my test shows vegas do a proper conversion when decoding 4:2:0 to 4:4:4 for editing, so if you just applying a filter and exporting directly from vegas, there will be no difference.

intermediate codecs can help to speed up editing, decoding of the videos on timeline, make easy to export for external encoding or to reduce loss on recompressions. it cannot make the video better than it already is on the source (only if you compare with a poor software that do bad color conversion). maybe the only different scenario is when delivering 4:2:2 video to the "client", but that is rare i believe (maybe for tv stations, etc)

i convert all my videos to intermediate (Canopus HQ) and im very happy with the speed/flexibility. i do my own multi-threaded batch encoding scripts, so i make everything fast and easy to use.

(ha ha, I just knew including that bit about the BMPCC would immediately spin this thread off topic :-))

OK, I shall answer your question about the BMPCC Bob if you will help me sort out my thing here.

The BMPCC. First and foremost – ergonomics. For one thing I need an EVF. In the intense sunlight one encounters here the screen is essentially unreadable, compounded by the age of my eyes. I was about to purchase an Alphatron EVF but the Sony Cyber-shot RX10 was announced before I got around to it and for about the same money I believe it to be a better solution. I also find the controls annoying - I don’t like shooting with the BMPCC; that’s just me. Your mileage shall likely differ.

Secondly, ProRes needs lots of grading (as will RAW when they get to implement it) and I have discovered after a month of playing around I just can’t be bothered. I would much prefer a camera that delivers well implemented AVCHD that takes little more than a nudge in post, if that, with the option to capture uncompressed via HDMI if and when necessary.

And to add insult to injury it does not fit in my pocket (not that that matters really. Neither does my EX1)..

Sorry to be so thick but your explanation is technically over my head.

Regarding the conversion thing are you saying that one does not obtain greater flexibility in post by converting as I outlined. Are you also saying, and I think you are, that ProRes in Vegas Pro 12 will not be more malleable than either typical 4:2:0 AVCHD files or MPEG-2 off the EX1? If so then that is another reason why the BMPCC is excluded from my kit bag. I mean what’s the point? OK, do post in Resolve is one solution. For me, and I have gotten into Resolve enough to know, the advantage is not worth the trouble, for me let me repeat.

Thanks again.

Malowz, thanks, I understand it can’t make the video ‘better’ but can it enable more flexibility when heavily grading in post, is my question. In other words can I boot the footage around more without running into banding and blocking and so on. Sorry to be unclear so I hope this helps explain what I’m seeking to understand. I think Bob is saying 'no' above

[I]"Regarding the conversion thing are you saying that one does not obtain greater flexibility in post by converting as I outlined."[/I]

Yes.

[I]"Are you also saying, and I think you are, that ProRes in Vegas Pro 12 will not be more malleable than either typical 4:2:0 AVCHD files or MPEG-2 off the EX1?"[/I]

Yes.

[I]" If so then that is another reason why the BMPCC is excluded from my kit bag."[/I]

Wrong thinking.
The camera is recording more data because it gathers more data in the first place.

[I]"OK, do post in Resolve is one solution. For me, and I have gotten into Resolve enough to know, the advantage is not worth the trouble, for me let me repeat."[/I]

Depends what you're shooting.

___________________________________________________

Just to be clear here by trying a simple comparison.

EX1 records 8bit 4:2:0 @ 35Mbps, PMW-200 records 8bit 4:2:2 @ 50Mbps. Most delivery ends up as 4:2:0 so why use up expensive recording media?

Because more chroma data is recorded. If you intend to do heavy grading or chromakeying then the extra colour resolution could make quite a difference.

Bob.

# but can it enable more flexibility when heavily grading in post, is my question.
depend on your workflow. if you put the original video on timeline, apply filters, export in vegas to final format (no further recompression/processing) using Vegas 32bit mode will be your best option. (8bit will be good enough for "not so intense" adjustments)

but if you plan to reprocess/recompress, use external processing softwares, a intermediate codec is the best option. depending on the codec, you can have better image preservation (some codecs are 8bits, some are 10bits, some are 10 bits internally but encode/decode do 8 bits). knowing the steps/workflow that you edit video, we can recommend the best workflow depending on your needs. "to convert or not convert" depend on "the way you do stuff" ;)

#In other words can I boot the footage around more without running into banding and blocking and so on
depending on the intensity of the adjustments/processing you do, problems may show up or not be problems at all. all depend on what videos do you have, how you process, what adjustments you will do.

my cam is AVCHD 1080p/60fps, i edit for blu-ray. on videoclips i use a profile to record the most latitude and color information, so this generate a "pale and desaturated look" on the video. after some post-processing, filters, to achieve the look i want, i never seen banding or other problems introduced by the processing (only problems from the original video itself, like blocks on flashes, amplified noise if using high ISO, etc..). but again. depending on "how and how much you process" you need to think ahead to avoid them.

Thank you both a lot. I was somewhat suspicious that that which I read on the internet was not correct hence my question. I would post a link but now I can’t find it. Whatever, I shan’t bother converting footage.

I’m simply a retired hobbyist and I publish on my Vimeo site with the occasional DVD delivered to friends. I like to get it more or less right in camera and keep the post work to a minimum; no heavy booting in post, and that’s what I shall continue doing. For me and my simple workflow (and mind) modern implementations of AVCHD and MPEG-2 off the EX1 are really quite good enough, for now.

Cheers.

[I]" For me and my simple workflow (and mind) modern implementations of AVCHD and MPEG-2 off the EX1 are really quite good enough, for now. "[/I]

I shoot mainly events so the cost of media alone to shoot with two EX1s @50Mbps would be prohibitive as at that bitrate I'd have to use the very expensive SxS cards.

Where I work we just acquired the latest incarnation of the FS700 with the 4K RAW external recorder, the cost of media is well...cough, cough.

We also have the BMPCC and I LOVE IT, I just need to find something to shoot with it :(

Bob.

'I just need to find something to shoot with it :('

Don't look at me, Pal; I detest working with the bloody thing. I will admit the image, when you eventually get it into the camera and out through post, is not too bad. But the reality is I do much better, and way quicker, with the EX1 in every way. But then we are talking a lot more money. I have no doubt the FS700 produces nice footage, and so it should at the price. Bigger sensor too not that I'm into shallow DoF and the so called film look. There are two words that should be banned from conversations about this subject and they are 'filmic' and 'lovely'. Of course this would leave speechless a certain person who seemingly is in love with the sound of his own voice and invariably talks way too much while saying bugger all.

The thread here about the film look is most interesting. Glad to see I'm not the only one who questions the whole thing.

Anyway, I did give the BMPCC a fair go and version 2 when they begin to get the ergonomics right might be interesting.. But by then there will be better cameras out there. If the RX10 lives up to the published specs especially the 'better than 12 stops of DR and uncompressed out' and given Sony's track record it just might be too late for Blackmagic to make a serious impact with the BMPCC whatever version.

Still, not a bad effort from the Blackmagic lads new to camera production. They have certainly had, and continue to have, their share of missteps along the way...

The EX1 is a lovely camera to use and capable of very good results. I bought the BMPCC because I wanted a very portable camera and was attracted by its imaging capabilities. Initially I was very disappointed with its ergonomics and understand your judgement. However I've persevered and now I'm comfortable with the camera. Of course it can be rigged to overcome all the problems you've identified. However if you prefer to do little grading in post, the EX1 would seem to be your better option. Presumably you'll be selling the BMPCC?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eckepbsfpi7iw4b/Rig.jpg

The SHAPE cage for the camera, as you see in this image, makes handling much more convenient.

And I bought the BMPCC for the exact same reason, Serena, in particular the size factor, but also because of the promise of a seriously superior image. I am no spring chicken and lugging the EX1 and the big Sachtler FSB 8 tripod up hill and down dale is too much. With that rig I need to be able to drive my car close to where I’m about to shoot and that’s certainly not always possible. So in that respect the BMPCC was most attractive. I realize I can rig it out to overcome the ergonomic issues I have and perhaps still save a few grams, perhaps, and that’s all, but not a good solution.

I thought I wanted to get into the whole grading thing with Resolve (as we’ve discussed) but after a month or more I just am not into it. I do understand the benefits, in fact I have persisted with Resolve sufficiently to enable an understanding of the power of that software when working with an intermediate such as ProRes but right now, no; I don’t want, and don’t need, to do that. And even though now I have developed a workflow that enables very good results from ProRes in Vegas Pro 12 without too much effort the thing is I can get there with the EX1 and enjoy the experience from go to whoa.

So I continue to keep my eyes open for a smallish portable, not necessarily pocketable, camera that shoots EX1 quality footage, along with all the other good video bells and whistles, and records the footage to a professional implementation of AVCHD and perhaps also enables uncompressed out over HDMI to a separate recorder for those infrequent occasions where I might need it. And add to that the ability to shoot high quality stills and I shall be very happy.

The BMPCC, no matter what, is not and cannot be that camera. So in summary, yes, the EX1 is the ‘better’ camera for me, for now.

Will I be selling my BMPCC? No. I probably should, or give it to my granddaughter who is showing an interest in all this but when I think that through I realize she, like most 18 year old girls, is into instant gratification and boys, so not a good idea. I have it packed away as good as new in the original packaging and there it shall stay, for now.

