Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

No, it is true. Do you not understand how one codec can be more efficient that another? ProRes was never intended for acquisition.

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

Sure, I don't understand, that must be it........

I am not even going to argue this: XAVC-I gives the same quality as ProRes with only needing half the file size, believe it!

Have a nice day!

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

Cary, I know you disagree with almost everything I say on the forums, so fortunately you don't have to take my word for it on this one. There are plenty of reputable sources that will tell you XAVC is a more efficient codec than ProRes. In other words, you get much smaller file sizes for the same image quality.

Here are a couple:

https://www.redsharknews.com/technol...t,-xavc?page=1

"Better quality than traditional production codecs (eg ProRes or DNxHD) in less space. ProRes and DNxHD are examples of edit-friendly codecs that are easy to work with because they’re relatively simple, and use a low compression ratio. They give great quality at the expense of taking up a bit more room. The more sophisticated algorithms used in XAVC improve the quality for a given bitrate. Although the Sony format needs more computing power, with XAVC IntraFame, you will probably get the same quality as ProRes in around half the space, under optimal conditions. And working with smaller files just about compensates for the slightly greater computing load. (These aren’t Sony’s comparisons - they’re based on what we typically find ourselves.)"


XAVC vs ProRes 422HQ - Z Systems, Inc.

"I put our Odyssey 7Q on the camera and hooked it up for 4k recording using dual-link SDI inputs. This allowed me to record XAVC and ProRes 422HQ simultaneously, just to see if there was a noticeable difference between them. Check out the video to see if you can spot the difference for yourself. If you couldn’t see the difference, you are not alone. I did not see a difference when I was putting the footage together or in the final product. On top of not being able to see a difference, I was able to work with the XAVC footage natively in Final Cut Pro X just as easily as I did with the ProRes so there is no reason, edit wise, to shoot the ProRes. Add to that the stark difference in file sizes (the ProRes file was 2.7x larger), many productions could save quite a bit on camera media and storage by shooting XAVC."

Do a Google search and you'll find even more people saying the same thing.

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

XAVC is simply H.264 wrapped in MXF OP-1a.

With comparable bit rates H.264 all-intra is roughly the same quality as ProRes, while H.264 long GOP needs roughly half the bitrate compared to all-intra for the same quality.

There is no magic, only marketing!

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

A History of the Kinefinity company (google translate is your friend!):

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/kfL34lPKCA4ZO0f9VbBfWw



Another article which is in English though, worth a read:

Kinefinity ? Past, Present, Future | KineCommunity

Re: Kinefinity MAVO
 

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

Unfortunately, the samples above have some crushed blacks.

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

With comparable bit-rates, H.264 all Intra is better quality than ProRes because ProRes is based on MotionJPEG and H.264 is based on MPEG-4. MotionJPEG has been around since the mid-90s. It's very CPU efficient because the encoding isn't intense.

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

It is somewhat better, but not dramatically.
And certainly not equal to ProRes with only half the bitrate as was suggested above.

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

It would be, because MPEG-4 has higher quality encoding than MotionJPEG. What you are arguing is nonsensical.

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

So what are you claiming Gary that H.264 all-intra is twice as efficient as ProRes or only XAVC-I?

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

At least twice. It's three generations ahead of MotionJPEG, what about that do you not understand?

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

Yes, at least twice as efficient. As I said, ProRes is (was) a nice codec but not very efficient and was never intended for acquisition in the first place.

Re: Kinefinity Terra 4K
 

ProRes is a great quality CODEC today but let's all agree that it's now a dinosaur. Yes, it will STILL give you fantastic quality and HQ is very durable in post against stretching and bending and lifting. However, it was created in a time when computers were MUCH slower than they are today. It uses relatively simple DCT calculatuons that literally go back to the early days of .jpg compression.

H.264 is FAR more advanced, effecient and just plain "smarter". Not just long GOP and the estimation tools and entropy calculations but in all I frame too!

Look at the Lumix GH5's 10bit 400mbp/s h.264 all I frame CODEC. If you have ever shot 10bit V-Log with it, you will see that its pretty damn durable. Just as tough as ProRes but lighter weight.

I like both CODECS but I see it like this:

H.264 All I frame = Tough durability, light weight but need more CPU playback hoursepower.

ProRes HQ = Tough durability, heavy on size but easy playback on low horse power CPU computers. (Good if you have a five 4k camera multi-cam editing job on fat RAID drives)

I like them both but for different reasons.

CT

BACK TO Kinefinity Terra 4K!
 

Thanks for all the Codec discussions. Now, back to the Terra 4K (watch this short action film)

Filmed with Kinefinity Terra 4K

Only one film light used for 3 shots (Aputute f7)