Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Chad Capeland

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:40 pm

Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 2:47 am

I am sure I'm not the first to ask, but I didn't see a sticky and you can't search for "3:1" as a keyword here.

Is there sample comparisons between the different DNG codecs? Ideally on the 4.6K. I'm renting a UMP and need to estimate how many CFAST cards I need or determine whether I should just buy the SSD recorder.
Chad Capeland
Indicated, LLC
www.floweffects.com
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 8942
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 5:18 am

Chad, I’ll get back to you tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Akpe Ododoru

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:44 am
  • Location: London

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 1:11 pm

I have shot a few times on the BM 4.6k using 3:1 and there isn't any difference to me between RAW or 3:1 or 4:1 but i select 3:1 just to be on the safe side just in case
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSun Apr 15, 2018 1:39 am

Not a 4.6K but very nice test:
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4315
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSun Apr 15, 2018 11:20 am

Scrap my old info- I made mistake and my test were done for something like 5:1, not 3:1.

Code: Select all
Based on this test looks like DNG is not very efficent (neither very fast to decode). 3:1 should still be good enough.
Last edited by Andrew Kolakowski on Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

thomas bruegger

  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:43 pm
  • Location: switzerland

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSun Apr 15, 2018 12:28 pm

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69405

worth checking. if you have lots of detail only uncompressed-raw will give you clean results. plus slimraw 3:1 compression is better than Ursa in-Camera 3:1 Compression. Based on my tests. So if you need to have complete artefact-free recordings you need to record Lossless.
Thomas Bruegger / garage5 GmbH
www.garage5.ch
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4315
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSun Apr 15, 2018 1:22 pm

Scrap my old info- I made mistake and my test were done for something like 5:1, not 3:1.
At 3:1 cDNG is very decent, like it should be.

3:1 compression is close to lossless, so DNG has to be actually quite bad not delivering stellar results.
ProRes at 3:1 is practically lossless.
Here is a real life test.
Take uncompressed/lossless DNG and make 3 versions from it:
1- uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2
2- ProResHQ
3- 3:1 compressed DNG and then debayer to 10bit uncompressed v210
Make sure in all 3 cases you used same software, so debayering algorithm is the same.
Now check PSNR for 2 and 3 against 1. This will show you how good is 3:1 against ProResHQ (as final end video) from the compression point (of course having RAW assets has its own advantages, but we ignore this here).
Last edited by Andrew Kolakowski on Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 8942
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSun Apr 15, 2018 5:02 pm

rick.lang wrote:Chad, I’ll get back to you tomorrow.


Sorry, Chad. Looks like I didn’t keep the comparison on Vimeo. Echoing an earlier comment, I remember seeing differences among all flavours of raw in the identical scene shooting a very complex subject. For most scenes, likely 3:1 will be completely acceptable.

I’ve shot 4:1 when I needed the longer recording times and it’s good, but I generally avoid it if I have the option to shoot 3:1. Of course if you need the very best results, go with raw, however I believe John Brawley has said he shoots raw 3:1 usually when he isn’t shooting ProRes 444.

To estimate space requirements, compressed raw for me is 1.3x due to complexity of the frame; raw 3:1 is about half the compressed raw (or a third uncompressed) and 4:1 is a third the compressed raw or a quarter uncompressed raw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Chad Capeland

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:40 pm

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostMon Apr 16, 2018 5:24 pm

Ok, another related question... Can the USB-C port be used to mount the CFast cards on a computer? Or do I also need to rent a CFast reader?
Chad Capeland
Indicated, LLC
www.floweffects.com
Offline

Chad Capeland

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:40 pm

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostMon Apr 16, 2018 5:27 pm

rick.lang wrote:
rick.lang wrote:Chad, I’ll get back to you tomorrow.


Sorry, Chad. Looks like I didn’t keep the comparison on Vimeo. Echoing an earlier comment, I remember seeing differences among all flavours of raw in the identical scene shooting a very complex subject. For most scenes, likely 3:1 will be completely acceptable.


OK, I'll do a test shoot once the camera arrives and if there's an issue I'll overnight some more cards.
Chad Capeland
Indicated, LLC
www.floweffects.com
Online
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 396
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostWed Apr 18, 2018 7:03 pm

Chad Capeland wrote:Ok, another related question... Can the USB-C port be used to mount the CFast cards on a computer? Or do I also need to rent a CFast reader?

never you can... with all bmd cameras actual on market you need a reader to read externally your shooting support.
Rent a good and fast Cfast reader, check it be cause there are a lots of slow reader also with usb 3, usb c cable.
Offline

Chad Capeland

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:40 pm

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostSun Apr 22, 2018 7:55 pm

carlomacchiavello wrote:
Chad Capeland wrote:Ok, another related question... Can the USB-C port be used to mount the CFast cards on a computer? Or do I also need to rent a CFast reader?

never you can... with all bmd cameras actual on market you need a reader to read externally your shooting support.
Rent a good and fast Cfast reader, check it be cause there are a lots of slow reader also with usb 3, usb c cable.


So strange. There's a USB port a few mm from the CFast slot. Bummer.
Chad Capeland
Indicated, LLC
www.floweffects.com
Online
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 396
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

Re: Any comparisons for 4.6K RAW vs 3:1 vs 4:1?

PostMon Apr 23, 2018 9:15 am

Chad Capeland wrote:
carlomacchiavello wrote:
Chad Capeland wrote:Ok, another related question... Can the USB-C port be used to mount the CFast cards on a computer? Or do I also need to rent a CFast reader?

never you can... with all bmd cameras actual on market you need a reader to read externally your shooting support.
Rent a good and fast Cfast reader, check it be cause there are a lots of slow reader also with usb 3, usb c cable.


So strange. There's a USB port a few mm from the CFast slot. Bummer.


also near cfast/sd card clot of ursaMayor/ursaMini/UrsaMiniPro, also near ssd slot of bmcc, but no one is card reader, are cinema camera.

a good and fast card read cost less 50$, instead to use a expansive camera like card reader, instead to wear out in many different way camera to do a simple task like read card, instead to reduce battery and more...

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gavin_c_clark and 20 guests