PYXIS 6K

Regarding BRAW only...

This is the main reason I'm holding on to my UMPG2 and P6KPro. But even more so I have had a client this year complain about ProRes. They wanted us to shoot Sony FX6, FX3, and my Sony A7IV for the LongGOP H.264 codec because the file sizes fit their needs. We handed the footage off that day through the day and at the end of the day. There was a DIT for offloading that footage.

This is the case for my shooters. Clients have preferred codecs. We have to fit those needs. So a camera that is fixed to one codec can be more limiting.

I love BRAW and would love to shoot it for every project. But that is not going to happen. Even RED had to add ProRes to their cameras because of the demand. And, a lot of people love shooting R3D with those cameras. But clients/producers have needs that must be met to get hired.

I see no need for ProRes with the URSA Cine as it is a more premium level camera, and with that it makes the most sense to be shooting in BRAW. But the PYXIS is a lower end camera. It should have lower end codec options. Just for the flexibility.

This does mean that the camera of choice for producers/clients when requesting an owner/operator will be Sony or Canon Cameras with the lower end codecs. Investing in a Sony FX6 sadly would be necessary to fulfill those requests if Blackmagic cannot add ProRes back into the BMCC6K or PYXIS 6K.

BM is steering away from Prores as an acquisition codec for their cameras. The Cine12 was designed with a "spare no expense" mentality, if Prores was desired, it would be there.

Probably. But after the URSA 12K, I doubt we will ever see ProRes in any of the newer firmwares and cameras. In fact it is likely that they’ll take it off in upcoming firmware updates like they did with CDNG.

So for the Pocket and Cinema 6K line up, the upcoming update version may be the last we shall see with ProRes. Hence, although I am very interested in the upcoming firmware release for my P6K, I will be watchful and careful of that. So whatever the last firmware update they come out for the Pocket and Cinema 6K that still has ProRes, that will be the last firmware update I will install.

Although I am not happy with the fact that the UMP 4.6K G2 doesn’t have any more new firmware updates for several years now and likely will never have one, I love my G2 and keeping it…. And it’s got ProRes.

BM is steering away from Prores as an acquisition codec for their cameras. The Cine12 was designed with a "spare no expense" mentality, if Prores was desired, it would be there.

Probably. But after the URSA 12K, I doubt we will ever see ProRes in any of the newer firmwares and cameras. In fact it is likely that they’ll take it off in upcoming firmware updates like they did with CDNG.

So for the Pocket and Cinema 6K line up, the upcoming update version may be the last we shall see with ProRes. Hence, although I am very interested in the upcoming firmware release for my P6K, I will be watchful and careful of that. So whatever the last firmware update they come out for the Pocket and Cinema 6K that still has ProRes, that will be the last firmware update I will install.

Although I am not happy with the fact that the UMP 4.6K G2 doesn’t have any more new firmware updates for several years now and likely will never have one, I love my G2 and keeping it…. And it’s got ProRes.

I do hope the official Firmware release of the 8.6 out of Beta doesn't remove ProRes from the Pocket 6K and Pocket 6K Pro. That would be a shame.

As you can see from my response above about clientele needs and demands. Losing ProRes will result in less cameras being chosen for projects. It's a hard truth to swallow. But we are at the service of clients too often.

I love my UMPG2 as well. I'm going to keep shooting that camera until it dies on me.

Regarding BRAW only...

This is the main reason I'm holding on to my UMPG2 and P6KPro. But even more so I have had a client this year complain about ProRes. They wanted us to shoot Sony FX6, FX3, and my Sony A7IV for the LongGOP H.264 codec because the file sizes fit their needs. We handed the footage off that day through the day and at the end of the day. There was a DIT for offloading that footage.

This is why the Ursa Broadcast G2 still shouldn't be overlooked: H.264 and H.265 SDI 10bit 4:2:2 were designed expressly to offer those kind of codec options for broadcast, broadly similar to the Sonys. Plus you still have all the other options; connectivity; Braw and Prores; mounts and 4K B4, for a huge array of lenses. And with all the talk of handheld the Ursa Mini form factor/VF too with the 6K Pro sensor and NDs married with an ENG lens either Super35/PL/EF or B4; there is simply no better shoulder mount; together with the modern hardware (USB-C 3.1, Gen 5) etc. The most flexible studio; ENG and digital film camera. Comes with shoulder mount kit; V-Lock mount and B4/EF mounts included for just over 1K more.