Thanks for your suggestions; much appreciated.

PS I just received an email from my supplier with information regarding the Sony Cyber-shot RX10. I placed an order. Due before Christmas.

4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 should not be a major factor with color grading. 8-bit vs 10-bit is another matter.

You may be better off, if starting with an 8-bit codec, to convert it into a higher bit intermediate for coloring, and then output back to 8-bit as a final render.

More good info here: http://wolfcrow.com/blog/should-you-raise-bit-depth-and-color-space-before-color-grading-part-one-8-bit-video/

John, the RX10 might well be the camera. The BMPCC does give images superior to the EX1 and of course you don't get 13 stop dynamic range without being happy to grade in post. So those were the gains in addition to being small, light, and unobtrusive. I haven't used many cameras relying on a body mounted LCD for a viewfinder and none have been visible in sunlight. My first video camera was the Sony HDR-FX1 and its LCD was fine in full sun, so it's a pity the Sony technology wasn't used on the BMPCC. Also having the LCD fixed really only suits holding it at eye-level, and battery life is short (particularly when the LCD brightness is wound up); there is a Zacuto loupe that fits nicely and completely overcomes the working-in-sunlight problem, if not shooting at low level.
However I've found my way around the camera and no longer find it's ergonomics a great disadvantage. Obviously setting it up in production rig removes many of the light/compact characteristics, but even so it's still very much lighter than the EX1 (since most of the extras in the photo were taken off my EX1). Finding that the focus button is effective reduced the need to do more than frame the shot, so became OK in sunlight, and I can see it well enough off axis to get those low shots without having to lie on the ground. I haven't used it recording in video mode which would make grading about the same as for the EX1, but you lose the dynamic range.
But these observations are all confirming the aspects you found unacceptable even with the superior imaging capabilities and low weight, which I think may well be a common conclusion.

There's too many choices these days.
I was briefly wandering around a Sony stand today and they have a new version of the RX100. The lens is a tad longer, it has an articulated LCD screen and a smart shoe. I still think for a true "pocket" camera it's hard to beat especially for the money. The new model is about $100 more than the old but looks worth it. The RX10 share as the same sensor as the RX100. I guess being able to change lenses would be nice but then that's more stuff to carry about :(

Bob.

Interesting Serena. My first video camera was a Sony Hi8 machine and that was perhaps 30 years ago (I hardly remember). I am too embarrassed to tell you how many cameras I have purchased since then, and besides I don’t have enough fingers and toes. And of course, always, the new camera is better than the one I already had. Defining ‘better’ gets tricky though and when you say the BMPCC gives images that are superior to the EX1 I could seriously debate that assertion. Regarding dynamic range I have yet to find any data supporting the advertised claim that the BMPCC delivers 13 stops. This remains a marketing strategy, as I see it. I’m not saying it doesn’t have 13 stops but I say to Blackmagic ‘prove it’. In any event for me this claim is irrelevant. Correct exposure and I get what to my eye is more than adequate dynamic range with the EX1, seriously. At the end of the process I am able to deliver footage generally every bit as pleasing to me, and generally more so, than I can from the BMPCC, and that’s really what counts.

But of course the EX1 is a huge beast compared to the BMPCC, no doubt about that. When it comes to low weight the BMPCC is the winner, for sure, but superior imaging capabilities – I believe we remain at odds on that point.

Whatever, the fact is that, for now, the EX1 is the machine I use while the BMPCC is stored in its original packaging. It brings nothing better to my table.

Now, switching gears, the Sony Cyber-shot RX10 might well be the camera - I am in complete agreement with you on that point. From the footage I have seen I do believe my EX1 will join my BMPCC in the storage locker (more or less). While a tad larger than the BMPCC the weight and size is quite within my comfort zone and from what I have read and viewed...let’s be unemotional, conservative, non-hysterical and say ‘just dandy thank you very much’. I’m guessing it will be an ergonomic delight while the image quality, from the little I have viewed thus far, might just be ‘superior’ to that produced by both the EX1 and the BMPCC. Even recording to on-board storage (not to mention uncompressed out) it delivers true 1920 x 1080 which, unless I’m mistaken, the BMPCC does not.

Too many choices Bob? I love it. I really need an EVF otherwise I would have an RX100 already. I do believe Sony, when designing the RX10, said there is this fellow down in New Zealand, he’s been buying our stuff for years, a great customer (and of course he’s a brilliant photographer/videographer/cinematographer/DoP/director/producer blah blah - in other words a BS’ing layabout)...let’s design a camera that’s perfect for him. So they did, and it is the RX10. They were going to name it the John McCully Special but marketing said no...the next model perhaps. Blackmagic, on bended knees, begged them not to do it but the lads in Japan just went ahead anyway.

