Blackmagic Forum

Hello guys, i just updated my Blackmagic 4k and created a fast dirty test too see the difference in quality. I will shoot a wedding tomorrow and wanted to know if the Prores LT is usable for it. I will go with Prores 422 i guess it is enough because the other cameras will be Canon DSLR'S.

Recording was done in HD prores and up-scaled to 4k for less youtube compression.

LT is ok for behind the scenes or long interviews. Hope this short test helps somebody to decide.

Thanks Anton for testing the new firmware and many thanks to the BM guys for the release of version 1.8.2 !!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for that sample. It definitely loses detail as expected. Our eyes prefer the HQ and have gotten used to it and Lt is great for what you stated BTS, events or DOC work. I am grateful as I do multiple types of shooting. Theses cameras eat up so much space.

So what gives best quality? what the difference between space on sd (ssd) ?

In order of best to worst:
25p RAW on BMCC = 5MB/frame = 125MB/sec plus audio
25p RAW on Pocket = 2.5MB/frame = 62.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for 1080p25:
ProRes 422 HQ = 26.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 17.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 12.2MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 5.6MB/sec

25p RAW on BMPC4K =
8.5MB/frame = 212.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for UHD 25p:
ProRes 422 HQ = 103.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 69.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 48.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 21.6MB/sec

adamroberts wrote:In order of best to worst:
25p RAW on BMCC = 5MB/frame = 125MB/sec plus audio
25p RAW on Pocket = 2.5MB/frame = 62.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for 1080p25:
ProRes 422 HQ = 26.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 17.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 12.2MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 5.6MB/sec

25p RAW on BMPC4K =
8.5MB/frame = 212.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for UHD 25p:
ProRes 422 HQ = 103.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 69.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 48.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 21.6MB/sec

What is this 25p you speak of?

ok, just so I'm clear...the BMP4K is now able to record "ProRes" at UHD resolutions? Correct?

Doesn't this mean the BMP4K is the first camera to do that?

The BMPC4K could record UHD in ProRes since it shipped.

LOL, of course it could. haha, I mean the variations. I am not aware of any other 4K camera that does that

For a wedding I would use ProRes 422 unless I had some magical way of recording longer in ProRes HQ.


BMD thank you so very very much!! This is a big help!

Thx for the test

adamroberts wrote:In order of best to worst:
25p RAW on BMCC = 5MB/frame = 125MB/sec plus audio
25p RAW on Pocket = 2.5MB/frame = 62.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for 1080p25:
ProRes 422 HQ = 26.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 17.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 12.2MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 5.6MB/sec

25p RAW on BMPC4K =
8.5MB/frame = 212.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for UHD 25p:
ProRes 422 HQ = 103.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 69.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 48.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 21.6MB/sec

Very handy, cheers!

adamroberts wrote:In order of best to worst:
25p RAW on BMCC = 5MB/frame = 125MB/sec plus audio
25p RAW on Pocket = 2.5MB/frame = 62.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for 1080p25:
ProRes 422 HQ = 26.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 17.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 12.2MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 5.6MB/sec

25p RAW on BMPC4K =
8.5MB/frame = 212.5MB/sec plus audio
ProRes data rates for UHD 25p:
ProRes 422 HQ = 103.5MB/sec
ProRes 422 = 69.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 LT = 48.1MB/sec
ProRes 422 Proxy = 21.6MB/sec

nice adam. thanks.

I did a similar test to Anton's, just closer to the subject.



I think LT is the clear champ. It holds up incredibly well at half the data rate. Proxy is nice too, but you can see some blocking in the bricks.

Anton, shooting ProRes 4:2:2 will reduce your storage requirements by a third which lets you shoot 50% longer before you need to change media in the camera. You can see some degradation in your video compared to ProRes 4:2:2 HQ. So you decide if the slight loss is tolerable given the benefit. A wedding is challenging in that you often have a bright white dress beside a dark black suit and not a lot of control over the lighting. So if you can afford the shorter media recording time of HQ, you may see the benefit in your deliverable. I'd agree for less demanding work LT looks good, but a wedding is so special for those involved to have your work look your best.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Sean, thanks for the test. I agree when the dynamic range in the frame isn't extreme, LT looks good and saves more than half the storage.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Thank you BMD
Really need Prores or LT sometimes when I need to record longer

Is it possible to add prores /LT in 2.5k too?

thomas325 wrote:Is it possible to add prores /LT in 2.5k too?

It is in the 2.5K. The update is for all 3 cameras.

Probably not gonna happen, 3 camera are different sensor
Bmcc is 2.5k, bmpcc is HD only, bmpc is 4k

thomas325 wrote:Is it possible to add prores /LT in 2.5k too?

I guess he ask for 2k5 resolution ProRes LT - or any 2k5 ProRes ...

Thanks to the testers for the footage, thanks to BlackMagicDesign for more recording options - i can make good use of ProRes LT for some of my projects!

thomas325 wrote:Probably not gonna happen, 3 camera are different sensor
Bmcc is 2.5k, bmpcc is HD only, bmpc is 4k

I think something is being missed here.
Blackmagic Cinema Camera
Adds support for Apple ProRes 422, Apple ProRes 422 LT and Apple ProRes 422 Proxy recording support.