I know Super35 and B4 don't float boats anymore for you cine guys, but from my side of the industry; I already have the almost perfect camera, that I thought I'd never be able to own; not at any price. A lot of you asked and asked for a box camera, at a good price and BMD delivered; and they pushed the boat out too, with the third gen of Ursa; way beyond. Now you you have to ask yourselves, if you really needed them, in the first place; there are still options in the catalogue

Regarding BRAW only...

This is the main reason I'm holding on to my UMPG2 and P6KPro. But even more so I have had a client this year complain about ProRes. They wanted us to shoot Sony FX6, FX3, and my Sony A7IV for the LongGOP H.264 codec because the file sizes fit their needs. We handed the footage off that day through the day and at the end of the day. There was a DIT for offloading that footage.

This is why the Ursa Broadcast G2 still shouldn't be overlooked: H.264 and H.265 SDI 10bit 4:2:2 were designed expressly to offer those kind of codec options for broadcast, broadly similar to the Sonys. Plus you still have all the other options; connectivity; Braw and Prores; mounts and 4K B4, for a huge array of lenses. And with all the talk of handheld the Ursa Mini form factor/VF too with the 6K Pro sensor and NDs married with an ENG lens either Super35/PL/EF or B4; there is simply no better shoulder mount; together with the modern hardware (USB-C 3.1, Gen 5) etc. The most flexible studio; ENG and digital film camera. Comes with shoulder mount kit; V-Lock mount and B4/EF mounts included for just over 1K more.

I know Super35 and B4 don't float boats anymore for you cine guys, but from my side of the industry; I already have the almost perfect camera, that I thought I'd never be able to own; not at any price. A lot of you asked and asked for a box camera, at a good price and BMD delivered; and they pushed the boat out too, with the third gen of Ursa; way beyond. Now you you have to ask yourselves, if you really needed them, in the first place; there are still options in the catalogue

Good point about the Broadcast G2. I often forget about it because it is a Broadcast camera primarily.

I think my only complaint is that it has that same 6K Sensor in the Pockets, and that's still not as good as the wonderful 4.6K G2 sensor. Blackmagic knocked that sensor out of the park, easily. Even the Gen 1 4.6K in the UM4.6K and UMPG1 were incredible. The 6K sensor couldn't compare.

The 12K sensors have been amazing as well. I understand and respect what Blackmagic is doing with them. The 12K Super 35 was meant to be a true cinema camera, and the new Cine 12K LF is a true cinema camera as well. So it makes sense for them not to need those extra codecs. And, what they do with BRAW and the in camera sensor scaling is brilliant.

I think my only complaint is that it has that same 6K Sensor in the Pockets, and that's still not as good as the wonderful 4.6K G2 sensor. Blackmagic knocked that sensor out of the park, easily. Even the Gen 1 4.6K in the UM4.6K and UMPG1 were incredible. The 6K sensor couldn't compare.

6K does compare very favourably in deriving true UHD/4k down sampled very cleanly, which is more than at least the Gen 1, 4.6 could do; and better in lowlight documentary too; UHD B4 is also very clean, in this application, only available in this form factor; but my point is Tim, for hand held and the client case you cited, I would choose the UBG2 over the Pyxis, if I were in the market for a camera right now. If I were a Cine guy it would be the 12K Ursa Mini.

I've never, with gear made a wishlist of what I'd like to see; and waited to see if they make it. I've always looked holistically from camera to post; of what's around now and what's the best fit, through and within that chain and whether it will earn me and pay for itself, in due course. Waiting means you can't earn and buying something that you're not earning with is an expensive hobby, not a job.

My biggest concern with the camera so far is, how will a run start stop handle work with the camera. I ordered the DJI Focus Pro and im not seeing any information about connecting to the camera. will it connect through wifi or usb-c. Does anyone have information about this??

Regarding BRAW only...

This is the main reason I'm holding on to my UMPG2 and P6KPro. But even more so I have had a client this year complain about ProRes. They wanted us to shoot Sony FX6, FX3, and my Sony A7IV for the LongGOP H.264 codec because the file sizes fit their needs. We handed the footage off that day through the day and at the end of the day. There was a DIT for offloading that footage.

