Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Filming in Prores 422HQ

Joined
Jun 17, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
Age
53
Flying I2 X5S today with a 240gb SSD Prores 422HQ cinelike along with a 128gb Micro SD d-cinelike both at 29.97 frame rate. This was really a test since it was my first time using an SSD. When I took a look at the footage I captured on the SSD it's a little hot and the Micro SD was a little under exposed generally speaking. It looked pretty well exposed when I was filming perhaps just a tiny bit on the hot side. If I use this workflow again where the micro SD is pretty much a backup is it good to underexpose a stop? As a side note I noticed that once the SSD filled-up the recording stopped but I could start again just to the micro SD since at that point only 27gb (approx) were used.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
692
Reaction score
285
How are you judging "It looked pretty well exposed when I was filming?" If you are basing this on the image on your screen, you are susceptible to its brightness level.

Use the waveform and histogram to judge exposure while filming. The histogram is simpler, but doesn't give you information about what portions of the shot are over- or under-exposed. The waveform is more difficult to interpret, but will tell you exactly what is going on. It is definitely worth watching some YouTube videos about waveform analysis.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
692
Reaction score
285
How are you judging "It looked pretty well exposed when I was filming?" If you are basing this on the image on your screen, you are susceptible to its brightness level.

Use the waveform and histogram to judge exposure while filming. The histogram is simpler, but doesn't give you information about what portions of the shot are over- or under-exposed. The waveform is more difficult to interpret, but will tell you exactly what is going on. It is definitely worth watching some YouTube videos about waveform analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
1,677
Reaction score
761
Age
58
I wholeheartedly agree with InterMurph. Both times. Don't trust your eyes. Use the histogram to get EV and then again in post.

As far as the disparagement between your MicroSD card and the SSD, until we see the histogram on both, your assertion is subjective. Show screen shots for both. Make sure a histogram is in both shots. Remember, the ProRes is going to have wider dynamic range, which may account for your perceived difference in exposure values.

D
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
692
Reaction score
285
Also, unless you are shooting for a film production that insists on XQ, you probably don't need that much data. Better to use a lower bit rate and record more footage than what happened to you (high bit rate, lost some footage).

And if you are shooting for a film production, then you will need multiple SSD cards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
672
Reaction score
266
Location
Australia & Europe
Also, unless you are shooting for a film production that insists on XQ, you probably don't need that much data. Better to use a lower bit rate and record more footage than what happened to you (high bit rate, lost some footage).

And if you are shooting for a film production, then you will need multiple SSD cards.
Off topic...
I understand that film productions require ProRes for additional flexibility in post i.e. heavy grading, VFX etc but if none of those is going to be applied in abundance to the original footage, the 4k final video edited from .h265 D-Cinelike on micro SD is going to look in the real life pretty much the same as the one shot in ProRes even when examined attentively on a large 4k tv screen. I know that I am going to be crucified by the experts and 'pros' for saying this but that is just 2c worth of my own experience. No more no less 🙂.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank
Joined
Jun 17, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
Age
53
How are you judging "It looked pretty well exposed when I was filming?" If you are basing this on the image on your screen, you are susceptible to its brightness level.

Use the waveform and histogram to judge exposure while filming. The histogram is simpler, but doesn't give you information about what portions of the shot are over- or under-exposed. The waveform is more difficult to interpret, but will tell you exactly what is going on. It is definitely worth watching some YouTube videos about waveform analysis.
I use the histogram to judge exposure all the time along with zebras
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank
Joined
Jun 17, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
Age
53
I wholeheartedly agree with InterMurph. Both times. Don't trust your eyes. Use the histogram to get EV and then again in post.

As far as the disparagement between your MicroSD card and the SSD, until we see the histogram on both, your assertion is subjective. Show screen shots for both. Make sure a histogram is in both shots. Remember, the ProRes is going to have wider dynamic range, which may account for your perceived difference in exposure values.

D
I'm going to have to get used to the ProRes having a wider dynamic range like you mentioned. Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
1,677
Reaction score
761
Age
58
Off topic...
I understand that film productions require ProRes for additional flexibility in post i.e. heavy grading, VFX etc but if none of those is going to be applied in abundance to the original footage, the 4k final video edited from .h265 D-Cinelike on micro SD is going to look in the real life pretty much the same as the one shot in ProRes even when examined attentively on a large 4k tv screen. I know that I am going to be crucified by the experts and 'pros' for saying this but that is just 2c worth of my own experience. No more no less 🙂.
I'm going to second this....

To me "ProRes" vs. h.264 can be analogous to 4K vs. 1080p. Or "more data vs. less data." As mmarian stated, the former is great for processing. But if you're just viewing the footage (not grading) or just uploading it to YouTube or doing minor editing, compressed h.264 or h.265 is "plenty good enough."

