@@gnosisdevelada-joseburboa6439 If you are shooting a feature film, you should be able to afford 8:1 or 5:1, even on a tight budget, I reckon. It depends what you're doing, what are the light conditions, what glass you're using and all that of course.
The file size is a little inaccurate because Q0 and Q5 are variable. For example, Q0 in a low light scene can be as low as 8:1 and in a well lit scene and it can go higher than 3:1.
Thanks! One thing that I picked up on in my own test was the subtle sharpness difference in ProRes vs BRAW overall. I shoot a lot of synthesizer tutorials, and like to punch in to show details such as labels and OLED screens, so sharpness is important to me. It seems like the BMPCC4K camera is doing a slight in-camera sharpness on ProRes files. In Davinci Resolve, I get very similar sharpness when changing the Sharpen radius to 0.48 on the BRAW files. Something I didn't pick up on until I saw this video was the compression in the greens. Those trees revealed a whole lot.
I can't believe how minor the differences are O.o There is really no real reason to lose so many GB just for 0,0001 better picture quality. I am shooting 12:1 from now on. Thanks!
Thank you! This is just what I was looking for, straight forward information with variety of types of shots. 12:1 seems the most ideal for most scenario's. I'm preparing to shoot live show content so 12:1 should get me just what I need!
This camera is a tiny beast. here's another fun test. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tunB5ES_zdU.html Oh, and then there's this 👀 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZBe4LBA2TFQ.html
The file chart at the end is very useful! Now i want a black magic 4k in my life that camera its so good even in low ligth and with BRAW for wedding is a boom! Thank you sir! Sorry about my bad english i speak spanish.
Thank you for doing this test, I've been lloking for this comparison, I was almost going to do it my self. After playing a bit with the 12:1; 8:1 etc, even on my 4k screen I couldn't manage to see the difference. I guess it's only visible when you pixel peep. Greeat insights though, I'll keep that in mind for higher end project ! Cheers from france
dude this was awesomne thanks. I jus boughtthe 6k pro & I'm trying to figure out what makes the most sense. I love 3:1 but it's massive size is overkill so I'm thinking of 5:1 or 8:1
Thanks mate. Good to be posting again!! Let's hope the RU-vid Algorithm starts pumping them out to my subscribers... having a 10 year break surely doesn't help haha.
Agh, now I'm torn! Was looking to shoot 5:1 for a doco but you can definitely see noise in the darker parts of the tree leaves right after 3:1... thanks for the upload. PS, great location. I shot a music video there a year ago.
Idk, man. 3:1 and 5:1 looked pretty similar and there seems to be a decent file size gap between the two. I'm definitely a pixel peeper and a quality purist compared to other videographers but I would still recommend going 5:1 at highest. Especially with all the compression that'll be introduced in RU-vid/Vimeo etc. It might help to have that saved file space. Just my thoughts :)
Great video. This matches my experience using my G1 UMP as well. In terms of the ultimate in detail retention, CDNG is much better than any of the BRAW variants but again you need to zoom in about 500% to really see that. At first I thought CDNG was just sharper but when resolving super fine detail at a distance it's clear that CDNG retains much more detail than BRAW CQQ0.
Very helpful, thanks. Could you give me an idea of how much space is taken up by Raw 2.6K footage, at 24fps, at various compression levels, or can you point me somewhere I could find out? Thanks.
Thank you! It appears just a slight changes to the images, but, however very usable. At close distances the image might not suffer too much, I believe.🤔😄
Great comparison. I've noticed a little of that softness/compression artifacts in using 12:1 so good to see a detailed test to save me having to dig through the differences at 500% myself XD. I was using Q5 before switching to 12:1 so would have loved a few more Q0/5 clips to have made it in these tests but I can see others have also said this. Subbed!
Really great test and tremendously helpful! I'm going to shoot an event in a sunny day. But there is only a 128g SD card for now. Your video makes me feel relaxing cuz I'm gonna shoot at 12:1 to Get enough room. THANKS!
thank you very much for this video, i kinda bought blind the 4k and didn´t what the 3:1 and 12:1 meant, which for my eye is almost the same picture with a lower file size i think i gonna shot in 12:1
not the best test here, not much movement, IE the compression isn't really being tested. Go out and film a moving subject with a moving background and the 12:1 can actually fall apart, esp in the blacks and with large solid colors like solid red/yellow sweatshirts.
Super helpful!! I'm about to start production on a doc that's good tv broadcast and possibly theatrical. I have plenty of T5 drives. Shooting bmpcc4k. Any thoughts are helpful!
@@DillonPearceMedia Think that's good enough for theatrical? Sorry, I'm new to BMraw and was going to do proresHQ until I saw that raw is way more manageable than it used to be.
@@pfcaleb Yeah BRAW is actually more efficient than prores HQ. I find Q5 the best of both words. It’s a variable bitrate so it’ll change it from I think 7:1 - 12:1 depending on what is in the shot so you maintain quality.
I'm a bit of a novice so not so keen on the differences. But from what you demonstrated is the 3:1, 5:1, 12:1 etc is basically compression of the file? From what I could tell there appears to be very little quality difference.
@@DillonPearceMedia yes, I understand RU-vid compression. For me I wanted to understand the logic behind choosing to shoot 3:1 - 12:1. Wanted to find out which gives a better opportunity to achieve great clarity. As of this moment storage isn't a issue for me and I'm most interested in getting the most information from my clips for post work. Without knowing the difference I try to shoot 3:1 with a constant bit rate. Not sure that's the best route though.
JCINE Williams Since I made this video I’ve been using Q5 Variable Bitrate which has made that decision most of the time for me. It range between 5:1-12:1 depending on what is in the scene.
İ have bmpcc 4k and im gonna buy 16"macbook pro with AMD Radeon Pro 5300M 4g gpu, 16gb ram, i7 cpu. Can i edit this camera's footage in resolve with this pc?
This is exactly what I'm looking for! Thank you so much for all the detailed information. The 12:1 braw looks amazing. Just one small question: is the file size of 4K24P or 4K60P? I am looking to buy a BMPCC 4K as my first video camera and trying to estimate how many memory cards I need to purchase as well.
I wanted to compare the constant bitrates because this is what most people use including myself as you have more control over picking which compression depending on what you are working on. For example for video shoots which end up on social media I use 12:1 to save on space. Q0 varies between 5:1 and a little higher than 3:1 and Q5 varies between 8:1 and 12:1. I can explore those further in a future video if you'd be interested in that?
爱科技iTech Yes I’ll focus on Q0 and Q5 in the next one
5 лет назад
@@DillonPearceMedia I especially interested in Q5. It should be able to go smaller than 12:1 with simple scenes. But what would be a simple seen? Interviews? Could you try to create scenarios when it will produce a smaller file size than 12:1? Thanks!
My Samsung t5 can record up to 5:1 and I'm wondering if this is worth shooting over 12:1. maybe the difference will tell in low light. I'm not seeing much of a difference here
No client will ever say: "ah shit, you shot at 12:1 imma pay you less now." Most people can't tell the difference. We only see the difference cuz we have a trained eye. No body is going to zoom 500% in on your footage. And even with a trained eye and seeing that the image is only like 1% better... is it really worth all those large file sizes? For just 1% better footage?