This is the case for my shooters. Clients have preferred codecs. We have to fit those needs. So a camera that is fixed to one codec can be more limiting.

I love BRAW and would love to shoot it for every project. But that is not going to happen. Even RED had to add ProRes to their cameras because of the demand. And, a lot of people love shooting R3D with those cameras. But clients/producers have needs that must be met to get hired.

I see no need for ProRes with the URSA Cine as it is a more premium level camera, and with that it makes the most sense to be shooting in BRAW. But the PYXIS is a lower end camera. It should have lower end codec options. Just for the flexibility.

This does mean that the camera of choice for producers/clients when requesting an owner/operator will be Sony or Canon Cameras with the lower end codecs. Investing in a Sony FX6 sadly would be necessary to fulfill those requests if Blackmagic cannot add ProRes back into the BMCC6K or PYXIS 6K.

While this might be a valid argument for let's say the BMCC 6K, where there really is just a Braw option and only 1080p HDMI out, I think it is not a problem for the Pyxis - as many pointed out, you're going to need an additional monitor anyway, and while at it, why not buy one with recording capabilities if other formats are a feature you use a lot. Sure it comes with downsides, but it still is an option on the Pyxis (or other 12G SDI out models).

as many pointed out, you're going to need an additional monitor anyway, and while at it, why not buy one with recording capabilities if other formats are a feature you use a lot

For my part I generally like to see at least some of the camera's UI while recording for things like how my battery is doing and whether or not I am about to run out of space on the media, but I don't want those things in the recording. External monitors normally record what is sent to them, correct?

In the end you would need two monitors: one to record, and one to actually... monitor.

I do hope the official Firmware release of the 8.6 out of Beta doesn't remove ProRes from the Pocket 6K and Pocket 6K Pro. That would be a shame.

As you can see from my response above about clientele needs and demands. Losing ProRes will result in less cameras being chosen for projects. It's a hard truth to swallow. But we are at the service of clients too often.

Nah. ProRes died years ago but old vets stuck in their ways keep hanging on. Apple always trailed Windows workstations in horsepower and ProRes was solely invented as an intermediate codec that could task weak CPUs lightly during NLE in nearly-defunct Final Cut. It's a compromise codec, plain and simple -- a huge waste of storage media, and never meant for acquisition. Life goes on, old habits die hard...

What are you talking about?

@Michel
He doesn’t like intermediate codecs, like ProRes, DNxHR, or Cineform.
Unfortunately, as long as Arri Alexas support it, it’ll be difficult to convince those hard-headed veterans. They are shooting more hours in ProRes than any other codec.
Maybe red Nikon will change that? Ah, nah, Red introduced that completely outdated codec just recently.

All really advanced manufacturers from China use H.265 instead.

Funny because the last thing I shot on an Arri Alexa was in ProRes. But, I guess it's not a professional codec since the top cameras don't really use it and it isn't widely accepted in the industry.

@focuspulling
Unfortunately, the clients who bring in ProRes or want it for delivery are paying much better than those who like H.265. BTW, which cameras are you pulling focus on?

Raw or bust: BRAW for me, ARRIRAW for others, etc. ProRes is dead.

ProRes RAW too? Probably BM knows it’s dead, since they don’t care to implement it.

as many pointed out, you're going to need an additional monitor anyway, and while at it, why not buy one with recording capabilities if other formats are a feature you use a lot

For my part I generally like to see at least some of the camera's UI while recording for things like how my battery is doing and whether or not I am about to run out of space on the media, but I don't want those things in the recording. External monitors normally record what is sent to them, correct?

In the end you would need two monitors: one to record, and one to actually... monitor.

Completely understandable and as said, there are many downsides. Much less rigid as well compared to external recording. But still, it is an option you could use here and there

I do hope the official Firmware release of the 8.6 out of Beta doesn't remove ProRes from the Pocket 6K and Pocket 6K Pro. That would be a shame.

As you can see from my response above about clientele needs and demands. Losing ProRes will result in less cameras being chosen for projects. It's a hard truth to swallow. But we are at the service of clients too often.

