Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:04 pm
I loaded all 12 clips on the same timeline so that is really mixing apples and oranges and bananas since my project can only use one Colour science. Resolve doesn’t have Gen 4 for footage from the URSA Mini Pro so I used the Pocket4K for my Input. So colour may be off. I ignored the actual colors for the moment and looked at the level of detail. Of course the much higher bitrates produce better quality than their lowest bitrates within the family. But the differences are remarkably slight on many shots as I found more than two years ago testing all the ProRes members of the family.
Now to the juicy stuff, and I mean the rarest of beef under the broiler versus the well done roast. And how to evaluate that? Everything in the frame at a glance seems to be cooked to a pleasant medium. Except if you ordered the synthetic cut of the grey top.
The CinemaDNG cuts are a riot of grey colour moiré that will draw your attention, but not in a good way. It looks great if you’re shooting to grab the attention of a preschooler. Now CDNG is a wonderful choice in all other regards (if you accept the workflow).
The ProRes cuts cook in a way that has been suggested by others before as the in-camera encoding of the same images almost gives you that perfectly even-coloured bland grey well done beef look that anyone shooting fashion and weddings craves to taste. We knew that before but rarely have we seen a controlled comparison between CinemaDNG and ProRes.
Personally, given I don’t yet have the option of shooting BRAW, although overall colour looks better in CDNG, when it comes to the wedding, I think I’m playing it safer by shooting ProRes 444.
And now what really matters to us. BRAW constant quality versus Q constant quality together in the same paella.
Colour in each of the BRAW dishes, whether constant quantity or quality, is virtually a perfect match. So the compression is all about details (and noise). Moiré is less prevalent in BRAW than CDNG. 3:1 is great but in motion 12:1 fares very well and as Note mentioned, if there’s a difference it may not be as important as saving storage.
3:1 versus 12:1, will depend on that balance of storage and it’s a little like asking which falls faster, a feather or a stone? If you’re shooting feathers 3:1 is your choice, but stones often weigh more and even 12:1 will be a very good choice when you’re not shooting feathers.
Q0 versus Q5: the hair has more detail in Q0. That’s likely best wherever detail is paramount. But Q5 does a very good job.
3:1 versus Q0: in my opinion Q0 visibly will reveal the greater detail in a complex scene, a knockout.
12:1 versus Q5 your decision which should depend on scene complexity and your key subject whether it be one or the other; in both cases, saving storage is a given.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by
rick.lang on Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Lang