Web Analytics
Re: Sigma fp

Re: Sigma fp


Mitch Gross
 

Time is money. Technology is cheaper & faster than ever before of course, but that also means that it’s cheaper & faster for other formats as well as uncompressed RAW. Clients get used to various advantages quickly, and one cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Uncompressed RAW is not necessary for the vast amount of production. It just isn’t. But a Log encoded codec of decent quality can work great. It means small, cheap storage on set and off, reduced data transfer times (a HUGE deal with uncompressed RAW), and easy one-less-thing-to-think-about post workflow for production.

Deliver quality images in a familiar way that doesn’t slow down the person who signs the checks.


Mitch Gross
New York

On Dec 26, 2020, at 10:44 PM, Rakesh Malik <tamerlin@...> wrote:


12-bit raw footage with linear encoding clips harshly, and loses some highlight forgiveness (witness the AJA Cion). Log encoding enables 12-bit raw to deliver quality comparable to what's possible with 16-bit linear encoding, though there are of course some tradeoffs in highlight detail as a result. That's engineering for you; in the end, math and physics win every time.

More important however is that there are a lot of workflows where ANY flavor of raw is overkill, and for those clients tend to favor codecs like ProRes, and for those log encoding is a big help.

Since there are lossless compression options, IMO uncompressed raw is simply silly. Just imagine the data rates we'd be looking at for 8K 16-bit footage -- never mind 12K, even with the slightly lower 12-bit depth. Uncompressed 8K or 12K would be simply insane.

Black Magic added lossless compressed cDNG to its first Pocket cinema camera, and it made a huge difference in data rates -- but being lossless, it has no effect on the data itself.

Again, there is zero value in uncompressed raw in this day and age.
-----------------------------


On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:28 PM Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Ø  I like having a raw option, but I don't see any point in uncompressed raw. It's a waste of space

 

So, how much do you save with Log? 2 bits (20%)?

Do you prefer compression artefacts, instead? Again, in my experience, images from Sigma fp are actually cleaner and with less artefacts than that of many (most) high-end digital cinema cameras. This camera punches way above its weight and I would not hesitate to use it as A-camera on A-grade movie.

 

Ø  Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it.

 

Mitch, as you said: this was a decade ago. J Storage has increased dramatically in size and speed since then. I think 370MB/s is very reasonable and not that much higher than Log and/or compressed formats. What is, however compelling about uncompressed RAW is that it is less processed, richer and more forgivable format. To me it is an advantage, not drawback. It is upstream from Log or compressed formats. You can always create a Log from it or/and compress it if space is an issue.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... [mailto:cml-raw-log-hdr@...] On Behalf Of Mitch Gross
Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2020 1:27 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Sigma fp

 

Because uncompressed RAW means huge files that take up a lot of disk space, take a lot of time to transfer, and require considerable computer power to deal with. But with Log encoding you get the vast majority of flexibility in what the sensor can capture but recorded in a data scale that is reasonable enough to everyone to work with. Clients won’t complain about the data load and the work can happen quickly and effectively. 

 

Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it. When reasonably compressed Log recording became available to these same devices their popularity skyrocketed. It has happened numerous times. 

 

DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW. DPs shooting for the highest level productions want uncompressed RAW. I understand that. But they comprise an infinitesimal percentage of actual users. Most people want the advantages of capturing all that dynamic range while not having the burden of uncompressed RAW workflow. For a petite and inexpensive camera such as the Sigma FP I would argue that the vast majority of people considering its use, compressed Log video is far more attractive than uncompressed RAW. 

Mitch Gross

New York



On Dec 26, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

[Mitch Gross] I would expect that Log encoding is more useful to a vast number of CMLers and DPs in general than Uncompressed RAW recording.

Why?

Join cml-raw-log-hdr@cml.news to automatically receive all group messages.