Nah. ProRes died years ago but old vets stuck in their ways keep hanging on. Apple always trailed Windows workstations in horsepower and ProRes was solely invented as an intermediate codec that could task weak CPUs lightly during NLE in nearly-defunct Final Cut. It's a compromise codec, plain and simple -- a huge waste of storage media, and never meant for acquisition. Life goes on, old habits die hard...

It's still used in post production in my work.
But you are right about the size of the files.

Let's say that if you can't see anymore Prores in Blackmagic cameras, the introduction of a 10 Bit Codec that can be manipulated like a XAVC-S or XAVC-I Sony codec, scalable from 1080 to 4K would be a very welcome addition for those lower-end jobs where you need to deliver files fast and tiny, and you don't have to open Resolve.

Let's push it and introduce the function to burn-in luts.

Meaning that you camera will be even more polyvalent.

I do hope the official Firmware release of the 8.6 out of Beta doesn't remove ProRes from the Pocket 6K and Pocket 6K Pro. That would be a shame.

As you can see from my response above about clientele needs and demands. Losing ProRes will result in less cameras being chosen for projects. It's a hard truth to swallow. But we are at the service of clients too often.

Nah. ProRes died years ago but old vets stuck in their ways keep hanging on. Apple always trailed Windows workstations in horsepower and ProRes was solely invented as an intermediate codec that could task weak CPUs lightly during NLE in nearly-defunct Final Cut. It's a compromise codec, plain and simple -- a huge waste of storage media, and never meant for acquisition. Life goes on, old habits die hard...

It's still used in post production in my work.
But you are right about the size of the files.

Let's say that if you can't see anymore Prores in Blackmagic cameras, the introduction of a 10 Bit Codec that can be manipulated like a XAVC-S or XAVC-I Sony codec, scalable from 1080 to 4K would be a very welcome addition for those lower-end jobs where you need to deliver files fast and tiny, and you don't have to open Resolve.

Let's push it and introduce the function to burn-in luts.

Meaning that you camera will be even more polyvalent.

Much agreed; I do find that the attacks on H.265 are usually accompanied with misgivings about how it tasks CPUs, but technology keeps accelerating past that problem with each new chip generation - and one fallacy about the codec is that it's a file reduction improvement, compared to simply including more information per bitrate.

That said, with the invention of BRAW (and evasion of the stupid/paranoid/anticompetitive R3D patent), Blackmagic Design reminded us all that codecs, properly devised, are fundamentally a question of sensor bayering. The future of codec efficiency is 100% sensor-centric.

"In today's video I give my first hands-on impressions on the brand-new Blackmagic PYXIS camera." (Brandon Y Lee, Canada)

It’s a stretch to say ProRes is dead.

The majority of the TV and streaming content you watch is shot ProRes.

I’m working at Warner Bros on a TV series and can say every single WB TV series is shot 4K ProRes. I know this because even though I shoot with cameras that don’t shoot ProRes, they have to be converted to 4K ProRes for archiving because that’s the format WB use for their archiving. If you shoot any other codec, including raw, it’s transcodeoded. The cost of that transcode falls on the individual production so guess what….Every WB TV show shoots 4K ProRes. If they aren’t then they are certainly transcoding to it.

https://www.warnerbros.com/tv

ProRes is still the defacto origination and archiving format of many of the big studios, no matter what someone here posts about.

Luckily for me I can shoot BRAW as the show deems the value of what the BRAW shooting camera brings as being worth the extra cost.

JB

Not like I think it is worth belabouring the point too much but the DPs I work with who choose ProRes as their acquisition codec usually do so because they actually want the image to be as inflexible as possible. Like, they don’t want new raw processing algorithms that will change the dynamic range and the way their lighting was designed; they don’t want more detail so that an exec can force an editor to crop in and reframe a shot; they just want the image they see on set to travel through post so that their vision is what makes it to the final cut.

I don’t love that approach but then again my cinematography hasn’t been butchered by a studio yet, so it is what it is.

It’s a stretch to say ProRes is dead.

The majority of the TV and streaming content you watch is shot ProRes.

I’m working at Warner Bros on a TV series and can say every single WB TV series is shot 4K ProRes. I know this because even though I shoot with cameras that don’t shoot ProRes, they have to be converted to 4K ProRes for archiving because that’s the format WB use for their archiving. If you shoot any other codec, including raw, it’s transcodeoded. The cost of that transcode falls on the individual production so guess what….Every WB TV show shoots 4K ProRes. If they aren’t then they are certainly transcoding to it.

https://www.warnerbros.com/tv

ProRes is still the defacto origination and archiving format of many of the big studios, no matter what someone here posts about.

