to confirm the top recommended SSDs are for 30 fps raw only?

As it is said in the description of recommended ssds, they are only for 30 fps RAW rec, correct?

So to use 60 fps RAW 1:1 I'd still need 2 CFast cards correct?
In this case, I'm investing in a couple of them instead of buying a new ssd and a mimi recorder and a basket.

.."4.6K Lossless RAW up to 30p"... yeah, lossless @ 30p that 513MB/s. Those SSDs aren't faster..

4.6K 4:1 raw @ 30p is only 135MB/s
4.6K 3:1 raw @ 30p is only 180MB/s..

So you should be able to go 60p in those two compressed raw formats if I'm not mistaken.

Also, you could shoot to both SSD and CFast and splitting up the frames.. Like with 2x CFast.. unless BMD has made this impossible. Either check manuel or we need BMD to confirm this.

I don't quite understand why they didn't make it with dual SSD's.. It's 12G-SDI out. That can handle 12Gbit/s.. Thats about 1500MB/s.. easily more than enough for 4.6K raw lossless @ 60p on 2x SSD's.. but they would need a way for it to split the data. And it would make the product much more complicated.

I don't quite understand why they didn't make it with dual SSD's.. It's 12G-SDI out. That can handle 12Gbit/s.. Thats about 1500MB/s.. easily more than enough for 4.6K raw lossless @ 60p on 2x SSD's.. but they would need a way for it to split the data. And it would make the product much more complicated.

I guess because of space constraints. 2.5" SSDs are quite big compared to a camera body.

I don't quite understand why they didn't make it with dual SSD's.. It's 12G-SDI out. That can handle 12Gbit/s.. Thats about 1500MB/s.. easily more than enough for 4.6K raw lossless @ 60p on 2x SSD's.. but they would need a way for it to split the data. And it would make the product much more complicated.

I guess because of space constraints. 2.5" SSDs are quite big compared to a camera body.

Nahh. It's gotta be because of something else more complicated. 2x SSD's doesn't have to take up that much space. Look at how close they sit in the Atoch.

Also. RexTech did one with 2x SSD's.. They just never got off the ground because they didn't marked it enough.





Try Google RexTech Ursa https://www.google.dk/search?client=firefox-b-ab&dcr=0&biw=1680&bih=947&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=rextech+ursa&oq=rextech+ursa&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4803.5577.0.5728.5.5.0.0.0.0.109.403.4j1.5.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.UXNgVg9U-aQ#imgrc=_

Check Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011327284087 There are more images of the final unit.

Dennis, that figure of 513MB/s is likely incorrect if the uncompressed raw is actually mathematically compressed (like a zip file) which is the way the URSA Mini 4.6K camera’s writes data to the CFast 2 cards. It’s something BMD hasn’t corrected in the manual. The actual data rate for the mathematically compressed raw varies with your scene, but it’s somewhere between a 1.25x to 1.5x compression. When the data is unzipped in your computer, there is nothing lost and is the equivalent of 513MB/s which is why it’s still referred to as uncompressed.

The numbers for raw 3:1 and 4:1 are correct as they are true lossy compressions but are quite good. Those codecs are described as “visually lossless” (although if you pixel-peep there are situations where you may notice some Image degradation). Most of the time raw is shot 3:1 and is widely acceptable. Hair commercials and work subject to VFX should stick with uncompressed raw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dennis, that figure of 513MB/s is likely incorrect if the uncompressed raw is actually mathematically compressed (like a zip file) which is the way the URSA Mini 4.6K camera’s writes data to the CFast 2 cards. It’s something BMD hasn’t corrected in the manual. The actual data rate for the mathematically compressed raw varies with your scene, but it’s somewhere between a 1.25x to 1.5x compression. When the data is unzipped in your computer, there is nothing lost and is the equivalent of 513MB/s which is why it’s still referred to as uncompressed.

The numbers for raw 3:1 and 4:1 are correct as they are true lossy compressions but are quite good. Those codecs are described as “visually lossless” (although if you pixel-peep there are situations where you may notice some Image degradation). Most of the time raw is shot 3:1 and is widely acceptable. Hair commercials and work subject to VFX should stick with uncompressed raw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well yeah, it is compressed.. But isn't it still writting to the card in full file size and compressing it on the media?.. or is it compressed before it is piped down to the media?

But thanks for the clarification. Tought those numbers were the right ones.

Compressing before writing the media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk