cinealta's advantage over other hds (2k, 4k)

johnsen camperm · August 3, 2008

I have to say sony's high quality hds are quite expensive considering nowadays there are other high quality cameras, say, si 2k, phantom, etc. But sony's camera like f23, even f900 (with lower specs), is so much more expensive than those 2k cameras. Can any experienced guys enlighten me what's the real advantage with cinealta. Would the extra bucks really worth its salt?

Adrian Sierkowski · August 3, 2008

Well, for one, the cameras spit out familiar tapes (and those decks aren't cheap either!). The benefit of this, is of course, integration in existing post workflows more ubiquitously than some of the file-based systems. Also there is the archival use of tape. as for 2K or the like, that would depend on project. I think most of those cameras are Bayer cameras, so it's not really resolving 2K, it's something like ~78%. The Sonys are not Bayerd so they resole the full 1080. Essentially, the Sonys are geared more towards productions who need to start cutting right away, or can't afford the storage solutions. Also, the Sonys have the image processors built on-board, there is no need later on to convert file types, (as in a Red, for example). This technology also costs. There is the "cost," in tapeless work-flows as well, but this "cost," is not with the camera, but rather the post knick-knacks you have to by to use the data they output (Scratch for example, or a fast MacPro and RedCine {Speaking of red only as I'm at least marginally familiar with it's workflow, having NOT used an SI or Phantom}).

As for "look" and the like, and "worth it," that's a subjective call, it really is. Given the choice, I'd go with a Sony, though, but that's just my preference. It's akin to asking, well, an Arri is 50,000 and an Aaton is 30,000 (ish?). Is the extra 20G worth it? Well, yes and no, but it depends. The cameras basically do the same damned thing and have the same damned functions; but it's the smaller flourishes which add in to the price (registration pin on the SRs as opposed to none (i think?) on the LTR, stuff like that).

Hope all of this makes sense in some way. I'm sure others who've used these systems more than myself will chime in.

Brian Drysdale · August 3, 2008

Well, for one, the cameras spit out familiar tapes (and those decks aren't cheap either!). The benefit of this, is of course, integration in existing post workflows more ubiquitously than some of the file-based systems. Also there is the archival use of tape. as for 2K or the like, that would depend on project. I think most of those cameras are Bayer cameras, so it's not really resolving 2K, it's something like ~78%. The Sonys are not Bayerd so they resole the full 1080. Essentially, the Sonys are geared more towards productions who need to start cutting right away, or can't afford the storage solutions. Also, the Sonys have the image processors built on-board, there is no need later on to convert file types, (as in a Red, for example). This technology also costs. There is the "cost," in tapeless work-flows as well, but this "cost," is not with the camera, but rather the post knick-knacks you have to by to use the data they output (Scratch for example, or a fast MacPro and RedCine {Speaking of red only as I'm at least marginally familiar with it's workflow, having NOT used an SI or Phantom}).
As for "look" and the like, and "worth it," that's a subjective call, it really is. Given the choice, I'd go with a Sony, though, but that's just my preference. It's akin to asking, well, an Arri is 50,000 and an Aaton is 30,000 (ish?). Is the extra 20G worth it? Well, yes and no, but it depends. The cameras basically do the same damned thing and have the same damned functions; but it's the smaller flourishes which add in to the price (registration pin on the SRs as opposed to none (i think?) on the LTR, stuff like that).

Hope all of this makes sense in some way. I'm sure others who've used these systems more than myself will chime in.

Most productions rent their camera gear and the current rental rates on the data cameras aren't vastly different to those of the traditional HD cameras.

I know one post house that did some work with the SI and found the workflow getting rather complex by the time they'd got involved with dpx etc. I'd imagine things will start to settle down over the next year or so once they set up to handle both methods of working. However, it would appear that there are time advantages with the tape systems, because of the need for rendering with the data cameras.

The ARRI SR was always popular with rental companies because could withstand the wear and tear in a rental fleet. The Aaton, without the registration pin, never had any steadiness problems, it was reputably better than the SR handling weave.

Adrian Sierkowski · August 3, 2008

woops, just wanted to state I didn't mean to imply the Aaton was any less steady than the Arri; just that the small flourishes each camera has often account for the larger price disparities.

Brian Drysdale · August 3, 2008

woops, just wanted to state I didn't mean to imply the Aaton was any less steady than the Arri; just that the small flourishes each camera has often account for the larger price disparities.

No problem... I suspect there are various reasons why you find disparities in the prices between different cameras. Not only just the technical costs but organisational and the size and nature of the product's market to be factored in.

Luke Haywood · August 4, 2008

However, it would appear that there are time advantages with the tape systems, because of the need for rendering with the data cameras.

(I know this probably belongs in the RED folder, but it does have a bearing on thevoriginal poster's question.)

Is it possible for anybody to give me the straight dope on this:

Say I had a 8GB Compact Flash card holding the regulation 6 Minutes of "4K" video (whatever that means) plus sound, how long would it take me to convert that to a standard 1920 x 1080 MPEG file ready for feeding into an existing HD worklfow.

That is, not using any software other than RedCine, and not using a RED, just a PC.

And I'm talking about using it on an ordinary high-end consumer type PC, 3GHz dual-core or thereabouts, allowing for reasonably cheap upgrades such as more RAM and a bigger Hard Disk.

I'm not interested in using Macs or $10,000 supercharged setups.

What are we talking about? Hours? Days?

Luke 'Just the facts, Ma'am' Haywood

David Mullen ASC · August 4, 2008

I've heard rumors of roughly 6:1 conversion times to convert 4K R3D files on regular computers. But that was a while ago and it probably depends a lot on the speed of your computer.

Matthew Rogers · August 4, 2008

I've heard rumors of roughly 6:1 conversion times to convert 4K R3D files on regular computers. But that was a while ago and it probably depends a lot on the speed of your computer.

I just did a test on 1 minute of "average" close up footage (subject from chest to head with shallow depth of field) and got fairly similar results in all codecs. My machine (which is far more beastly than the avg computer) is a 2.8Ghz 8 core MacPro with 10 GB's RAM and a 2.7 TB RAID-5. On avg I got about 4-7 FPS out of RedCine with 4k 2:1 footage set to Full Rez, with the processing and quality set to full/max. As far as I know, that is the max settings you can export footage out of RedCine at. So a 1 minute clip, depending on the codec, was taking 7-9 minutes. Of course, RedCine was only using 450% to 550% of my processor time--so it wasn't using as much as my MacPro has to offer.

That said, 1/2 Rez high looks fantastic in 1080P...yes full rez decode looks a little better but you've got to get your face up close to the screen to see the difference (or maybe my eyes are worse than I thought!)

Matthew

Luke Haywood · August 4, 2008

I just did a test on 1 minute of "average" close up footage (subject from chest to head with shallow depth of field) and got fairly similar results in all codecs. My machine (which is far more beastly than the avg computer) is a 2.8Ghz 8 core MacPro with 10 GB's RAM and a 2.7 TB RAID-5. On avg I got about 4-7 FPS out of RedCine with 4k 2:1 footage set to Full Rez, with the processing and quality set to full/max. As far as I know, that is the max settings you can export footage out of RedCine at. So a 1 minute clip, depending on the codec, was taking 7-9 minutes. Of course, RedCine was only using 450% to 550% of my processor time--so it wasn't using as much as my MacPro has to offer.

That said, 1/2 Rez high looks fantastic in 1080P...yes full rez decode looks a little better but you've got to get your face up close to the screen to see the difference (or maybe my eyes are worse than I thought!)

Matthew

Yes, this is the sort of figure that tends to get quoted on Reduser.

But not everybody wants to invest in such a "beastly" computer, and if a machine like yours is taking that long to render footage, I shudder to think how long it would take on a more modest machine.

Probably something they would rather not talk about.

That's not to say it would be unworkable, as long as it's faster than an overnight process/HD scan of a day's footage at a processing lab. :lol: