw has all the advantages of raw, except that, like prores, it's compressed. Most other motion raw formats are in fact compressed, ArriRAW and CinemaDNG being two exceptions. (The latter, as noted elsewhere, also has a lossless Huffman compression option, and the CinemaDNG initiative group is researching high-quality lossy compression.) The advantages of compressed raw over ProRes 4:2:2 include 12-bit color, variable compression ratios (in CineForm RAW), somewhat greater control over grading, and support of the full resolution of the sensor.

But it's becoming increasingly clear that forum members are divided into those who see a need for in-camera compressed raw and those who don't, and neither group will win over the other. I'll just go on record saying that CineForm RAW would be a worthwhile option in addition to (not instead of) CinemaDNG, one that if it can't be included free to all, might be offered as a low-cost add-on to those who want or need it. Transcoding to CineForm RAW would be of limited usefulness because, while it might reduce storage requirements, it would not increase recording times or decrease in-camera bandwidth burdens (thereby helping enable higher frame rates); furthermore, it would add an additional step to workflow.

That's the (or at least my) case for CineForm RAW in a nutshell. There appears to be no point in belaboring the issue.

laco
05-28-2012, 01:26 PM
I can't see the image.

But, to answer your question, compressed raw has all the advantages of raw, except that, like prores, it's compressed. Most other motion raw formats are in fact compressed, ArriRAW and CinemaDNG being two exceptions. (The latter, as noted elsewhere, also has a lossless Huffman compression option, and the CinemaDNG initiative group is researching high-quality lossy compression.) The advantages of compressed raw over ProRes 4:2:2 include 12-bit color, variable compression ratios (in CineForm RAW), somewhat greater control over grading, and support of the full resolution of the sensor.

But it's becoming increasingly clear that forum members are divided into those who see a need for in-camera compressed raw and those who don't, and neither group will win over the other. I'll just go on record saying that CineForm RAW would be a worthwhile option in addition to (not instead of) CinemaDNG, one that if it can't be included free to all, might be offered as a low-cost add-on to those who want or need it. Transcoding to CineForm RAW would be of limited usefulness because, while it might reduce storage requirements, it would not increase recording times or decrease in-camera bandwidth burdens (thereby helping enable higher frame rates); furthermore, it would add an additional step to workflow.

That's the (or at least my) case for CineForm RAW in a nutshell. There appears to be no point in belaboring the issue.

I see I see.
Well let's hope that after BMD has successfully launched the camera, they will be able to update some things on the camera, including maybe the CineformRAW recording as an add-on:)

Alex Primehd
05-28-2012, 02:12 PM
it's becoming increasingly clear that forum members are divided into those who see a need for in-camera compressed raw and those who don't, and neither group will win over the other. I'll just go on record saying that CineForm RAW would be a worthwhile option in addition to (not instead of) CinemaDNG, one that if it can't be included free to all, might be offered as a low-cost add-on to those who want or need it. Transcoding to CineForm RAW would be of limited usefulness because, while it might reduce storage requirements, it would not increase recording times or decrease in-camera bandwidth burdens (thereby helping enable higher frame rates); furthermore, it would add an additional step to workflow.

That's the (or at least my) case for CineForm RAW in a nutshell. There appears to be no point in belaboring the issue.

+1 on all accounts. Except for one: having actually used it for a long time on commercial and art HD video projects, I will still take Cineform RAW *instead* of anything else.

laco
05-28-2012, 02:40 PM
+1 on all accounts. Except for one: having actually used it for a long time on commercial and art HD video projects, I will still take Cineform RAW *instead* of anything else.

Instead of CinemaDNG too? We don't even know about this format a thing. Also we hope more and more application will support it.

Samuel H
05-28-2012, 02:48 PM
May I recommend these 3TB drives: Barracuda ST3000DM001 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005T3GRLY/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=wadsite-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B005T3GRLY)

I'd steer away from seagate drives
maybe I had very bad luck, but I had 3 drives fail on me, out of 6 that I bought, in 2009-2010
I then swithed to Samsung, and with those I've had no problems at all (so far)

Alex Primehd
05-28-2012, 03:32 PM
Seagate brand is not a problem. Rather, *specific drive models* may or may not be problematic. It is the same throughout all the other manufacturers.

