The Shogun Inferno uses SSD's to record the high bitrate video, and not any old SSD only the ones that have the highest speed. Turns out editing with very high-bitrate, low-compression ProRes is a breeze, and one does not need expensive SSD's or expensive GPU's to edit. In practice, the H264 100 Mbps look pretty good the cost comes in trying to smoothly edit those video clips. If we could shoot using ProRes, we could edit on cheap computers easily and get higher quality video (less compression artifacts, 4:2:2, 10bit). Because of the absence of cheap and small storage capable of high bitrates that can fit in cameras, we have to shoot at relatively low bitrates and use high compression and invest in powerful CPU's and GPU's to edit comfortably. The real storage constraint is not on your computer or at home, it is on the camera. ProRes is lightly compressed (hence the need for higher bitrates). What slows up editing playback from the timeline is the need to decode highly-compressed video. And, guess what? I can edit ProRes files much more easily than the 100 Mbps XAVC S files from my Sony's. I now am shooting ProRes 422 HQ, which has an average bitrate of 764 Mbps - yes, 764 Mbps. What makes editing difficult is not a high bitrate, it is high compression. The problem is you need higher bitrates or more compression to cope with the higher resolution of 4K. That is because MJpeg uses very little compression Some Canon cameras use the MJpeg codec for video - the bitrates are up to 500 Mbps, and not for 4K. But, you can shoot FullHD at 100 Mbps too, or even SD for that matter. In everyone's cameras shooting H264 or H265 for 4K video, the bitrates are about 100 Mbs at most. The title of this thread is a bit misleading: 4K is not the proximate cause of large file sizes. File size because of 4K? No, Shoot ProRes and see what file size is about
0 kommentar(er)
