Blackmagic Forum

I'd love to see the inclusion of a h265 codec on all blackmagic devices.

They say pick the right tool for the right job, the addition of h265 would allow blackmagic to be the right tool in more cases.

I often shoot vox pops for socials that really don't need to be anything special, they have baked in looks and what is being said is far more important, I'll use them once and never again. But I do like the option to punch in so I shoot 4k.

I also shoot 30+ minute events with 2 cameras that again will rarely be watched through but I may take a snippet from here and there. (all full time corporate work)

This is all work that currently I'd rather do on a panasonic camera but wish I could be doing on blackmagic. It would reduce cost and allow me to get more from the blackmagic products I purchase.

Also Atomos put h265 into it's Ninja V and we don't want them to win right? Let's out do them and put it right into the camera! I'd also love to fit out the entire company with blackmagic.

mmm that mean adding a chip to manage realtime compression, paying other license (h265 on hardware need license fee), and ... they can, or you buy external recorder...
to be honest i hope they develop h266 encoding for video assist, you can record from every camera, and only who need pay for this feature, and it's retro compatible for old device

ps h266, it's not a refuse, h266 was released in 2019, it's time to see over ;-D

ProRes is far superior

Tyler Edwards wrote:ProRes is far superior

Right, but Ryan need more compression to reduce space used during his shooting (i suppose), he like cs of bmd but probably not need a far superior quality of a DI like prores, i understand his needings.

ProRes is not superior per se, only the 4444 version, which is even heavier than BRAW. ProRes 422 is 10 bit only and H.265 in 422 and 10 bit can be just as good if the data rate is not too low. The data rate can still be kept lower than ProRes for the same image quality since a GOP codec is more efficient.
The only drawback is the computing power needed, but with more and more hardware supporting the format (even a cheap Mac mini M1), this doesn't matter any more.

carlomacchiavello wrote:

Tyler Edwards wrote:ProRes is far superior

Right, but Ryan need more compression to reduce space used during his shooting (i suppose), he like cs of bmd but probably not need a far superior quality of a DI like prores, i understand his needings.

Hit the nail on the head.

Ryan Payne wrote:I'd love to see the inclusion of a h265 codec on all blackmagic devices.

I wouldn't.

Jim Simon wrote:

Ryan Payne wrote:I'd love to see the inclusion of a h265 codec on all blackmagic devices.

I wouldn't.

It’s not been BMDs “way” to go with more compression.

JB

The be fair, h.265 can be tuned to anything, even lossless.

roger.magnusson wrote:The be fair, h.265 can be tuned to anything, even lossless.

So can cineform. Or REDCODE.

All involve costs.

JB

12:1 BRAW is very small for the relative quality. UHD 12:1 has a lower data rate than HD ProRes HQ, I believe.

H.265? "Ew... no!" Note the tone of the quotes because you should read it like a 15-year old girl.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't ever use it. No job needs me to shoot in H.265, unless it's using Camera 2 Cloud for Proxies for an editor to start editing while we're still shooting. Otherwise, H.265 is no where near as good as ProRes.

h.265 444 looks amazing.

RaulAndres wrote:h.265 444 looks amazing.

I'm sure it's as amazing as Braw and ProRes 444....

I don't see this happening. There's no need for another higher end CPU/GPU intensive codec, offering more compression that only ads cost and doesn't say work with new features like those on the 12K sensor.

JB

The h265 from the R5 at my work are literally two times the size of BRAW.

h.265 would be fine addition for some people but should not be in any priority thought in my opinion.

So it's licensing the reason why more people don't swap to the superior h.265?

I think the big "upgrade" would be a less compressed version of Braw! That would mean that only very specific kinds of media could be used but getting just a bit more out of the package would be worth it for me, even if the media prices are at Red levels.

drknsss wrote:I think the big "upgrade" would be a less compressed version of Braw! That would mean that only very specific kinds of media could be used but getting just a bit more out of the package would be worth it for me, even if the media prices are at Red levels.

ehm less compressed than Q0 and 3:1?

Even by pixel peeping I can't spot a difference between uncompressed DNG and Q0 once they are properly filtered for moiré (RAWlite in my case).

carlomacchiavello wrote: ehm less compressed than Q0 and 3:1?

I was thinking less compression could mean more dynamic range judging from the file sizes of Redraw files (yes I know that's a different codec).

I'm definitely not a pixel peeper but I am making narrative shorts for theatrical (film fests).

DR is a property of your sensor and the electronics processing the signal.

Storing the result in a codec with greater bit depth is only preserving more shades of that DR for more freedom in grading. You can squeeze the full DR of any camera into 8 bit (or even less). Sony (for example) is doing just that when they advertise Slog-2 or -3 in cameras which can store only 8 bit depth. Once you try to massage that into a pretty picture, it's going to look awful.

Having less color subsampling (or none), like 4:2:0 vs. 4:4:4, will improve color resolution and enable better keying or spatial separation of colors for grading. Again, the size of the files will vary massively without telling you about DR.

drknsss wrote:

carlomacchiavello wrote: ehm less compressed than Q0 and 3:1?

I was thinking less compression could mean more dynamic range judging from the file sizes of Redraw files (yes I know that's a different codec).

I'm definitely not a pixel peeper but I am making narrative shorts for theatrical (film fests).

Ahh, that would be bit depth primarily. Higher bit depth means higher DR (generally speaking)

Compression tends to affect detail (resolution) more than DR.

JB

John Brawley wrote:

drknsss wrote:

carlomacchiavello wrote: ehm less compressed than Q0 and 3:1?

