3 ms·

The price seems pretty enticing for me as someone who is thinking about venturing into amateur filmmaking. I need to work on technique, lighting and basics so I

by kriro 11y ago

The price seems pretty enticing for me as someone who is thinking about venturing into amateur filmmaking. I need to work on technique, lighting and basics so I'll just stick to a cheapish HD camera with manual controls (I have the good old HF G25 on my mind) for now. Cost adds up quickly (light, sound, computer upgrade for editing). I guess I'll keep this one in mind as the potential next step up. 312.5 MB/s for the best format that's almost 19 GB/minute so a 256GB card will hold <14 minutes. Those cost about 600$ so if you really want to shoot at that storage cost is going to be nontrivial.

bitL 11y ago
312.5MB/s is only for ProRes 444, which is a lossy compression scheme and you don't want to use that before post production (from Apple: "The R, G, and B channels are lightly compressed, with an emphasis on being perceptually indistinguishable from the original material."). For RAW multiply requirements by ~4x.
- ancientworldnow 11y ago
  ProRes 4444 is lossy, but it's still more than enough for most projects. Drive was shot in ProRes 4444 and I deliver network television shows shot in 422HQ or 4444 all the time. Raw is nice but definitely not strictly necessary.
  - bitL 11y ago
    Yes, though for someone as spoiled as me working on 5k/8k hyperlapses with D810/5Ds and getting absolutely gorgeous RAW footage where post-processing filters can do miracles, I vastly prefer shooting 4k RAW, which puts a lot of strain on technology, be it camera, storage and computer as well (nothing on the market is fast enough and no amount of storage is sufficient). The results when viewed on a UHD TV via 4:4:4 mode are phenomenal though. Of course, with 4:2:0 H.264/H.265 it doesn't make much difference and for scaling it down to FHD ProRes 4444 is sufficient anyway.

3 ms·

The price seems pretty enticing for me as someone who is thinking about venturing into amateur filmmaking. I need to work on technique, lighting and basics so I

by kriro 11y ago

bitL 11y ago
312.5MB/s is only for ProRes 444, which is a lossy compression scheme and you don't want to use that before post production (from Apple: "The R, G, and B channels are lightly compressed, with an emphasis on being perceptually indistinguishable from the original material."). For RAW multiply requirements by ~4x.
- ancientworldnow 11y ago
  ProRes 4444 is lossy, but it's still more than enough for most projects. Drive was shot in ProRes 4444 and I deliver network television shows shot in 422HQ or 4444 all the time. Raw is nice but definitely not strictly necessary.
  - bitL 11y ago
    Yes, though for someone as spoiled as me working on 5k/8k hyperlapses with D810/5Ds and getting absolutely gorgeous RAW footage where post-processing filters can do miracles, I vastly prefer shooting 4k RAW, which puts a lot of strain on technology, be it camera, storage and computer as well (nothing on the market is fast enough and no amount of storage is sufficient). The results when viewed on a UHD TV via 4:4:4 mode are phenomenal though. Of course, with 4:2:0 H.264/H.265 it doesn't make much difference and for scaling it down to FHD ProRes 4444 is sufficient anyway.