Jump to content

cpc

Members
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cpc

  1. 1 hour ago, squig said:

    Oh and After Effects is the way to go for max quality debayering, but Resolve isn't bad (hearing that it may be better in 14, but haven't tested it yet). If you go with AE use CS6 or CC 2014 for multiproccessor rendering. AE renders are way slower than Resolve. You can use the same Resolve workflow as you would with the Blackmagics provided you use MLVFS.

    I've been using Resolve exclusively for debayering since 2013. You can surely notice differences side-by-side and Adobe Camera Raw is stills oriented (so doesn't care much about processing speed and uses more sophisticated demosaicing), but Resolve is good enough and way faster (real time!). AE was never even a contender for me (and I use Lightroom for stills all the time). The convenience and smoothness of real time raw editing and coloring is huge for me. I often abuse the raw processing controls for grading purposes and I switch from editing to grading and back all the time as I edit, something one can't do (easily) with a proxy workflow or when baking to a log space in advance. This has been Resolve's greatest appeal.

  2. 6 minutes ago, squig said:

    Well I've got an ultra-wide lens so I can still get a 20mm equivalent FOV so that's not an issue. Loss of sensitivity? I don't see any. Noise wise for an equal FOV and DOF to full frame you're shooting at f/2.8 100 ISO instead of f/5.6 400 ISO, so I don't see how it could be noisier. You are zoomed in on the noise though, but to my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. It's definitely worth it for the extra detail, it's now has the resolution of an Alexa!

    The idea is that a 3x3 binned image draws from 3*3*1920*1080 photosites (if it is true binning), whereas a 2.7k image (say, 2700*1520, can't remember the exact resolution) would be based on ~4.25 times less photosites, which should affect SNR significantly. But yes, if you are consistently going to shoot 2 stops lower ISO sensitivity, it should be fine.

  3. 10 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

    What I'm seeing is stuff at the pixel level really affects compression. So ISO noise is one, as we already know. The bitrate goes absolutely through the roof when I film the moire pattern on my computer screen. I mean, it even kills crop mode 1920x1080!

    Yeah, there is literally no correlation between nearby pixels to be exploited by the compression algorithm once dominant random values like noise and moire appear.

     

    10 hours ago, squig said:

    I tried my Lexar 1066x card, it's a little faster than the Toshiba. 3K 2.39:1 is repeatable at 100 ISO. I had to go back to 2.7-2.8K at 1600 ISO. That works for me, I'll shoot 3K 100 ISO for wide outdoor establishing shots, 2.7K for everything else, and render to 2K scope.

    So is the resolution gain from 1080p to 2.7K actually worth the (probable) loss of sensitivity and wide angle abilities? I'd figure binned full frame 1080p is still the best bang for buck? Maybe a direct comparison of noise levels will shed light on this.

  4. 4 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

    OK, I'm pretty sure that the variable compression is due to ISO. In crop_rec 3K (3072 x 1286 ) I can get continuous recording at ISO 100, but if I whack the ISO up to 6400 I get eleven seconds. Can you check if it's the same for you?

    It depends on detail and range. ISO is only one of the factors which increase detail (more noise). If you shoot a highly detailed wide shot you will get significantly lower compression levels than in the case of, say, a close-up with lots of defocus in the frame. Also, darker shots will compress better (less range).

  5. If you are going to scan only, you should probably be shooting negative anyway. Ektar and Portra are excellent for stills, and you have the Vision 3 series for motion pictures. Ektar in particular delivers chrome-like saturation at very fine graininess. Scanning chromes is trickier in a sense, and requires more from the scanner. Still, pretty cool to have Ektachrome back so soon after its demise, it makes beautiful punchy pictures.

  6. 3 minutes ago, Dan Wake said:

    thx and 12 bit?

    Add a stop for each additional bit.

    Also, Canon raw has a high black level, as well as some (tinted) headroom above the nominal white level. Truncated Canon 12-bit linear would actually be around 11.5 bits.

  7. On 11/3/2016 at 6:38 AM, Ed_David said:

    I can't edit anything with resolve.  I mean, it's free. But it is slow and sluggish.  man I'm loving premiere.

    I find Resolve excellent for online editing of raw footage (CinemaDNG). Infinitely smoother than Premiere.

  8. 16 minutes ago, cantsin said:

    Resolve will never be as fast as NLEs like Premiere and FCPX since it prioritizes display quality over playback performance. As a color grading program, it has to do so. In this respect, it is quite comparable to After Effects (which has been designed with the same quality-over-speed priority).

    Resolve is way faster than Premiere in pretty much everything except decoding/encoding of some formats (h.264 for example). It is entirely GPU accelerated on the processing side and you can go real-time on fairly modest systems.

  9. 25 minutes ago, jgharding said:

    I'd love to use it, but the whole system of defining mediia pools and project directories and so on is very irritating coming from Premiere, where I just manage all my media and folders myself and drag and drop.

    They could do with making it more friendly like that in V13

    Drag and drop into the media pool works fine in Resolve?

  10. 7 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

    Yeah the 5D III RAW is something else, I really love the look of the damned thing. Only the workflow and file sizes of the RAW files are such a headache. I know I wont shoot any b-roll because It eats too much damned disk space. Where the canon cinema line really puts down small files that look almost as good as the 5D III RAW files. So that is something to consider. 

    5dm3 raw storage is in the ballpark of ProRes. Now the size of an Alexa 65 raw frame... this is something else. :grin:

  11. 1 minute ago, Nikkor said:

    Does this mean, the camera does not debayer, but instead of linear data per pixel with 14bits, it's converted to 10bits in a log space. So in the end it acts like standard raw, with compressed higher values like you said?

    Exactly.

    Even after whites compression there is still plenty of tonal info in there (more values per stop than in Cineon film scans, for example).

  12. 12 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

    Awesome. 

    I think DJI could really improve this product if they added ProRes recording. Surely they have the ability to do this? 

    If you are on Mac you can export ProRes from their ssd offload app (called cinelight). Probably a better idea to do this yourself in Resolve though.

    29 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

     The 1080p RAW looks great.

    One thing to keep in mind is x5r 1080p raw drops to 10-bit linear raw at high fps (definitely for 60fps, not sure about 48fps). It's a noticeable drop of quality compared to the 12-bit 1080p raw at lower fps.

×
×
  • Create New...