I was thinking less compression could mean more dynamic range judging from the file sizes of Redraw files (yes I know that's a different codec).

I'm definitely not a pixel peeper but I am making narrative shorts for theatrical (film fests).

Ahh, that would be bit depth primarily. Higher bit depth means higher DR (generally speaking)

Compression tends to affect detail (resolution) more than DR.

JB

So wouldn't this mean that larger file sizes like from the Red means they are trying to extract the best DR out of their sensor as you commented above?

Any good RAW format is aimed at preserving the full DR.
But most manufacturers don't tell you the bit depth of the processing before the signal gets encoded, so numbers like 16 bit depth of the final encoding might be misleading (and are not really needed for log anyway).

drknsss wrote:So wouldn't this mean that larger file sizes like from the Red means they are trying to extract the best DR out of their sensor as you commented above?

RED have larger files ? I'm not sure exactly what you're meaning here. Actually ARRI RAW is larger, even though they have less resolution simply because they are uncompressed.

DR is best represented by bit depth.
Resolution is best affected by less compression.

It's hard to compare RAW codecs. RED typically use Wavelet comrepssion whereas everyone else is DCT, but the latest Komodo is a DCT based REDCODE.

Bit Depth is the most important. Marketing wise some companies say 16 bit !! Some say 12. Usually it's 12 bit log or 16 bit linear. These are considered to be THE SAME.

REDCODE is probably 16 bin linear wavelet based (they usually are very secretive about this),
ARRIRAW is 12 bit LOG uncompressed (larger files)
Sony RAW (higher end cameras) is 16 bit linear 3:1 compression (larger files)
Blackmagic DNG is 12 bit LOG, mild compression (larger files)
Blackmagic BRAW is 12 bit log, much higher compression (smaller files)

All of those codecs are capable of capturing high dynamic range images. Some of them look worse than others when compressed. Some of the very highly compressed smaller files on REDCODE can look very mushy in low light. BRAW in it's most compressed can also loose a lot of very fine detail which is RESOLUTION not DR.

DR = Bit Depth
Compression = Resolution

JB

John Brawley wrote:Higher bit depth means higher DR

I don't believe that's correct. I don't believe there's any correlation between the two specs.

Different shooting modes on the Panasonic GH5 offer different levels of Dynamic Range, but all can be recorded at 10 bit.

John Brawley wrote:DR = Bit Depth
Compression = Resolution

That's just false.

The P4K has more Dynamic Range than the GH5 even when both are recording at 10 bit.

4K BRAW has more compression (and smaller files) than 1080 Uncompressed cDNG from the original Pocket.

Dynamic Range, Resolution, Bit Depth and Codec Compression (file size) are all separate and unrelated parameters.

Second that.
As I wrote above, high DR can be squeezed into 8 bits only. Or even less in the case of some log formats in stills/movie cameras which don't use the full range of values, not even with the most contrasty scene (yes, I'm looking at you, Sony, Panny and a few others).

The problem will be the unsqueezing into a decent looking final film, which will be impossible with 8 bits only. IMHO, a good log transfer in 10 bit is enough for grading an 8 bit SDR output. You may want more for HDR and definitely more for the big screen. That's where RAW formats are the perfect solution.

To know the true DR of any camera, the only way is testing for yourself with exposure bracketing on the same scene or shooting a trusted chart like the Xylo 21 (pretty expensive).

Uli Plank wrote:Second that.
As I wrote above, high DR can be squeezed into 8 bits only.

Of course you can. That's what we've had for years with 8 bit 264.

It's TERRIBLE. You can't grade it, change it alter it.

Because you're jamming a huge dynamic range into a smaller bit depth. And once you start trying to pull a secondary correction key or push the grade in any way it starts to get stressed very quickly and banding and quantising errors show up right away.

Higher bit depth files allows you to spread the DR of the sensor across more graduations and thus you have a more malleable image.

That's the point. Higher bit depth allows higher dynamic range.

YES. You can put the same dynamic range into an 8 bit file, but it sucks to work with, use and grade and is very limited.

JB

Jim Simon wrote:

John Brawley wrote:Higher bit depth means higher DR

I don't believe that's correct. I don't believe there's any correlation between the two specs.

Different shooting modes on the Panasonic GH5 offer different levels of Dynamic Range, but all can be recorded at 10 bit.

In a practical working sense. Higher bits means less banding, less contouring, better grading, better secondaries because the dr is spread over more values.

Higher bit depth = more values for your dynamic range to be spread over.

Higher bit depth = higher dynamic range because YOU CAN USE GREATER DISCRETE VALUES AND ALTER THE GRADE.

That's not the same as some 8 bit log picture profile that's some version of REC709 or 2020 that looks nice out of camera and has 14 stops of DR in it from the sensor but can't be altered much without falling apart.

JB

So we agree, thanks.
This is from a very contrasty scene in Slog-3 shot internally on a Sony 7AS III. Do you see all the empty values?


Can you imagine how much you would have to stretch this to get a pretty picture? It'll fall apart even if recorded in 10 bit (which the mark III finally does). With such a signal, it can't really make good use of the quite decent DR that camera has, which can be proven by RAW stills.
IMHO, Slog (and similar log recordings by competitors) are pure marketing without RAW or an efficiently used minimum of 10, better 12 bit. Look, mom, my camera has the same log like the big guys use…

There are 'profiles' or 'looks' in such cameras, like Cine 1-4 or S-Cinetone in the case of Sony, which can look decent out of the box when chosen according to scene.