Luckily for me I can shoot BRAW as the show deems the value of what the BRAW shooting camera brings as being worth the extra cost.

JB

Hopefully, they know what they are doing. Given TV's obsession with interlaced format and given that ProRes typically records 4:2:2 then if they do it wrong there may be unpleasant surprises during deinterlacing in the future.

Hopefully, they know what they are doing. Given TV's obsession with interlaced format and given that ProRes typically records 4:2:2 then if they do it wrong there may be unpleasant surprises during deinterlacing in the future.

Subsampling has nothing to do with interlacing. Only 1080i HD is interlaced, and it's a mandatory for the smattering of legacy consumer CRTs in existence - I think everyone would like to get rid of it. Deinterlacing artefacts are caused by the incorrect field order.

I can only speak for UK broadcast, but almost all content is progressive acquisition these days; with only a few HD 1080i cameras still around. In HD it is mandatory even so to finish and deliver in 1080i; that includes all graphics such as rollers. UHD can be 25p or 50p, for that 'live' look. So, normally delivery requirements I work to are: 10bit 4:2:2 1080i50 DNxHD HQ>AS-11.

Prores and DNxHD/R are post and mastering codecs by design; not camera ones. They are very much alive for their original intended purpose as well, with DNxHD/R being the mastering standard in the UK, not Prores, since Avid dominates (International versions to the States have been QT or Prores); even though Prores import and export is not an issue on Avid in Windows; and even Resolve adopts that family for the default transcode and render codec, I imagine for the same reason. But both these codec families still have no peers for multi-generational intra-frame integrity and low taxing of cpu and computer resources; as opposed to long gop H.26x or cpu heavy raw.

Much as it's less taxing for editing, Prores is easier to encode in a camera too and intra-frame much better than H.26x or Mpeg long gop and became popular early on (DNxHD/R never caught on) when they were really pants; it's only major disadvantage ever being bandwidth and storage. It might be used less and less in the future, as efficient proprietary 'raw' takes a hold (the Red Patent gave it another lease of life though) but judging by Apple's iPhone splash about it only recently; it's not going anywhere fast at the moment, it would seem also.

Not like I think it is worth belabouring the point too much but the DPs I work with who choose ProRes as their acquisition codec usually do so because they actually want the image to be as inflexible as possible. Like, they don’t want new raw processing algorithms that will change the dynamic range and the way their lighting was designed; they don’t want more detail so that an exec can force an editor to crop in and reframe a shot; they just want the image they see on set to travel through post so that their vision is what makes it to the final cut.

I don’t love that approach but then again my cinematography hasn’t been butchered by a studio yet, so it is what it is.

I've had some stuff I've shot in 6K reframed in post to such an ugly and detrimental way. I work hard to make sure my framing is good. I don't mind reframing a little in post. We're talking no more than 5-10% crop. But if you go from 6K all the way in to HD portion for a close up and then the framing looks awful that's not my fault!

So I get the idea of framing the way you want and not wanting it to be changed in post. But at the same time you can light RAW in a way that when you get into post you're just finessing and improving on the work you have already done.

… Luckily for me I can shoot BRAW as the show deems the value of what the BRAW shooting camera brings as being worth the extra cost.

JB

This is akin to landing on the moon: One small step for a DOP, one giant leap for cinematography.

Subsampling has nothing to do with interlacing.

Not true.

The chroma of 4:2:2 interlaced footage can be stored at the field or frame level. Mix them up and you have a problem. 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 for obvious reasons do not have that problem.

The chroma of 4:2:2 interlaced footage can be stored at the field or frame level. Mix them up and you have a problem. 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 for obvious reasons do not have that problem.

That's complete nonsense. Maybe you're thinking of 4:2:0 and 4:1:1 in the days of DV? Still nothing to do with interlacing. Mix the fields up is enough to stuff it either way. Almost impossible now anyway with HD. It was very common with SD though.

The chroma of 4:2:2 interlaced footage can be stored at the field or frame level. Mix them up and you have a problem. 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 for obvious reasons do not have that problem.