Delivery 12 12 2013 I am told. Cost wise way less than the EX1 and also significantly less than the BMPCC plus equivalent lenses.

Progress; the advancement of enabling technology. Not a bad thing I reckon.

Cheers...

markymarkNY, thanks for that link, much appreciated. While I do not disbelieve anything he is telling us in reality my end products look just fine without converting to anything therefore as I think this through I ask myself why bother with the extra steps. I must say I have been paying too much attention to those who say, incorrectly I now believe, that AVCHD is not a 'professional' codec.

In any event I am paying attention to getting it right in the camera and minimizing post work, for the most part. Unfashionable perhaps, but it's where I have settled down.

Cheers...

John, I am puzzled as to why you think the BMPCC cannot do 1920 x 1080, when it says quite plainly in the specs here that it can: http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/techspecs

Geoff

Re: markymarkNY's link

I think we're all in agreement that 32 bit float is optimum for color correction. I'm not sure what is added by your suggestion of rendering to a higher bit intermediate if we're staying within Vegas. Once Vegas decodes an 8 bit image, from whatever source codec, you have only the colors from an 8 bit image within Vegas' working color space. My assumption would be that this is the same image that would be processed throughout the workflow without recompression until final rendering.

Obviously, if moving to another app for color correction an uncompressed intermediate would be preferable, but what would be gained by rendering to a higher bit format unless image processing has already occurred within a higher bit color space? Seems that the working color space within the color correction app is where the gain comes from. Am I missing something?

Geoff, regarding the true 1920 x 1080 I emphasize the ‘unless I’m mistaken’ phrase which is to say I don’t really know this to be a fact, and the technology is certainly over my head, but I think it goes something like as follows. The sensor delivers 1920 x 1080 which is then debayered resulting in a loss, not a lot perhaps, but the outcome apparently is a softening of the image. That the image off the camera is somewhat soft I can attest to (compared to the EX1 and compared to the original BMCC according to Grant Petty of Blackmagic) and I found it necessary to always sharpen in post, a lot. If you search ‘Pocket debayering’ you should finds a lot of discussion around this topic.

Keep in mind that this comment was made within the context of the touted breakthrough post-capture processing the RX10 brings to the table and judging by the sharpness of the mts files I have viewed I am inclined to believe Sony’s claim even as I don’t really understand the underlying technology.

We shall see. I frequently struggle to separate the rhetoric from the science. At the end of the day it’s what I see that matters :-)

Cheers...

The sensor delivers 1920 x 1080 which is then debayered resulting in a loss, not a lot perhaps, but the outcome apparently is a softening of the image.

Quite accurate. By comparison various if a camera is using a bayer sensor you need 8.3 megapixels to pixel bin/interpolate down to 1920x1080 where each pixel is composed by at least one read, green and blue sensor pixel.

With a native 1920x1080 each output pixel only has a single red, green or blue pixel from the sensor and the other colors are interpolated from surrounding pixels.

John, would you mind emailing me? you can do so from my profile.

Geoff
(geebax)

>>>With a native 1920x1080 <<<<

But is the sensor native 1920 x 1080? The spec says "effective 1920 x 1080 resolution". It may be 10Mp, or anything else. Debating such issues without precise data isn't very useful.

atom12

If I understand it correctly, it is something like this...

Converting 8-bit to 10-bit is like adding extra decimal places to the data values. Then, when color correcting in 32-bit float, the calculations being done are more precise so that when the project is finished and delivered back to an 8-bit output, those numbers are rounded back down more accurately.

From my understanding all color and luminance information are binary integers, and even if the source is compressed, are decoded into binary whole number values. In the case of 8 bit input it would be 0-255 in binary form. There are no decimal places. Binary 00000001 would be converted to the same floating point value as would 0000000001.

But in color correction, or other manipulations within the 32 bit floating point calculations, fractional values can occur, and the rounding of these numbers back to 8 bit values can maintain a higher degree of accuracy.

I my experience, working in a 32 bit float project with 8 bit source material can give a much better 8 bit render. I’m always looking for ways to improve my 8 bit footage, but I think rendering to a higher bit format before processing is an unnecessary step.

There may be those here who have a deeper understanding of floating point math, and if so, I would love to hear if my belief is wrong. Always looking to learn.

Edit. Well, I caught an error in my argument. The value represented by 00000001 in 8 bit video would be 0000000100 in 10 bit video. I'll have to try a few floating point calculations with converted video values to see if the results would always be the same when the last 2 bits are truncated. There may be a small but significant difference. Perhaps I'm learning something already.