UHD Proxies for UCine & PYXIS

In the rapidly evolving media landscape, the demand for Ultra High Definition (UHD) content has surged, driven by the imperative for high-quality visuals in contemporary productions. To address this evolving requirement, it would be advantageous to integrate the capability to record UHD Proxies directly into the camera for the URSA Cine models and PYXIS. This feature would empower filmmakers and production teams to collaborate more efficiently with UHD timelines, which are frequently the final delivery format. By transitioning from the conventional HD proxies to UHD, we can harness the enhanced processing capabilities of modern machines, thereby optimizing workflows and minimizing the necessity for additional conversion steps. Furthermore, we should prioritize the adoption of 10-Bit 422 H.265 Proxies over 8-Bit 420 H.264 proxies. This professional approach not only streamlines production processes but also ensures that the final output conforms to the highest quality standards anticipated by clients.

Look, whether or not BMD implements this is no skin off my back because I'd never use it but you're saying a lot of things that I just kinda disagree with at a fundamental level:

This feature would empower filmmakers and production teams to collaborate more efficiently with UHD timelines, which are frequently the final delivery format.

Any application I can think of that supports BRAW has a functionally resolution agnostic approach to their video pipeline. There's nothing stopping anyone in Resolve, FCPX, or Premier from changing their timeline to UHD once the OCF is relinked, or just starting off with a UHD timeline with HD proxies in it. I'm struggling to think of how HD proxies are holding anyone back in this context, because any fine work that requires more than HD precision should probably be performed on the OCF anyway. The only context this really makes sense for—IMO—is if your deliverables are derived from your proxies, which isn't really what proxies are meant for.

By transitioning from the conventional HD proxies to UHD, we can harness the enhanced processing capabilities of modern machines, thereby optimizing workflows and minimizing the necessity for additional conversion steps.

If I configure my projects right, I have machines from the better part of ten years ago that have no problem with BRAW and my newer machines don't even break a sweat. If you're looking to avoid conversion steps, why not just work with the original BRAW? As you say, machines have only gotten more performant and there are tons of other optimizations that can be dialled in to make the process of working with BRAW feel nearly as painless as HEVC.

Furthermore, we should prioritize the adoption of 10-Bit 422 H.265 Proxies over 8-Bit 420 H.264 proxies. This professional approach not only streamlines production processes but also ensures that the final output conforms to the highest quality standards anticipated by clients.

You want to jack up resolution and bit depth of your proxies by ≥4x in the name of streamlining your process? The whole point of proxies is that they're meant for applications where bandwidth, computational overhead, and time are at a premium—not fidelity. Rough cuts and immediate viewing kind of scenarios. If your workflow is better serviced by cameras that record in debayered codecs like XAVC or ProRes then why buy in to an ecosystem that prioritizes raw capture?

Again, if this is something that you want and that BMD feels like implementing then that's great, but it sounds a lot more like you just want BMD to implement non-raw codecs for primary capture. I get the impression that they're only really interested in doing that for their broadcast line of cameras, but who knows? When even more efficient and/or cheaper to implement codecs are unveiled we'll probably see higher fidelity proxies.

Look, whether or not BMD implements this is no skin off my back because I'd never use it but you're saying a lot of things that I just kinda disagree with at a fundamental level:

This feature would empower filmmakers and production teams to collaborate more efficiently with UHD timelines, which are frequently the final delivery format.

Any application I can think of that supports BRAW has a functionally resolution agnostic approach to their video pipeline. There's nothing stopping anyone in Resolve, FCPX, or Premier from changing their timeline to UHD once the OCF is relinked, or just starting off with a UHD timeline with HD proxies in it. I'm struggling to think of how HD proxies are holding anyone back in this context, because any fine work that requires more than HD precision should probably be performed on the OCF anyway. The only context this really makes sense for—IMO—is if your deliverables are derived from your proxies, which isn't really what proxies are meant for.

By transitioning from the conventional HD proxies to UHD, we can harness the enhanced processing capabilities of modern machines, thereby optimizing workflows and minimizing the necessity for additional conversion steps.

If I configure my projects right, I have machines from the better part of ten years ago that have no problem with BRAW and my newer machines don't even break a sweat. If you're looking to avoid conversion steps, why not just work with the original BRAW? As you say, machines have only gotten more performant and there are tons of other optimizations that can be dialled in to make the process of working with BRAW feel nearly as painless as HEVC.

Furthermore, we should prioritize the adoption of 10-Bit 422 H.265 Proxies over 8-Bit 420 H.264 proxies. This professional approach not only streamlines production processes but also ensures that the final output conforms to the highest quality standards anticipated by clients.

You want to jack up resolution and bit depth of your proxies by ≥4x in the name of streamlining your process? The whole point of proxies is that they're meant for applications where bandwidth, computational overhead, and time are at a premium—not fidelity. Rough cuts and immediate viewing kind of scenarios. If your workflow is better serviced by cameras that record in debayered codecs like XAVC or ProRes then why buy in to an ecosystem that prioritizes raw capture?

Again, if this is something that you want and that BMD feels like implementing then that's great, but it sounds a lot more like you just want BMD to implement non-raw codecs for primary capture. I get the impression that they're only really interested in doing that for their broadcast line of cameras, but who knows? When even more efficient and/or cheaper to implement codecs are unveiled we'll probably see higher fidelity proxies.

Context I am delivering 10-Bit 422 H265 Log files to clients continually. As they have no need for RAW I'm trying to find a sneaky way to get that kind of codec in the camera. It's very disappointing that Blackmagic got rid of ProRes in their current new cameras. So I'm trying to get it so that the Proxy recorded simultaneously is at least a codec that the clients will take since they don't want BRAW.