|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 11th, 2014, 11:34 PM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 42
|
Blackmagic HyperDeck vs. Ninja 2
Hi everyone,
I am shooting with a Canon XA25 and would like to make the transition from internal 8-bit AVCHD to external 10-bit 4:2:2, but really struggling with which manufacture to go with. I really don't need or want a monitor on top of the hot shoe, so I'm thinking the HyperDeck would be better, but I am hearing that people really really like their Ninjas. The HyperDeck does Uncompressed Quicktime, but the Ninja 2 only does Apple ProRES. Am I even going to notice the difference between Uncompressed and ProRES? Does the Ninja 2 do ProRES 422 (HQ) or just ProRES 422 (see the differences here)? Is a new PC laptop running Premiere Pro CC going to be able to handle Uncompressed Quicktime with ease? I do like that the Ninja 2 can do SSD or HDD, (because HDDs are so much less expensive), but will I be damaging HDDs when out in the field recording? I can't chance that. And then there's the price:
Battery life for the Ninja 2 is supposed to be much better than the HyperDeck too. Argh! ;) Just not sure what to do here since this would be my first external recorder.
__________________
Chet |
|
|
|
August 11th, 2014, 11:47 PM
|
#2 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 42
|
Re: Blackmagic HyperDeck vs. Ninja 2
OK, well now I just watched the NAB 2014 interview with Atomos regarding the Shogun and the Ninja Star. If I don't want the monitor, I suppose the next best thing is the Ninja Star. The price point is good for me, but the CFast cards sure do sound expensive. And I'm not sure how good they would work for actual workflow with the NLE.
__________________
Chet |
|
|
|
|
August 17th, 2014, 09:18 PM
|
#3 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,088
|
Re: Blackmagic HyperDeck vs. Ninja 2
For me, no question - Ninja or Samurai Blade. ProRes Proxy (I believe), LT, 422, HQ. Unless you are doing serious green screen work or compositing I don't see much need for Uncompressed UNLESS you KNOW you NEED Uncompressed. If you aren't sure, you don't need it.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
|
August 18th, 2014, 03:28 PM
|
#4 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 42
|
Re: Blackmagic HyperDeck vs. Ninja 2
I went with the Samurai Blade.
__________________
Chet |
|
|
|
|
August 19th, 2014, 08:49 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2,006
|
Re: Blackmagic HyperDeck vs. Ninja 2
Quote:
The Samurai Blade is a fine choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
September 11th, 2014, 09:13 AM
|
#6 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Prunedale California
Posts: 108
|
Re: Blackmagic HyperDeck vs. Ninja 2
I have both mounted to my TriPod leg.
I found Velcro more usefull than the BM adapter I like being able to see/record what is behind me while seated. The MustHD M701 Monitor is mounted on a different leg. I will be selling both a getting a Shogun to record 1080 P60 |
|
|
|
|
November 12th, 2014, 09:32 PM
|
#7 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 873
|
Re: Blackmagic HyperDeck vs. Ninja 2
Chet - probably made the right choice - I own an HDS2 and the aren't limited to uncompressed as mentioned in this thread - the do ProRes as well, but they are particularly picky about media (probably due to the legacy SATA 2 bus connector) and you can't change settings in the field without a laptop.
Apart from a status LED there's nothing to tell you whats going on either. I prefer a unit with a monitor myself. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