The drives I recommended are very good.

razz16mm
05-28-2012, 03:46 PM
Difference between enterprise grade drives certified for raids and normal drives is in the error correction routines. In a raid configuration some standard drives will show bad when they are not due to exceeding the error correction timeout of the array. They may be perfectly good for standalone use.

Tzedekh
05-28-2012, 03:53 PM
Seagate brand is not a problem. Rather, *specific drive models* may or may not be problematic. It is the same throughout all the other manufacturers.

The drives I recommended are very good.
Except on Amazon, the drive you recommended got more 1-star ratings than 4-star.

electricpig
05-28-2012, 04:26 PM
I've always had Barracudas for my SATA raids.
First 8 x 500GB that ran non-stop for 4 years, and now replaced by 8 x 1.5TB that are 3 years old.
Again, they have been running non-stop. No issues.

Fast, quiet and reliable.

Alex Primehd
05-28-2012, 04:32 PM
I can only speak for myself. Here's my experience: out of about 20x Barracuda ST3000DM001 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005T3GRLY/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=wadsite-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B005T3GRLY) drives I got to use throughout the last year, in different coonfigurations - standalone external USB enclosure, Raid 0, Raid 10, Raid 5, Raid 6 - here's the statistics:

- 100% of the drives that passed the initial SeaTools test, still work perfectly.

If the drive does not pass SeaTools test, send it back to Amazon - they cover return shipping. You can't lose.

I feel this is enough statistics to confidently recommend these particular drives. As always, your mileage will vary - nothing is perfect. (ahem... not even BMCC ;) )

John Brawley
05-28-2012, 06:26 PM
+1 on all accounts. Except for one: having actually used it for a long time on commercial and art HD video projects, I will still take Cineform RAW *instead* of anything else.

What other uncompressed RAW camera worksflows have you worked with ?

I'm being facecious of course, but really....

CF's advantages seem to be a slight improvement to drive space, and easier post workflows. You get the easier post workflow of CF if you want by transcoding in post. (how great to have an uncompressed source for your CF raw files !?)

I'd argue that ProRes and DNx achieve the same thing. The above graded example with the *wrong* WB baked in show just how far you can go with colour correcting in a good compressed format like ProRes if you have good source files.

I still don't see a case being made over CDNG's over CF. People are simply worried about the two step process of going through Resolve first. That's the main problem that is causing the *want* for CF.

I think once people start using Resolve they'll realise it's actually pretty easy, AND, i'm sure other platforms will very quickly come online with DNG support.

jb

Alex Primehd
05-28-2012, 06:37 PM
I'd argue that ProRes and DNx achieve the same thing. The above graded example with the *wrong* WB baked in show just how far you can go with colour correcting in a good compressed format like ProRes if you have good source files.

So you are arguing there's no real need for RAW at all, since even ProRes can be pushed far enough in post. Careful, John - many people on this forum seem very sensitive to any suggestions that may shake BM's resolve ;) to deliver an uncompressed workflow.

I'm being waggish of course....

Hehe sorry couldn't resist.

Andrew_HD
05-28-2012, 06:50 PM
Seagate brand is not a problem. Rather, *specific drive models* may or may not be problematic. It is the same throughout all the other manufacturers.

The drives I recommended are very good.

Yep.

24x 500GB Seagate RAID box running for last 5 years (24/7) and one HDD died.
12x 750GB Seagate RAID box (HP certified) running for last 3 years and 3 HDDs died.

Anyway- you really don't want to put WD greens over hardware raid controllers.

Brad Ferrell
05-28-2012, 07:13 PM
Thanks for all of the drive suggestions. This is why I'm doing my shopping ahead of time, to find out the right tools for this assignment. Haven't had the use for a RAID since 1995 and I think that RAID was two Seagate Barracudas too.

Tzedekh
05-28-2012, 07:42 PM
CF's advantages seem to be a slight improvement to drive space, and easier post workflows. You get the easier post workflow of CF if you want by transcoding in post. (how great to have an uncompressed source for your CF raw files !
I'd hardly call a 75% reduction slight. Again, transcoding adds a step to workflow and does nothing to increasing shooting times or reducing in-camera data rates (which could help enable higher frame rates).

laco
05-29-2012, 02:32 AM
I'd argue that ProRes and DNx achieve the same thing. The above graded example with the *wrong* WB baked in show just how far you can go with colour correcting in a good compressed format like ProRes if you have good source files.

John, and that grading example wasn't even prores, the source file was a 50Mbps mpeg file coming from the C300. Still I was able to correct WB with the help of Davinci.


I think once people start using Resolve they'll realise it's actually pretty easy, AND, i'm sure other platforms will very quickly come online with DNG support.

jb

I'm planning to do some tutorials of how can one create proxies in Davinci, because it can do so much more than a simple conversion.
It can apply a lut, and also can burn-in some information on the picture like clip name, reel name, timecode, etc.
Quite a useful tool for Alexa dailies...

Alex Primehd
05-29-2012, 05:34 PM
What does it mean to record RAW?

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/tags/raw-imagery/dv101-raw-deal-what-does-it-mean-record-raw-imagery/59526

Andrew_HD
05-29-2012, 06:05 PM
It's all down to camera processing power- if it would be possible to have way enough of it (so all needed processing steps are done at high quality) than RAW would be used maybe in 10% cases :)

Macalincag
05-29-2012, 08:20 PM
What does it mean to record RAW?

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/tags/raw-imagery/dv101-raw-deal-what-does-it-mean-record-raw-imagery/59526

I'm glad he says this: "Note that it’s raw, not RAW or Raw—it is not an acronym, it’s not someone’s name, it is not a proper noun; it doesn’t deserve a chariot or Secret Service agents, nor does it deserve an unnecessary capital letter, let alone three. Just raw."

Has been a big pet peeve of mine!

pharpsied
05-29-2012, 11:19 PM
I'm glad he says this: "Note that it’s raw, not RAW or Raw—it is not an acronym, it’s not someone’s name, it is not a proper noun; it doesn’t deserve a chariot or Secret Service agents, nor does it deserve an unnecessary capital letter, let alone three. Just raw."

Has been a big pet peeve of mine!

:rolleyes:

Samuel H
05-30-2012, 05:46 AM
Canon calls it RAW too. And Nikon. And Sony. And Samsung. And Panasonic. And Pentax...

Tzedekh
05-30-2012, 09:49 AM
Canon calls it RAW too. And Nikon. And Sony. And Samsung. And Panasonic. And Pentax...
Just as likely as not, the manufacturers are resorting to the all-caps rendering to make it stand out, seeing as how it's now all the rage. And they can style it any way they want in a trademark (e.g., CineForm RAW, ARRIRAW). But as a generic thing, I personally think it should be lowercase.

On a side note, the Creative Planet article said, "In its most simple definition, raw describes data that is recorded without any image processing or compression." That's not entirely true -- raw data may be, and in fact usually is, compressed, at least in motion-image cameras.

Samuel H
05-30-2012, 02:50 PM
it's compressed in stills too, for all manufacturers I've had experience with

razz16mm
05-30-2012, 04:11 PM
Stills compression is mostly mathematically lossless, there is no loss of data compared to uncompressed. DNG supports a 2.5:1 lossless compression mode in a JPEG wrapper too.

Barry Green
05-30-2012, 05:43 PM
raw, and compressed, are not associated with each other.

raw is raw sensor data, whether it's compressed or not. "compressed raw" is compressed (as in the case of cineform or redcode), "uncompressed raw" is ... well, it's uncompressed. As is the case with the BMC's implementation of CinemaDNG.

Whether your particular recording format chooses to compress it or not, it all starts out as an uncompressed raw reading of the sensor. Raw is, inherently, an unmodified dump of the data from the sensor. That's what the very definition of raw is. If it gets compressed, well, that's compressed raw.

As razz16mm points out, there are of course different methods of compression; typical video compression (such as used in ProRes, DNxHD, AVC-Intra, RedCode, or CineForm) is a "lossy" compression system, where after you compress and then uncompress the footage, it will not be exactly the same. Might be very close, might be visually indistinguishable, but mathematically they are not the same. In fact, video compression relies on this quirk of humans not being able to tell the difference between the original and the compressed frames, in order to get the huge data reduction rates that video compression accomplishes.

Whereas there are data compression methods (such as LZW, or Huffman) which will encode the data in such a way that it can be reconstructed absolutely perfectly. That's what we call "lossless" compression or, well, now we have to actually say "mathematically lossless" because the video compression guys have begun promoting the concept of "visually lossless". In the olden days it was easier, a compression was either "lossy" or "lossless", period.

If someone applied mathematically lossless compression to a raw file, then uncompressed it, the results would be a perfect pristine absolute recreation of the original raw image.

If someone applied lossy compression to a raw file (such as Cineform or RedCode), and then uncompressed it, the results will not be perfect pristine absolute recreations of the original raw image. But they'll be pretty close, and the data rate will be massively smaller.

Lossy compression can be extremely efficient and can shrink file sizes down tremendously (think of AVCHD, turning a 1500 megabit/sec data stream into 24 megabits, and doing a pretty decent job of it). Lossless compression can't do nearly so well; you'll be lucky to find the files compressed in half. Extremely efficient lossless encoding like LZW or Huffman can work great on something like a Word document, where there's a lot of redundancy, but on something like a video file I would expect it to perform much more mildly. As an example -- I just zipped up a raw file from my GH2; the source file was 16.4 megabytes, the zipped file was 15.8 megabytes, so a total compression savings of about 4%. I can't imagine that 2.5:1 ratio is going to apply to raw video files very often, I think you're more likely to see a compression ratio of maybe 1.2:1, certainly nowhere near 2.5:1.

I googled around to find more info on LJPEG (which is the lossless jpeg format supported by CinemaDNG); it seems to be pretty unpopular, for whatever reason. It came about in 1995 and didn't gain much traction. Even the hardware encoder chip (http://www.cast-inc.com/company/archives/news/2005/013105_ljpeg-cores_news.html)I could find that used it, claims a compression ratio of 1.4:1 (or, to be exact, they say "The Encoder delivers compression ratios on the order of 1.4:1"). Obviously they can't predict an exact compression ratio of 1.4:1, because it all depends on the data. Some images are just going to compress better than others, and when you have lossless compression, you don't have the leeway to adjust the picture to fit the bandwidth, you are forced to adjust the bandwidth to fit the picture.

So, anyway, if it delivers a 20% compression ratio (like I'm expecting) then I see why BlackMagic didn't even bother to implement it. If it delivers 40% savings, well, that's getting rather substantial and it would be nice to see it, although that would mean more hardware in the camera and probably a higher price because of it.

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 05:55 PM
In real world/footage 2:1 lossless compression can be achieved for probably about 80% of the footage. You can quite safely say between 3:1 and 1.5:1 can be achieved for 99% of cases, which is good enough.
With current data rates/disk speed etc 2:1 even when sounds not much makes a BIG difference. Next step is go to lossy 3:1 compression which again- is aboslutelly good enough quality for 99% cases and this makes even BIGGER difference.
Than when we start talking about 4K this makes MASSIVE difference and that's why PEOPLE want it!

Sony also uses about 3:1 compression for their F65 camera RAW format.

For example- I can't play uncompressed 60i HD 4:2:2 footage from single HDD or over gigabit, but I can do it with no problem using lossless codec- small thing, but makes whole workflow like day and night (also in terms of costs) :)

razz16mm
05-30-2012, 06:00 PM
At least with current gen high volume high speed drives, 2k+ raw isn't too cumbersome to deal with if you want the data. Be interesting to compare the data volume for 4k Aaton Penelope.

Barry Green
05-30-2012, 06:09 PM
In real world/footage 2:1 lossless compression can be achieved for probably about 80% of the footage.
Using what compression?

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 06:14 PM
Any good lossless one.

Barry Green
05-30-2012, 06:19 PM
Any good lossless one.

Well, that's the point -- which are you referring to, especially those that handle raw data? YUV or YCbCr is a whole different beast, we're talking about raw here...

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 06:32 PM
Randomness of RAW footage may be more difficult to compress, but I think you can get close to 2:1.

I use lossless codec for 4:2:2 footage every day and never seen it going <1.5:1- in most cases it's between 2:1 and 3:1 and this is noisy/interlaced footage from broadcast cameras, so not easy one neither. It's not the same as RAW, but I can't see it making such a big difference. Maybe..?

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 06:39 PM
Well, that's the point -- which are you referring to, especially those that handle raw data? YUV or YCbCr is a whole different beast, we're talking about raw here...

