All-I vs. IPB at DVinfo.net

Markus Nord · May 16th, 2012, 03:04 AM

Hello...

Whats the latest about this... is All-I just better for native editing or is the images better too?

Nigel Barker · May 16th, 2012, 03:26 AM

The image doesn't look any better. It just fills up the cards 3x as fast.

Markus Nord · May 16th, 2012, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

The image doesn't look any better. It just fills up the cards 3x as fast.

so it's not more information for CC/CG... it's still 4:2:0, but I hoped it would have a bit more info/frame.

John Carroll · May 16th, 2012, 08:56 AM

Sorry I don't have a link to share for reference, but seems like I recall seeing where All-I performed better in low light/hi ISO situations showing less noise than IPB.

If I stumble across the comparison I'll come back and post a link.

Sam Pat · May 16th, 2012, 12:35 PM

It fills up the card faster but it is so much nicer to edit natively. I think the benefit to workflow far outweigh the added space.

Markus Nord · May 16th, 2012, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Sorry I don't have a link to share for reference, but seems like I recall seeing where All-I performed better in low light/hi ISO situations showing less noise than IPB.

If I stumble across the comparison I'll come back and post a link.

I found a link too with the result that All-I is better in high ISO.
My NLE is Edius and the All-I works really nice... how is it in FCP7 (some of my clients still use it)?

Sam Pat · May 16th, 2012, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Nord

I found a link too with the result that All-I is better in high ISO.
My NLE is Edius and the All-I works really nice... how is it in FCP7 (some of my clients still use it)?

Flawless in FCP7.

Nigel Barker · May 17th, 2012, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Pat

It fills up the card faster but it is so much nicer to edit natively. I think the benefit to workflow far outweigh the added space.

It depends on your NLE whether it benefits your workflow or not. Premiere Pro edits native IPB files fine just as it did with 5D2 .MOV files. If you are using FCP7 then using All-I may avoid the need to transcode to ProRes.

May 21st, 2012, 10:37 AM

I am missing the reference but it was once claimed that Canons use the most simple compression known to man. There are, say, 15 kinds and they use the worst. Now, it seems, there is a new form of compression that should be delightfully better. Right?

May 16th, 2012, 03:04 AM	#1
Markus Nord Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Vastervik ,Sweden Posts: 639	All-I vs. IPB Hello... Whats the latest about this... is All-I just better for native editing or is the images better too? __________________ www.nordproduktion.se https://vimeo.com/nordproduktion

May 16th, 2012, 03:26 AM	#2
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	Re: All-I vs. IPB The image doesn't look any better. It just fills up the cards 3x as fast.

May 16th, 2012, 08:56 AM	#4
John Carroll Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 156	Re: All-I vs. IPB Sorry I don't have a link to share for reference, but seems like I recall seeing where All-I performed better in low light/hi ISO situations showing less noise than IPB. If I stumble across the comparison I'll come back and post a link.

May 16th, 2012, 12:35 PM	#5
Sam Pat Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Vancouver BC Posts: 29	Re: All-I vs. IPB It fills up the card faster but it is so much nicer to edit natively. I think the benefit to workflow far outweigh the added space.

May 21st, 2012, 10:37 AM	#9
Guest Posts: n/a	Re: All-I vs. IPB I am missing the reference but it was once claimed that Canons use the most simple compression known to man. There are, say, 15 kinds and they use the worst. Now, it seems, there is a new form of compression that should be delightfully better. Right?