That's complete nonsense. Maybe you're thinking of 4:2:0 and 4:1:1 in the days of DV? Still nothing to do with interlacing. Mix the fields up is enough to stuff it either way. Almost impossible now anyway with HD. It was very common with SD though.

Ok, my friend you obviously think you know better.

Ok, my friend you obviously think you know better.

It is not a question of knowing better, hey I'm just an editor; sorry that came off a bit sharp. But in over 30 years of dealing with video, a huge amount of it interlaced I have never ever heard of this; and it's not what happens here - if I export reversing the fields incorrectly for 4:2:2; stills and progressive material look identical; 1080i and rollers look bad and aliased; colour the same for both; as I would expect. Can you point to some reliable source? Interested, not trying to be smart.

Ok, my friend you obviously think you know better.

It is not a question of knowing better, hey I'm just an editor; sorry that came off a bit sharp. But in over 30 years of dealing with video, a huge amount of it interlaced I have never ever heard of this; and it's not what happens here - if I export reversing the fields incorrectly for 4:2:2; stills and progressive material look identical; 1080i and rollers look bad and aliased; colour the same for both; as I would expect. Can you point to some reliable source? Interested, not trying to be smart.

Our friend ChatGPT describes it very well:

In 4:2:2 interlaced video encoding, there are two primary methods to store chroma samples: line-interleaved and field-interleaved. Here’s an explanation of each method along with their pros and cons:

1. Line-Interleaved Chroma Sampling
In line-interleaved chroma sampling, the chroma samples are interleaved line by line. This means for every two lines of luma samples, there are corresponding lines of chroma samples that represent color information averaged across both fields of the interlaced signal.

Pros:
Simpler Processing: Easier to process and implement as each line of pixels can be handled independently during encoding and decoding.
Compatibility: Well-suited for progressive scan display methods, as the chroma sampling aligns closely with how progressive frames are displayed.
Cons:
Cross-Field Color Artifacts: Can lead to color artifacts across the fields, especially noticeable in scenes with high vertical color variation due to averaging chroma samples across two fields that might be displaying different contents.

2. Field-Interleaved Chroma Sampling
Field-interleaved chroma sampling assigns chroma samples to specific fields. Each field maintains its own set of chroma samples, aligned with the luma samples of that field only.

Pros:
Higher Quality in Motion: Better maintains color integrity during motion in interlaced content, as each field’s color information is processed separately.
Reduced Artifacts: Minimizes the risk of cross-field color artifacts since chroma samples are not shared between fields.
Cons:
Complexity in Processing: Requires more complex processing and memory management, as each field must be handled separately during decoding and display.
Less Compatibility with Progressive: Not as straightforward for conversion to progressive formats, which may necessitate additional processing to align chroma samples from both fields.
Each method has its advantages and drawbacks, largely influenced by the intended use case (e.g., type of display technology, specific content characteristics) and the processing capabilities of the encoding and decoding equipment.

Our friend ChatGPT describes it very well:

I can see you had to resort to ChatGPT, since you must of searched for an official authoritative explanation and like me couldn't find one. The only reference to this I can find is with FFmpeg. In any case, for broadcast DNxHD and Prores to either SDI or file such as AS-11, there is no setting for 'Line-Interleaved' or 'Field-Interleaved' Chroma Sampling and I've never had to deal with it in all the time I've been an online editor. Interesting, I'll keep looking.

Cary, I’ve never used any of the generative AI apps. Can ChatGPT list the source material from which it is extracting the information quoted?

Cary, I’ve never used any of the generative AI apps. Can ChatGPT list the source material from which it is extracting the information quoted?

Most of the relevant material is in (proprietary) technical documentation on CODECs. Charles Poynton probably has some documents about it as well.

For discussions about these things, I can recommend two forums:
forum.videohelp.com
forum.doom9.org

Most of the relevant material is in (proprietary) technical documentation on CODECs. Charles Poynton probably has some documents about it as well.

For discussions about these things, I can recommend two forums:
forum.videohelp.com
forum.doom9.org

I'd really like to see these documents; presumably 'proprietary' doesn't mean private? I can't find anything through the BBC or EBU and Avid's white papers certainly don't mention it for DNxHD. Those sources you mention suggest it's maybe something to do with FFmpeg and other such free encoders, for file encoding.

