Blackmagic Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:18 pm**

Great information, thanks.

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:13 pm**

Uli Plank wrote:This young guy explains it pretty well (technically, grain is just like snow or confetti):

This video was the reason I started caring about bitrate when shooting HEVC or H264

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:15 pm**

Due to the grain compression, the masters of my film will probably be ProRes 422 or maybe HQ. Any major difference between standard 422 and HQ other than the data rate? Would the audience see a difference? I'm showing the files directly.

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2024 7:33 pm**

Alexrocks1253 wrote:Due to the grain compression, the masters of my film will probably be ProRes 422 or maybe HQ. Any major difference between standard 422 and HQ other than the data rate? Would the audience see a difference? I'm showing the files directly.

The differences between HQ, 422, LT, and Proxy are just the data rates yes. Once you start getting in to 4444 you start dealing with alpha channels and higher chroma sampling.

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:01 pm**

Cary Knoop wrote:Grain is (semi) random, and that means it cannot be compressed which means that too much grain destroys a compressed video.

Personally, I do not understand this urge to add grain "so it looks like film". It's as silly as making an audio recording and adding scratches so "it sounds like a vinyl record".

The only time I would want to add some light grain is if the source is too "cartoonish" so adding grain can add some perceived resolution.

Grain when applied judiciously also enhances the apparent sharpness of the image. Motion pictures do tend to feel more natural with a bit of grain than without, but it's easy to overdo it if you're not careful.

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:30 pm**

John Paines wrote:
...everybody recoils instantly at distorted, low res and/or badly recorded sound.

So much for sound designers and some of the most influential musicians of the last several decades

Maybe starrt here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo-fi_music

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:38 pm**

Alexrocks1253 wrote:Any major difference between standard 422 and HQ other than the data rate? Would the audience see a difference? I'm showing the files directly.

If shown directly, and you want grain, I'd go for 422 HQ. After all, you started this thread since you wanted to get the best quality out of your camera. A master in 422 HQ is also a good starting point for other compressions (but the grain issue remains for H.264/265).
Only if your film has a chance to become a DCP one day, I'd consider ProRes 4444, but those files are huge. Or you could encode for DCP right away.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:40 am**

Rakesh Malik wrote:Grain when applied judiciously also enhances the apparent sharpness of the image.

I agree and this apparent sharpness is miles better than directly sharpening a video. Directly sharpening a video destroys resolution and makes it unnatural and even distractive.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:54 am**

Well, it depends. Direct sharpening in the camera is awful, but mild sharpening in post can be useful.

The look of grain, OTOH, depends a lot on the compression. Massive DCT compression will make grain blocky, while mild wavelet (like in JPEG 2000) will make it only a tad softer. That's why it can look good in cinemas.

Blackmagic Forum

What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?

Re: What BRAW Quality should I shoot my Senior Capstone in?