While the 4K craze has been awesome for production, at the end of the day, everybody is watching movies in 1080p. And you know what? Reasonably high bitrate 1080p looks pretty freakin' fantastic. Is it perfect? No. Yes, some of us notice the dithering of those sunsets that our girlfriends, parents and friends don't, but those artifacts are a small price to pay for a 2GB file vs. a 20GB file.

My girlfriend and I purchased a 4K television for Christmas a few years ago. I've seen MAYBE three or four films in 4K resolution. For all the extra overhead of processor power and storage space, the difference in video quality is negligible. In a nutshell, we don't really see in 4K. There are lots of interesting YouTube videos to support this:


That said, I CAN see the difference in quality if 1080p video is SHOT in 4K and PRESENTED on a 4K television. It's counterintuitive, but subjectively I can say with a fair amount of confidence that 1080p films (that were obviously shot in 4K) and shown on my 4K television look absolutely stunning (dithering and other compression artifacts aside). But it's worth noting that, by design, lower bitrates can and will exasperate digital artifacts. The best way to avoid these super low bitrates is to simply make sure your film's file size is at least 1GB/hour of video.

Is there use for shooting 4K? Absolutely. Is there use for ProRes or RAW? Absolutely. For some things I do, I wish I had 5K or even 8K (someday). Having that palette is amazing. But for simple YouTube videos or corporate presentation videos, well-processed, compressed 1080p video rendered from 4K footage is VERY "acceptable." Not to mention the advantage that 1080p video will play on marginal machines (including that 10-year-old iMac). The same can't be said for 4K video, which CAN choke on some machines.

D
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
672
Reaction score
266
Location
Australia & Europe
I'm going to second this....

To me "ProRes" vs. h.264 can be analogous to 4K vs. 1080p. Or "more data vs. less data." As mmarian stated, the former is great for processing. But if you're just viewing the footage (not grading) or just uploading it to YouTube or doing minor editing, compressed h.264 or h.265 is "plenty good enough."

While the 4K craze has been awesome for production, at the end of the day, everybody is watching movies in 1080p. And you know what? Reasonably high bitrate 1080p looks pretty freakin' fantastic. Is it perfect? No. Yes, some of us notice the dithering of those sunsets that our girlfriends, parents and friends don't, but those artifacts are a small price to pay for a 2GB file vs. a 20GB file.

My girlfriend and I purchased a 4K television for Christmas a few years ago. I've seen MAYBE three or four films in 4K resolution. For all the extra overhead of processor power and storage space, the difference in video quality is negligible. In a nutshell, we don't really see in 4K. There are lots of interesting YouTube videos to support this:


That said, I CAN see the difference in quality if 1080p video is SHOT in 4K and PRESENTED on a 4K television. It's counterintuitive, but subjectively I can say with a fair amount of confidence that 1080p films (that were obviously shot in 4K) and shown on my 4K television look absolutely stunning (dithering and other compression artifacts aside). But it's worth noting that, by design, lower bitrates can and will exasperate digital artifacts. The best way to avoid these super low bitrates is to simply make sure your film's file size is at least 1GB/hour of video.

Is there use for shooting 4K? Absolutely. Is there use for ProRes or RAW? Absolutely. For some things I do, I wish I had 5K or even 8K (someday). Having that palette is amazing. But for simple YouTube videos or corporate presentation videos, well-processed, compressed 1080p video rendered from 4K footage is VERY "acceptable." Not to mention the advantage that 1080p video will play on marginal machines (including that 10-year-old iMac). The same can't be said for 4K video, which CAN choke on some machines.

D
I didn't expect this!🙂 Thank you for your words of reason and practical wisdom.
I agree with everything you've said except the difference between 4K and 1080p. I shoot short cinematic landscape videos with x5s mostly for fun, my own enjoyment and satisfaction. I shoot mostly in D-Cinelike .h265 4K at 30fps. Apply minor color grading and other tweaks to the original footage and export as 4K .h264 MP4 in reasonable high bitrate to minimise the digital artifacts, so my final say 1min 30 sec video is about 500 - 700MB. Yeah I know that is crazy big!! But when viewed on 4K TV directly from USB stick I appreciate the extra clarity and detail of 4K compared to1080p. The fine details are crisper and the video quality makes the viewing 'more immersive' for a lack of a better word, it is simply WOW!! But after uploading to YT or Vimeo and streaming back, the difference is so small that it is practically imperceptible to most viewers.
So, to sum it up, yes I am a fan of 4K 🤷‍♂️🙂 but there is nothing wrong with well presented 1080p. I just watched last night the Blue Planet by D. Attenborough in FHD on my 4K TV and it was absolutely stunning!!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
21,318
Messages
204,827
Members
31,019
Latest member
Donatas