What is so special in RAW- randomness?

nickjbedford
05-30-2012, 06:50 PM
Even inter-frame compression on a raw sequence would be difficult to compress losslessly due to the randomness of noise. Video inter-frame compression relies on being able to sacrifice detail to then create inter-frame dependent changes to a key frame.

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 07:02 PM
Hmmm- but there is also some sort of fixed pattern in the raw footage, so this is a good thing. Interesting problem, but if this is the case than forget about 100% lossless.
There is so much processing after RAW that if you compress RAW a bit than final footage will be 99% the same as it would be from uncompressed RAW.
If you can simplify everything a lot just for a tiny difference than I prefer this than dealing with uncompressed RAW.
Well- this is exactly what Sony, RED do :)

Maybe David can give some light about RAW compressibility?

nickjbedford
05-30-2012, 07:06 PM
Hmmm- but there is also some sort of fixed pattern in the raw footage, so this is a good thing. Interesting problem, but if this is the case than forget about 100% lossless.
There is so much processing after RAW that if you compress RAW a bit than final footage will be 99% the same as it would be from uncompressed RAW.
If you can simplify everything a lot just for a tiny difference than I prefer this than dealing with uncompressed RAW.
Well- this is exactly what Sony, RED do :)

Maybe David can give some light about RAW compressibility?

12-bit ProRes 422 would be nice, but alas, it doesn't exist (only in 444).

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 07:14 PM
Simple test- WinRAR does about 1.5x compression on a random DNG frame form Ikonoskop camera. Street view frame with some people.

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 07:41 PM
Stills compression is mostly mathematically lossless, there is no loss of data compared to uncompressed. DNG supports a 2.5:1 lossless compression mode in a JPEG wrapper too.

Where is this coming from?

something interesting:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/lightrooms-new-lossy-dng-compression.html

Tzedekh
05-30-2012, 07:47 PM
Where is this coming from?
Where is what coming from? Adobe has info on their site.

Andrew_HD
05-30-2012, 07:56 PM
2.5:1 - ok, Adobe site:)

Found some more post from people using Light Room and DNG format saying that 30% to 50% reduction in size is typical. Not sure about this 2.5, but looks like 1.5:1 is possible.

Barry Green
05-31-2012, 12:22 AM
Not sure about this 2.5, but looks like 1.5:1 is possible.
That seems more likely; I wouldn't think lossless compression would normally be producing 2.5:1 ratios, that sounds more like a maximum. 1.5:1 as an average seems more likely.

Surprised you got a 1.8:1 on an ikonoskop raw file; like I said, I zipped a gh2 raw and it only gave me a ~4% savings.

In the end it's much ado about nothing, because the BMC doesn't offer compression at all. If someone really needed compression they could use Lightroom to convert the DNG files to compressed DNG, I guess.

laco
05-31-2012, 02:22 AM
12-bit ProRes 422 would be nice, but alas, it doesn't exist (only in 444).

I'll be really interested when we will compare the same shot recorded with uncompressedRAW, and Prores422HQ with the same camera
After this test a lot of us will shoot Prores:)

nickjbedford
05-31-2012, 04:32 AM
I'll be really interested when we will compare the same shot recorded with uncompressedRAW, and Prores422HQ with the same camera
After this test a lot of us will shoot Prores:)

I think if shot well and graded well, I think the difference between the final images would be very small, but I'm curious to see just what that difference will be.

razz16mm
05-31-2012, 06:44 AM
I'll be really interested when we will compare the same shot recorded with uncompressedRAW, and Prores422HQ with the same camera
After this test a lot of us will shoot Prores:)

I would say it depends on what you want to do with the footage. For normally exposed footage where the goal is simply to match the color balance of the live scene and contrast ratios are controlled within the limits of the codec video is fine. For more extreme grades or for highlight/shadow recovery in high contrast scenes raw will have some definite advantages. It has a much broader value and color gamut than any video codec can record. It would also be preferable for finishing to other than broadcast video formats.