Although I've never come across it, and it's never affected me in my job; I feel I should know about it. Fortunately it's hard to get interlaced HD wrong - it's all upper field, unlike SD was.

We are getting badly off topic but to give you an idea when these things become important is for instance if you have some 90's DV 4:2:2 interlaced video clip and you want to transfer that to an MPEG x 4:2:2 or ProRes 4:2:2 format. DV stores it at the line level while MPEG x and ProRes store it both at the field level.

If you don't know what you are doing you will get nasty chroma problems that you cannot fix after the conversion.

While I don’t want to extend that derailment much more, just one remark: CoPilot is giving you its sources.

Our friend ChatGPT describes it very well:

ChatGPT is not a source! Yeesh.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.....

Ok, not to flog a dead horse; I've finally found something to point to what Cary is on about, with some kernal of truth, and why I may never have come across it. The source is Wikipedia, not the most authoritative either and the source link is, "DVD Player Benchmark – Chroma Upsampling Error". Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity. It was a SD only consumer problem; NTSC and affected MPeg 2 4:2:0 not 4:2:2, where chroma could be applied to alternate fields not both; reducing the vertical chroma resolution even further to avoid interlace induced motion artefacts, at the expense of introducing comb like errors. This was an alternate standard allowed under Mpeg 2 standards.

DV was never 4:2:2; it was either 4:2:0 ( PAL 50Hz) or 4:1:1 (NTSC 60Hz). Only higher end formats such as DigiBeta were 4:2:2. It's not a problem with HD nor are you likely ever to across it with Prores or DNxHD 4:2:2, certainly not in Pal land:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#4:1:1 (in the 'Interlaced and progressive' section)

https://tinyurl.com/54vhauf2

Our friend ChatGPT describes it very well:

BTW Cary thanks for ChatGPT, I wasn't familiar with it - she translates generated SRT subtitles from Davinci Resolve: perfectly formatted, after a tip I found on YT.

Regarding BRAW only...

This is the main reason I'm holding on to my UMPG2 and P6KPro. But even more so I have had a client this year complain about ProRes. They wanted us to shoot Sony FX6, FX3, and my Sony A7IV for the LongGOP H.264 codec because the file sizes fit their needs. We handed the footage off that day through the day and at the end of the day. There was a DIT for offloading that footage.

This is the case for my shooters. Clients have preferred codecs. We have to fit those needs. So a camera that is fixed to one codec can be more limiting.

I love BRAW and would love to shoot it for every project. But that is not going to happen. Even RED had to add ProRes to their cameras because of the demand. And, a lot of people love shooting R3D with those cameras. But clients/producers have needs that must be met to get hired.

I see no need for ProRes with the URSA Cine as it is a more premium level camera, and with that it makes the most sense to be shooting in BRAW. But the PYXIS is a lower end camera. It should have lower end codec options. Just for the flexibility.

This does mean that the camera of choice for producers/clients when requesting an owner/operator will be Sony or Canon Cameras with the lower end codecs. Investing in a Sony FX6 sadly would be necessary to fulfill those requests if Blackmagic cannot add ProRes back into the BMCC6K or PYXIS 6K.

This is one of the reasons why I own an fx3 AND 6K g2.

Funny because the last thing I shot on an Arri Alexa was in ProRes. But, I guess it's not a professional codec since the top cameras don't really use it and it isn't widely accepted in the industry.

Ha! THANK YOU. RAW isn't magic.

Ha! THANK YOU. RAW isn't magic.

There are a lot of creative workarounds for true raw now; Braw isn't alone. If it walks like one; talks like one and gives you all you need, who cares? Joe, I'm not into blind fandom either; tough love is positive feedback to a manufacturer we believe in, in my book; and I've tried to follow your criticisms in a balanced manner but I don't know what you're trying to gain. Braw is an amazing codec because it's so uniquely light in computer resources for post, as well as being very flexible, as much as if it were. Tim, you're OK love your enthusiasm and sheer love of the craft.

To bring this back on track, to atone for my sins. I started out being very dismissive of the Pyxis but it's looking more attractive by the day. I still am probably not the target customer but that side screen that has a lot of flack, makes some sense for macro and interviews; and I have a VA already, so it's not out of the question, in the future. Don't care about FF but all the gip it's getting for RS, I should point out that by far the most footage I work with in UK broadcast is from the Sony FX9 and that has pretty 'poor' RS around the same. This footage is all handheld and no one complains; and it never fails QC because of it, neither.

