I bought a Sony NEX-5R for an upcoming backpacking trip through SE Asia, but dreaded bringing my Canon 60D gear with me. After doing 20 hours of research, I didn't realize later that the bit rate is only about half of the bit rate of the 60D -- 20 to 24mb/s. Question: Is this bitrate good enough for most stock footage places to take? I know I have to unwrap it to ProRes and then spit it out as JPEG quality or something, and I'm not asking about lens quality, aspect ratio, or anything. <b>Is this camera's bit rate acceptable, or do I have to buy a Ninja to record straight to ProRes or bring my 60D?</b> Thanks! Ninja link: http://www.amazon.com/Atomos-Ninja-...TF8&colid=3ADBUXB6NXP15&coliid=I1SL86X4YHIZV2
The AVCHD bitrates are lower than those used on the Canon DSLRs because Sony have done a fantastic job with that codec. Straight out of the camera AVCHD footage look very similar to that on the Ninja. Where the Ninja shines is if there is a lot of motion in the frame or a lot of detail (fabrics, leaves, etc) Will is do for stock libraries?? All depends on the library I guess but I'd say in many cases it'll look better than what comes off the Canon DSLR. There is no clean HDMI out on the NEX5n so it won't help taking a Ninja with you.
Adam Roberts is my new best friend! You're telling me I'm getting file sizes much smaller, and the samish or better quality than my Canon 60D? You have just taken the weight of having to return 20 pieces of gear -- camera, lenses, chargers, filters -- and not making the 25+ hours of researching and shopping go to waste. P.S. Yes, 5xr has HDMI, and some cool features, including 180 degree screen, and now the brand new time-lapse app from "PlayMemories". Not sure if it works for the 5N, cuz I think you need wifi? Thanks so much, Adam. I will no longer plan on going to sleep in a puddle of my tears tonight.
I see that you have, on here: http://www.adamroberts.net/films/the-list-directors-cut/ Which shots with the 5N? Do you know of a difference in compression or processing or whatever between the two cameras? I'm watching it right now, and I don't see a difference between them yet. And trying to focus on the image quality, and nothing more. Lord. This is fantastic:
I use the 5n a lot when shooting with the FS100. Very often we have limited time (due to budgets) to shoot so I often have the 5n set-up for quick handheld shots with just a striker rig, prime lens an LCDVF. I shoot in PS (50p) or FX (25p) modes. These are the same codecs as available on the FS100. There is a slight bit more moire and aliasing on the 5n vs the FS100 but the images match up pretty close. Since producing that tutorial I added the 5n to my kit list. the 5 is now in a waterproof housing. For colour profiles: When shooting people I use: Portrait: contrast -1, saturation -1, sharpness -3 When shooting scenery I use: Sunset: contrast -2, saturation -3, sharpness -3 The additions to the 5r are really nice. The apps won't run on the 5n tho. :-(
Thanks so much, Adam. I'll use them. I'll mostly be doing scenery shots. I'm assuming you mean "Sunset" setting for times even when I'm not shooting sunsets. Additional thoughts from Ken. http://www.kenstone.net/discussions/read.php?3,40968,40970#msg-40970
Benny - I note Ken's comments, but I feel the need to add a little more to this. AVCHD, certainly the implementations in Sony's higher end cameras and Canon's C100, provides BETTER results than DSLRs for two key reasons: 1) AVHCD is a 'modern' codec, able to do 'more' with 'less bit rate' but it needs heavy duty processing both to encode and decode - hence AVCHD can match XDCAM-EX for standard run & gun stuff. MPEG2 (as in XDCAM-EX) is an older codec, with lower processing requirements but requiring more bandwidth to do its stuff. 2) DSLRs have less processing power in them than 'grown up' video cameras. Therefore, they tend to take liberties with taking the raw information and compressing them down to disk (line skipping, lack of Optical Low Pass Filtering and so on) and end up doing 'less' quality but with 'more bandwidth'. Although the AVCHD codec is basically a very precise subset of H.264, H.264 is a very broad category from high end to low end, thus you'll find H.264 using the 'low processor power' functions. Also, when shooting continuous material without too much action, 'Long GoP' material does save a huge amount of space. It's just a pig to edit, hence the idea of shooting in a LongGOP format (such as AVCHD - and there's a 4:2:2 version!) and editing in an I frame format (each frame being its own little entity rather than relying on the previous frames). LongGOP isn't to be feared, and neither is AVCHD. BUT all this is just technical BS (as in 'Bull session', children). Will you be able to sell your video? Yes, quite probably, but more through the likes of iStockPhoto and its ilk rather than the top dollar libraries. No problems with that - I've earned enough from a few shots to pay for my DLSR setup. Could have earned more if I'd shot in a better