Samuel H
05-31-2012, 06:51 AM
I've been writing a cinemaDNG encoder for the past few weeks. It uses lossless Huffman compression. Here's what I have found:
* what makes RAW data so special? a color space that's linear and 12 bits deep (or even 14 bits, or 16 bits). The Huffman table gets huge (because of the bit depth) and the distribution of pixel-value prediction errors is much less concentrated than on final video images (because of the linear color space, errors in bright areas will be a lot bigger than errors in dark areas), so Huffman coding can't do too much.
* 1.5:1 can be achieved with some work, but 2:1 is a stretch, and 2.5:1... well, I just haven't seen it
* if you want to check possible lossless compression ratios in real world tests, you've got tons of them on your hard drive, if you have a DSLR and have shot RAW stills. Every camera manufacturer I've looked into uses lossless compressed RAW. I have a 18mpix Canon with 14-bit deep color space, and the files are usually between 21MB and 28MB, while they would be 32MB without compression (18*14/8). That's between 1.1:1 and 1.5:1.
* when cinemaDNG talks about 2:1 or 2.5:1 compression ratios, I think that includes two things: first, a remapping table that moves you from the original color space to something more efficient, like a 10-bit log color space; and then Huffman coding; I have nothing against that, it's a very efficient way of storing your data, and 10-bit log RAW is, to me, just as good as 14-bit linear RAW, and probably better than 12-bit linear RAW; but it's not as "lossless" as you'd think

Andrew_HD
05-31-2012, 07:55 AM
Yes- on Adobe forum they talk about special way of storing data (bits shift) so it's save space.

Lest stay with 1.5x as i's something possible to do :)
I just wonder how much loss you would see on debayered footage if you do lossy 3:1 compression on RAW. I doubt you can tell difference until you do few x zoom. RED people are happy with 5:1, so it means footage looks ok.
RAW is already saving loads of space, by not being full RGB data, so this is good, but does not compresses well due to it's nature. With 2.5K BM is able to get away without any compression, but it won't be that easy on 4K footage :)

Tzedekh
05-31-2012, 08:12 AM
* when cinemaDNG talks about 2:1 or 2.5:1 compression ratios, I think that includes two things: first, a remapping table that moves you from the original color space to something more efficient, like a 10-bit log color space; and then Huffman coding; I have nothing against that, it's a very efficient way of storing your data, and 10-bit log RAW is, to me, just as good as 14-bit linear RAW, and probably better than 12-bit linear RAW; but it's not as "lossless" as you'd think
I believe that CineForm RAW can also store data as either 12-bit linear or 10-bit log.

razz16mm
05-31-2012, 10:51 AM
When the DNG compression schemes are used, the file becomes a JPEG and is no longer raw. Dan Hudgins commented in his current work on debayer processing for the Kineraw cameras that he had to go to 16 bit RGB encoding to recover the full color gamut of 12 bit DNG raw. All log curves are a form of compression to fit a wide linear dynamic range into a narrower DR format. Sensors and ADC are linear devices. Human visual response is logarithmic. Log curves raise or lower linear values and reduce contrast between values at the the extreme low and high end of the range, but preserve critical midrange contrast values. If you think of the full raw DR of the sensor as occupying the full contrast range of a 10 stop Adams zone chart, HD video would cover the linear range of zones 2-8.

laco
05-31-2012, 11:00 AM
I just wonder how much loss you would see on debayered footage if you do lossy 3:1 compression on RAW. I doubt you can tell difference until you do few x zoom. RED people are happy with 5:1, so it means footage looks ok.

Still, If RED could record uncompressed 4K, they would do it. I saw a compression test of the Epic, at 100% you can tell the difference between 3:1, and 5:1 too.
Maybe it's harder to tell in motion.

Anyway... one of my favorite company, Dalsa has been creating a camera for Aaton, called the Penelope Delta: http://www.aaton.com/products/film/delta/
If they're using CinemaDNG RAW at 4K, I'm happy to have the same format in the BMC.

Actually I'm much more than happy... "True uncompressed RAW" is something that will get us all paid IMO:)
We can argue if we can see it or not, or how much grading will bring out the difference between formats, but if it rents out my camera, I'm happy.

razz16mm
05-31-2012, 11:35 AM
Besides raw the BMC is to my knowledge the only camera under $5k recording to high quality intra frame video codecs too. Triple threat with Prores and DNXHD. Lot to like for the bucks.

laco
05-31-2012, 11:51 AM
Besides raw the BMC is to my knowledge the only camera under $5k recording to high quality intra frame video codecs too. Triple threat with Prores and DNXHD. Lot to like for the bucks.
exactly...