[ but that side screen that has a lot of flack, makes some sense for macro and interviews; and I have a VA already, so it's not out of the question, in the future.

In the future there'll also be the Pyxis G2, which will have an adjustable screen

Part of me is still a little frustrated that you can't swap mounts on the Pyxis, especially with those four visible bolts that look like they were tailor made to be user serviceable! But then I realized that this camera is so affordable that the cost of a mount would probably be 20-33% the cost of a new body. I could definitely see myself buying and selling different variants of this body on a per-project basis or something like that.

Honestly, the more I think about the Pyxis the more impressed I am with the amount of cool stuff they packed in here at this price point. I don't love the sensor; I would like some internal NDs; 60FPS at full sensor readout would be nice; but otherwise it kinda checks off all the boxes I look for in a camera.

Our friend ChatGPT describes it very well:

BTW Cary thanks for ChatGPT, I wasn't familiar with it - she translates generated SRT subtitles from Davinci Resolve: perfectly formatted, after a tip I found on YT.

ChatGPT is an amazing tool. It can do a lot of things, but if you're asking it to write about anything that requires factual accuracy, you (sort of) have to have a good handle on the subject to begin with. I've used it for a variety of tasks, from converting .vtt caption format to .srt to analyzing scripts for voice, pacing, and subtext - but you also have to take the results with a grain of salt and be willing to check its work... AI hallucinations are real.

Shawn

I mainly use ChatGPt to proofread my writing. Usually with business emails and such. That’s where it is very useful for me.

Otherwise I don’t trust it for accuracy yet.

Otherwise, with regards to the PYXIS: last night at a film festival spoke with a colleague and he’s not impressed by the PYXIS. He was let down by it. But he was imprint the URSA Cine.

Will likely have more conversations at this film festival with people about the cameras. But it seems like the clear winner is the URSA Cine cameras. The PYXIS seems to leave people with more desires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha! THANK YOU. RAW isn't magic.

Joe, I'm not into blind fandom either; tough love is positive feedback to a manufacturer we believe in, in my book; and I've tried to follow your criticisms in a balanced manner but I don't know what you're trying to gain.

No criticism from me on BRAW, or not including ProRes. BRAW is a wonderful codec, and BMD clearly wants to create market differentiation with it. (It's the reason I put up with BMD's weird form-factors.)

If I had a point with that comment, it is in regards to ANY flavor of RAW. Steve Yedlin can say it much better than I can, but to paraphrase: "RAW has no picture quality advantage over an RGB encoding, it's just more efficient to store and transfer."

People tend to look at the controls in the RAW section - like white balance and exposure - and associate them with a unique capability of RAW, and that's simply not true. ProRes4444 is equally malleable - it's just that it makes for HUGE file sizes.

Ha! THANK YOU. RAW isn't magic.

Joe, I'm not into blind fandom either; tough love is positive feedback to a manufacturer we believe in, in my book; and I've tried to follow your criticisms in a balanced manner but I don't know what you're trying to gain.

No criticism from me on BRAW, or not including ProRes. BRAW is a wonderful codec, and BMD clearly wants to create market differentiation with it. (It's the reason I put up with BMD's weird form-factors.)

If I had a point with that comment, it is in regards to ANY flavor of RAW. Steve Yedlin can say it much better than I can, but to paraphrase: "RAW has no picture quality advantage over an RGB encoding, it's just more efficient to store and transfer."

People tend to look at the controls in the RAW section - like white balance and exposure - and associate them with a unique capability of RAW, and that's simply not true. ProRes4444 is equally malleable - it's just that it makes for HUGE file sizes.

Truth be told, if you know what you’re doing and expose properly you don’t need to touch the RAW controls in post at all!

The big reason I prefer to shoot BRAW is that on the UMPG2 it is still stuck in Gen4 Color Science. In Resolve I have the settings for BRAW Default making all BRAW Gen5 Color Science. Thus I get Gen5 with the UMPG2 because of BRAW. Sadly ProRes you need to do a CST to transform it into the same color space as the P6KPro and other Pocket Cameras when the entire workflow is in that codec. BRAW makes it a breeze.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk