NYC based actor/writer/director
If, and only if, 8K costs the same to produce as 4K will the transition be made. That’s the only valid argument this article makes. Otherwise, this isn’t an argument. 8K is only a company trying to make money, and it is useless except in very limited and specific circumstances.
I don’t understand why these same companies invest in making their cameras and televisions better.
I know everyone knows this, but I’ll say it anyway. Arri is a perfect example of why resolution doesn’t matter. I don’t know anyone who would choose a RED over an Arri when it came to their production. I know people do, but I don’t know any.
Keep giving me larger sensors (I would love a real medium format affordable camera that gives me the look of my medium format film camera), better color, better dynamic range, less noise, better ergonomics, etc.
Keep your 8K
This isn’t a good look for you, and I will tell you why. As a writer/director in the media of film, I assume, you have to look at the context of the film and the role before you say that you have to cast the best actor for the role. Tubman was a black abolitionist. AND most importantly she was a real person. A person who happened to have dark skin which is relevant to the story of slavery in this country. There were white abolitionists and you are free to write and direct that story with a white actor. But casting a story about freeing slaves and changing the race of the protagonist, changes the story.
I hope this is clear.
I have spoken to them about this and they informed me that they no longer support the Inferno. I would assume this goes for the SUMO as well, but I could be wrong. I own both. My SUMO is six months old. Atomos is horrible about supporting their products, and as soon as the monitors I own run their cycle, I'm moving to SmallHD. They actually support their products.
Exactly! That's what I want to know. Otherwise, I'm soon moving to PC
I wanted to find a recent text from my brother-in-law before I commented: “Davinci performance is atrocious on my Mac mini! I just ordered an external gpu for it. You’re very patient.”
I was at is place over the holidays and was finishing up a project. He had the new Mac mini (maxed out version). At home, I edit on a Mac Pro 5,1 cheese grater (12 core 3.46ghz, gtx 1080, ssd raid on PCI, usb 3.0, you get it). My old Mac Pro cost me $2,500 USD to put together. My brother’s Mac mini cost him over $4,000. The files and drives I was using at his house with the only variable being the Mac mini could not play back 4K raw video at all (2-3fps). My old machine at home plays back the files in real time without dropped frames.
I suspect the files wouldn’t play back in real-time even with an external gpu but I’m guessing. Point is, to say a Mac mini is a good investment for filmmakers is a joke. Maybe if you don’t care about money, or performance, or time, or you just don’t care; a Mac mini could be an option. BUT if you care about getting the best performance for your money, don’t go near a Mac mini for film/video editing. You are wasting money.
If you’re going to pay $4,000 for a Mac mini, pay $5,000 and get an iMac pro. I don’t suggest either, but if you’re going to waste your money, waste it on a machine you will be happy with when it comes to video editing.
I hate when I see this quote because it simply isn't true.
"new Blackmagic Raw codec, which is much smaller than the Cinema DNG of the Pocket 4k, though I think we all expect the Pocket to get the new .braw format soon. In fact, it kind of has to. The current Cinema DNG format files are just too big"
Blackmagic RAW (braw) is a great codec when you don't want to use CDNG, BUT it is not much smaller. It is barely smaller and often the same! The difference is that braw has higher compression rates 5:1, 8:1, 12:1. That's it, and that is why it's smaller, but now you have higher compression and potentially less grading room. But I do admit that visually, I can't tell the difference.
Blackmagic shows the data rates for Uncompressed RAW to make braw seem "MUCH" smaller. UNCOMPRESSED RAW ISN'T EVEN AN OPTION ON THE MINI PRO OR THE POCKET CINEMA, only LOSSLESS!! Uncompressed and Lossless are not the same thing, and braw isn't available in uncompressed or lossless so you aren't comparing apples to apples. They aren't even comparing anything that is in a product they sell. Great marketing or should I say lying, but there is a reason the chart on their website only shows Uncompressed CDNG vs braw 3:1 and lower. If you compare apples to apples, CDNG 3:1 is 183MB/s and braw 3:1 is 183 MB/s and braw Q0 is 110-274 MB/s according to Blackmagic's literature and at 4.6k! And that's the reality. Everyone should know that before thinking you will save tons of space when shooting with braw.
From the URSA Mini Pro manual:
"For example, 12:1 compression produces a file size roughly 12 times smaller than uncompressed RAW". CDNG at 12:1 would do the same thing folks. Do the math. It's just not offered at 12:1.
CDNG is offered for the URSA mini pro and pocket cinema in 3:1 and 4:1, but in the URSA Mini Pro Manual; it only shows 4:1 when comparing CDNG to braw. Again, Blackmagic is attempting to avoid showing that the date rates are the same for 3:1.
On Blackmagic's website for tech specs of pocket cinema at 4k DCI:
CinemaDNG RAW - 272 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 129 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 4:1 - 97 MB/s
On Blackmagic's website for tech specs of URSA mini pro at 4.6k:
Blackmagic RAW 3:1 - 183 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 5:1 - 110 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 8:1 - 68 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 12:1 - 46 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW Q0 - 110 to 274 MB/s *
Blackmagic RAW Q5 - 27 to 78 MB/s **
CinemaDNG RAW - 391 MB/s (NOT 548 MB/s)
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 183 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 4:1 - 137 MB/s
Yes, you read this correctly.
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 183 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 3:1 - 183 MB/s
All the marketing or lying or misleading is not giving people accurate information.
The main way braw is amazing is that you can edit it on a laptop without a problem. That is how they should market the codec because that is a great feature. That is the benefit and that is why you should choose it if this is important to you. It is easy on your computer. CDNG is not easy on your computer. I've also noticed that braw is less noisy at 1600, but it seems CDNG is better at 3200 than braw. Doesn't make sense, but it is what I see.
I know it's easy to write an article without doing real research, but the easy way is rarely an educated way.