It's funny to think about what would be here on the forum, if the camera would be already released? Nobody would come to write here, just non-stop shooting everywhere:)
Anyway, I think there could be a lot of worries right now, but when we put the camera to work/test, hopefully we will be satisfied.

Well.. I was going to buy a 5Dmk3...so I will be satisfied with the BMC, I'm sure:)

Barry Green
05-31-2012, 12:46 PM
Besides raw the BMC is to my knowledge the only camera under $5k recording to high quality intra frame video codecs too.
The HPX250 streets at $5k and has a very high quality intraframe video codec as well.

The BMC becomes the only other camera under $5k to record 10-bit at all, and it's under $3k, so it really is quite a standout in that aspect.

Andrew_HD
05-31-2012, 12:57 PM
Still, If RED could record uncompressed 4K, they would do it. I saw a compression test of the Epic, at 100% you can tell the difference between 3:1, and 5:1 too.
Maybe it's harder to tell in motion.

Anyway... one of my favorite company, Dalsa has been creating a camera for Aaton, called the Penelope Delta: http://www.aaton.com/products/film/delta/
If they're using CinemaDNG RAW at 4K, I'm happy to have the same format in the BMC.

Actually I'm much more than happy... "True uncompressed RAW" is something that will get us all paid IMO:)
We can argue if we can see it or not, or how much grading will bring out the difference between formats, but if it rents out my camera, I'm happy.

5:1 is bit to much- I see it on ProRes, DNxHD. It's good for broadcast but not for high-end projects. 3:1 is at the level that it can be used instead of uncompressed for any project.
BM does uncompressed RAW, so there is not much to say about this:)

Andrew_HD
05-31-2012, 12:59 PM
exactly...

It's funny to think about what would be here on the forum, if the camera would be already released? Nobody would come to write here, just non-stop shooting everywhere:)
Anyway, I think there could be a lot of worries right now, but when we put the camera to work/test, hopefully we will be satisfied.

Well.. I was going to buy a 5Dmk3...so I will be satisfied with the BMC, I'm sure:)

We can make a bit pointless debates once BM is tuning camera :)

laco
05-31-2012, 01:19 PM
5:1 is bit to much- I see it on ProRes, DNxHD. It's good for broadcast but not for high-end projects. 3:1 is at the level that it can be used instead of uncompressed for any project.
BM does uncompressed RAW, so there is not much to say about this:)

Well... yes. In this price range we've faced with h264, AVHCD and similar compressions. Now we can choose Prores422 or uncompressedRAW...Amazing.

Anway, RED ONE ratios were 12:1, 9:1, or 8:1, so I'm sure some RED fans will argue that this option is "not for high-end projects" given the movies that shot with R1:)

Paul Stephen Edwards
05-31-2012, 01:21 PM
Well... yes. In this price range we've faced with h264, AVHCD and similar compressions. Now we can choose Prores422 or uncompressedRAW...Amazing.


The choices that we have now are pretty awesome... Agreed 1,000 X.

Alex Primehd
05-31-2012, 01:22 PM
Well, flesh-eating zombies are everywhere, and BMCC is coming out with the uncompressed raw implementation on the camera that pretends to be bigger than it is (sensor-wise...)

What other proof do we need that the world is coming to an end, indeed!??

Prevent the end of the world - use compressed raw where appropriate, and redeem yourself while you can! ;)

laco
05-31-2012, 01:22 PM
The HPX250 streets at $5k and has a very high quality intraframe video codec as well.

The BMC becomes the only other camera under $5k to record 10-bit at all, and it's under $3k, so it really is quite a standout in that aspect.

And what about 12bit uncompressed RAW onboard? Which camera in which price range does this?:)
what a wonderful time we live in. I just love 2012...CS6, Davinci Resolve 9, BMC

Paul Stephen Edwards
05-31-2012, 01:57 PM
Well, flesh-eating zombies are everywhere, and BMCC is coming out with the uncompressed raw implementation on the camera that pretends to be bigger than it is (sensor-wise...)

What other proof do we need that the world is coming to an end, indeed!??


That is going to be the best damn looking zombie documentary, ever.

Tzedekh
05-31-2012, 02:47 PM
And what about 12bit uncompressed RAW onboard? Which camera in which price range does this?
Digital Bolex, at $3,300, does it as much as the BMC, at least at this point.

laco
05-31-2012, 02:59 PM
Digital Bolex, at $3,300, is as much a reality as the BMC, at least at this point.

I mean 12bit RAw over prores, and DNxHD:)

razz16mm
05-31-2012, 03:20 PM
Digital Bolex is 12bit raw DNG, TIFF or JPEG only, no video codecs. They are upgrading some aspects, like HDMI monitor out and improved audio boards, so price might go up a bit, but still in the same ball park.

Andrew_HD
05-31-2012, 05:43 PM
Anway, RED ONE ratios were 12:1, 9:1, or 8:1, so I'm sure some RED fans will argue that this option is "not for high-end projects" given the movies that shot with R1:)

If you don't have what you like, you like what you have :)

5:1 or more will look fine as long as you don't have uncompressed to compare it to :)

mhood
05-31-2012, 05:48 PM
If you don't have what you like, you like what you have :)

+1

John Brawley
05-31-2012, 05:49 PM
Anyway... one of my favorite company, Dalsa has been creating a camera for Aaton, called the Penelope Delta: http://www.aaton.com/products/film/delta/
If they're using CinemaDNG RAW at 4K, I'm happy to have the same format in the BMC.


Dalsa make sensors.

Aaton make cameras.

They've already made Penelope and originally it was intended as a 35mm / Digital switchable camera. You would buy a digital mag (with a sensor) or just use film mags. They sold about 30 of them before they now switched to developing a 100 % digital camera, Aaton's first.

They're using a 6K Dalsa sensor.

jb

nickjbedford
05-31-2012, 06:04 PM
Dalsa make sensors.

Aaton make cameras.
jb

That thing is a beast.

John Brawley
05-31-2012, 06:51 PM
That thing is a beast.

I've always loved the Aaton cameras for their beautiful and clever design and ergonomics...

149
150
151
152

Penelope is about the size of an Alexa. The second photo above is an Aaton 35-3. it's smaller than that.

jb

Paul Stephen Edwards
05-31-2012, 06:52 PM
That thing is a beast.

I know! I gasped aloud when I saw that picture.

laco
06-01-2012, 01:33 AM
Dalsa make sensors.

Aaton make cameras.

They've already made Penelope and originally it was intended as a 35mm / Digital switchable camera. You would buy a digital mag (with a sensor) or just use film mags. They sold about 30 of them before they now switched to developing a 100 % digital camera, Aaton's first.

They're using a 6K Dalsa sensor.

jb

Ah I see, Dalsa "only" created the sensor for the Penelope.
I just remembered that I read that on Quantum of Solace they used eight Dalsa Origin cameras (I think that's a purely Dalsa camera no other company involved). That was the first time I saw "uncompressed 16bit 4K" written.
But I also saw that Dalsa sold it's camera division to Arri in 2008.

John, do you know what is this "multi-slot shutter", they say it can change the sensitivity between ISO100, and ISO800. But found no information about how this works. Thanks

Andrew
06-01-2012, 03:32 AM
what is this "multi-slot shutter", they say it can change the sensitivity between ISO100, and ISO800. But found no information about how this works. Thanks

http://cinescopophilia.com/aaton-delta-penelope-14-stop-dr-multi-slot-shutter-at-100-iso/

That's a very interesting innovation that allows them to keep a normal shutter angle but let in less light. Simple but clever. Of course it's a physical shutter which most digital cinema cameras don't have.

John Brawley
06-01-2012, 10:57 AM
Ah I see, Dalsa "only" created the sensor for the Penelope.
I just remembered that I read that on Quantum of Solace they used eight Dalsa Origin cameras (I think that's a purely Dalsa camera no other company involved). That was the first time I saw "uncompressed 16bit 4K" written.
But I also saw that Dalsa sold it's camera division to Arri in 2008.


Dalsa was a camera division that were a bit ahead of their time. They started a rental only business, like Panavision and were trying to get up and running without much success. They made awesome cameras by all accounts, just wayyy too big and overpriced, and i think back then, uncompressed 4K was overwhelming to even high end post setups. Um and they were only in LA and there were only a few dozen cameras ever made.

Illiya of Hod Rod cameras used to be the Dalsa cinema guy, before he left to set that up when they folded.

jb