Anybody recording in XAVC?

[Andrew Smith]

I looked at XAVC once when I had just applied the firmware upgrade for my PMW-300 and couldn't see the difference. Given the futzing about with card formats (compared to XDCAM) and also using double the data rate and leaving half the capacity on one's media, I decided not to bother with it.

The codec not being supported by Premiere CS6 was another issue.

Just wondering what the rest of us are doing. I'm sticking with 50Mbit XDCAM as it's certainly good enough for my needs.

Andrew

[Doug Jensen]

XDCAM HD422 is a great workhorse format and is the default broadcast standard around the world. But it's only 8-bit so it won't hold up to grading as well as 10-bit XAVC. So if you are not going to grade, you will not see any visual advantage with XAVC. Also, XDCAM HD422 and doesn't allow frame rates faster than 30 fps or resolutions higher than 1080P, so if neither of those are a concern, once again, there's no reason to use XAVC.

[Andrew Smith]

Thanks Doug.

I've actually made the decision that I'm going to stick with "doing HD well" for the foreseeable future. I just don't find it to be convincing re the need to upgrade to 4K when you consider the cost of a new camera and all the associated increases in required processing power and storage costs.

Andrew

[Leslie Wand]

agree entirely - especially when there's so few 4k tv's around and no real way of distributing projects to consumers who can't see the difference anyway ;-)

[Andrew Smith]

Plus, HD done well can be projected up on to a cinema screen and still looks as beautiful as 2K.

Andrew

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Leslie Wand

agree entirely - especially when there's so few 4k tv's around and no real way of distributing projects to consumers who can't see the difference anyway ;-)

Even if you are still delivering in HD, there are still several good reasons to shoot in 4K. For example, you can crop into the frame in post to change the composition, add a key-framed zoom, level a tilted horizon, and get better results with stabilization. 4K yields better results with green screen chromakeys and other effects. Not to mention the long term benefits of future proofing the footage you're shooting. 99% of everything I shoot is done in 4K, yet I have never delivered a 4K finished production. Acquisition and Delivery are two separate things.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Andrew Smith

Plus, HD done well can be projected up on to a cinema screen and still looks as beautiful as 2K.

That's because 2K is just HD with some extra pixels on each side of the frame. The rest of the picture area is exactly the same. So obviously 2K wouldn't look better than HD because it's basically just HD that is 17x9 instead of 16x9. And if you think that 4K looks as good as HD, then you haven't seen 4K. :-)

[Leslie Wand]

agree entirely with you doug about reframing abilities, etc., when using 4k, but for the cost of the extra grunt in terms of camera and pc that'll handle it WELL, i could just as easily buy a second hd camera and call it quits...

i have no doubt that at some stage 4k will become the norm, but for me that'll be when i can edit it at the speed i do hd in full res.with grading on a pc that wont cost an arm and a leg and be obsolete withing 6 months.

as it is, none of my clients has a 4k tv, or when i've asked, intentions (so far) of buying one.

[Doug Jensen]

Leslie, you have presented the counter-argument very well. Ultimately everyone needs to figure out what is best for them.

[Leslie Wand]

unfortunately doug i have a feeling that we'll never catch up with the manufacturers desire to sell us more stuff - there's talk of 8k and 360 vision, and let's not forget vr, which i'm sure will bring with it a slew of new technology we simply MUST have ;-)

i'm thankful i'm pretty much out of it nowadays - and you should see my students faces when i tell them that we used to have a sound editor, an fx editor, graphic artist and of course video editor working full time in the studios, oh and an animator on call for even lowly corporate jobs ;-)

[Dan Gunn]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

That's because 2K is just HD with some extra pixels on each side of the frame. The rest of the picture area is exactly the same. So obviously 2K wouldn't look better than HD because it's basically just HD that is 17x9 instead of 16x9. And if you think that 4K looks as good as HD, then you haven't seen 4K. :-)

Ditto! Doug is right on.

[Andrew Smith]

Just to clarify, I did say that with a bit of tongue-in-cheek. I'll remember to use an emoticon next time.

Always pleased to have Doug join a conversation. Quality is always appreciated.

Andrew