Are you asking if it's possible to add LT in 2.5k to the BMPCC? Then no. A firmware update can't put more pixels on a sensor. But if you're asking if LT is available on the 2.5K then yes, it already is.

He's asking for ProRes at 2.5k. ProRes is only available in HD on the 2.5K camera. You can't record at 2.5k unless you shoot RAW.

The reason is probably due to the fact that 2.5k is not a delivery standard and Apple won't grant a license. I might be wrong but this has been discussed at length before.

adamroberts wrote:He's asking for ProRes at 2.5k. ProRes is only available in HD on the 2.5K camera. You can't record at 2.5k unless you shoot RAW.

The reason is probably due to the fact that 2.5k is not a delivery standard and Apple won't grant a license. I might be wrong but this has been discussed at length before.

OH, gotcha. Making it specific with LT threw me off. And I think you're absolutely right as to why.

Yes that's what I mean. 2.5k prores license for bmcc will be great

I know can't make bmpcc to 2.5k

Question

Does bmcc originally come with prores or prores hq?

Is it possible to downscale the 2.5k to a 2K ProsRes file since Apple already has that? Just wondering.

Not to rain on this amazing parade of new options, but now we definitely need to run test all over again to see power consumption vs recording time all over again since we don't have accurate readers in-camera. I'm wondering if the battery(internal) will last longer since the camera is working a little hard to write.

thomas325 wrote:Question
Does bmcc originally come with prores or prores hq?

It came with ProRes HQ, but it was labeled ProRes in camera. Now, it's labeled HQ to differentiate between the other versions.

Here's another test guys in case you missed it. I also included raw just to compare and also zoomed in.

I'm sorry to say this, but your test is not very helpful.
Shooting at f22 with the small sensor is getting you into diffraction limits and your images show it – having had other Samyang (aka Rokinon) lenses I don't think yours should be so soft. To really see the subtle differences between codecs we need a bit more resolution from the start.

Uli Plank wrote:I'm sorry to say this, but your test is not very helpful.
Shooting at f22 with the small sensor is getting you into diffraction limits and your images show it – having had other Samyang (aka Rokinon) lenses I don't think yours should be so soft. To really see the subtle differences between codecs we need a bit more resolution from the start.

Thanks for the info! I'm not a shooter, just sharing. I'll keep that in mind for future tests. Learned something new - diffraction limits.

Fred, each lens has its own sweet spot in terms of overall sharpness. Generally speaking most stills lenses are sharpest stopped down a couple of stops and diffraction shows up a couple of stops before the minimum aperture. Now there are exceptions like the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 zoom which maintains sharpness at the wider apertures. Of course high-end cinema lenses can be sharp throughout their range until diffraction sets in at the minimum aperture.

Usually shooting between f/4 and f/8 gives the sharpest results and some fast lenses are still very good at f/2.8 or lower.

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Anyone plan on using ProRes 4444 XQ with the 4K camera in Resolve Beta 2? or since it cannot shoot in HDR mode like a RES or ARRI is it redundant vs normal ProRes 4444

I'm assuming that 422/LT and proxy are all 4:2:2, 10 bit, just more compressed. Are my assumptions right?

AMD wrote:I'm assuming that 422/LT and proxy are all 4:2:2, 10 bit, just more compressed. Are my assumptions right?

Yes.

Perrone Ford wrote:

AMD wrote:I'm assuming that 422/LT and proxy are all 4:2:2, 10 bit, just more compressed. Are my assumptions right?

Yes.

Awesome!! Black Magic just solved my major grip with the BMPCC (file sizes), Now if they can add slow motion I'll have no reason to buy any other kind of camera.

rick.lang wrote:Fred, each lens has its own sweet spot in terms of overall sharpness. Generally speaking most stills lenses are sharpest stopped down a couple of stops and diffraction shows up a couple of stops before the minimum aperture. Now there are exceptions like the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 zoom which maintains sharpness at the wider apertures. Of course high-end cinema lenses can be sharp throughout their range until diffraction sets in at the minimum aperture.

Usually shooting between f/4 and f/8 gives the sharpest results and some fast lenses are still very good at f/2.8 or lower.

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Thanks Rick! I replaced the video with a little something better. I definitely noticed a difference at full res. Much sharper and detailed. The web compression however does kinda blend everything together in comparison.

Fred, that test looked much better.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

I'm sorry to say i don't see a significant difference. maybe an extreme grade test may show how they handle. Question but to me proxy looks better than h264. is it just me?

Howard L Hughes wrote:to me proxy looks better than h264. is it just me?

ProRes Proxy _is_ better than h264 - at the usual datarates. H264 is more efficient in compressing data, but in most cameras it's used at the lowest datarates acceptable for presenting the clips without further processing. As soon as you start grading, H264 usually falls apart pretty quickly.

ProRes Proxy is still 10bit. So it will have more colour info than H264 which is just 8bit. Colour gradients will be smoother. Skintones will be smoother.

You'll notice compression artefacts when dealing with complex scenes like fast moving subject or leaves on trees.

adamroberts wrote:You'll notice compression artefacts when dealing with complex scenes like fast moving subject or leaves on trees.

ProRes variants are all intra-frame (each frame is self-contained), so motion doesn't make a difference. This is a significant part of why inter-frame H.264 variants can look better at a given bit rate. (It's also a big part of why ProRes is smoother to edit with; each can frame be decoded without having to decode any other frames first.)