format, but hey. (My top grossing shot was from a Sony Z1 in 1080i50, so I had to sell shots at 720p25 and 720p24, as the 1080i was horrible). However, when selling for higher bucks, people are looking for 4:2:2, rather than the native 4:2:0 - especially if they're looking to the broadcast market. Quite frankly, you're not going to see the difference on most shots when you're publishing for the web or even for indie film screenings. However, broadcast TV has a production chain that minces video quality and it's a sad fact that 4:2:0 falls apart quicker than 4:2:2 - that's why broadcasters demand it. Yeah, it looks fine leaving you, but by the time it hits the viewers' screens, it's full of blocky artifacts, mosquito noise round edges and posterised 'roller painted' skies. And yes, you can tell a 4:2:0 shot in a 4:2:2 codec - watch the vectorscope (when the ear's in shot). If you transcode your material from AVCHD to ProResHQ (don't bother with LT for mastering unless it's quickie web stuff), 5dtoRGB from Rarevision will do some chroma smoothing. It will help, but it may not pass muster for the broadcasters (who have engineers that check for this kind of thing). The trickiest thing in stock videography is getting the correct paperwork (required for bigger budget stuff). I could relate the story of a large PLC who got sued by an Arabic farmer when somebody sent him a pot of Greek yoghurt with his face on it - apparently taken by a tourist, who posted his work to the web, an agency went looking for images, picked it up, and sure the tourist was glad to give permission. But the farmer hadn't given it. Stuff happens. People get cautious. Seeking forgiveness rather than permission can backfire (and does). Same goes for locations, too.
Matt, I am honored by your willingness to educate me, and the depth to which you've done so. I'm glad that by buying a camera 1/4 the size of my DSLR, I am getting a "grown up" camera! Glad to know you've had success in this market with the Z1; that's my other camera, so maybe that should be my next go-to camera, when I'm out. More soon, but a quick question regarding releases. I wonder if there's a standard one they accept. I could always take one I use in the field for CBS talk shows -- change the name of the show to my production company -- then try to translate it into Thai or whatever, but I bet they have ones with specific verbage they prefer. I can see if it's on iStock. If not, any ideas?
btw good to see where 5dtoRGB is at; last time I checked they only did once clip at a time. Perhaps they process AVCHD. I'm guessing it's dumb to edit on that codec, just like it is for H.264 out of a DSLR, eh?
Sad to say this - 'I am not a lawyer, I am not offering legal advice'. But yes, changing the names on boilerplate releases is how many people end up with one. I'm a member of a professional association, and so I get a general purpose one from that (which of course I can't share - sorry about that - it's the IOV for what it's worth). But from what I've learned, LONG multiple page ones are scary to the general public, as is nasty weasel-word 'you may use my image in perpetuity for the marketing of whatever goods you and all your employees, and all your employees contacts, and all your employeee's contacts' licensors, and their pets' phrases. People refuse to sign them. I probably would too. So max 2-3 paragraph ones that are simple to understand are fine for many corporate and indie gigs. However, iStockPhoto and RevoStock have their own nasty big ones. Remember, when you're selling footage, neither you nor your contributors know where they'll end up. Will they be in the next viral video or some ad for a dodgy claims agency? Yes, they know and trust you, and probably understand the library concept, but the library release forms have to have all that weasley stuff, which is why there's not much of people doing natural things in there (I've been asked for 'ordinary looking familes eating' so much... because it's hard or expensive to get!). Also, you're probably going to have a whale of a time with a smaller camera. As soon as you go above, say, a 7D, one can attract a lot of attention (not the welcome kind). I'd check up on 'filming no-nos' (police, airports, government buildings, certain religious sites and rites). Yes, this is all stuff you'll know about - much of my ranting is actually for the many 'lurkers' here so apologies if I appear to be Informing Octogenarians How To Apply Pneumatic Operations on Avian Ova.
Yup, they do process AVCHD - I use it on FS100/700 and C100 clips when I have time. If you have the horsepower, however, editing AVCHD isn't that dumb: - You're editing within minutes of inserting the camera's card - Your rushes take up just 12 GB per hour - As soon as you manipulate your AVCHD file, all rendering is done in high precision 4:4:4 10 bit - Your movie is spat out of FCPX as a ProRes file, not AVCHD. 70% of my work is based around editing AVCHD rushes (and for the record, 25% XDCAM=EX, 5% DSLR) in FCPX.
