X5S Bitrate Variants

[KyleIRYS]

Is there a particular reason why DJI has effectively gone all or nothing with the bitrates? Is there a reason they haven't allowed any intervals in bitrate between fully fledged RAW video and the 100Mbit. It would be handy to take a little more info if you decided you wanted it without having to commit to the massive file sizes every time.

 

[AMGPilot]

Is there a particular reason why DJI has effectively gone all or nothing with the bitrates? Is there a reason they haven't allowed any intervals in bitrate between fully fledged RAW video and the 100Mbit. It would be handy to take a little more info if you decided you wanted it without having to commit to the massive file sizes every time.

More processor power, the vision engine is optimized for those data rates anything in between takes a lot more processing power

 

[KyleIRYS]

More processor power, the vision engine is optimized for those data rates anything in between takes a lot more processing power

Optimized yes, but you couldn't say using the same hardware to encode 300Mb/s or 500Mb/s onto the SSD's would max out the processors when it's capable of 4.2Gb/s

 

[The Editor]

Is there a particular reason why DJI has effectively gone all or nothing with the bitrates? Is there a reason they haven't allowed any intervals in bitrate between fully fledged RAW video and the 100Mbit. It would be handy to take a little more info if you decided you wanted it without having to commit to the massive file sizes every time.

Yes.
DJI are pretty clueless when it comes to codecs and compression in general (we only have to look at their awful intra frame issues on previous cameras to see this)
They (wrongly) believe that the more horsepower you throw at a camera the better it is.

 

[Barry Goyette]

I don't think DJI is doing anything unusual here. The raw rate is the raw rate, and the ProRes Rates are the prores rates. Otherwise they have the dii codec for h.264 h265. This is largely the same as most other manufacturers (Look at canon's options for the C300 mark II and you'll see a similar rigidity.) AMGPilot is right. As the encoding is done in hardware, dii has chosen what it feels is the most useful combination. Adding more codecs would necessarily mean larger, more heat and power intensive processors.

What is a pain, is the willy nilly format/codec options. ProRes4444 should be available in all flavors for all the size/framerate combos.I think that most folks find that raw workflow is largely unnecessary when ProRes4444 is available.

 

[AMGPilot]

Yes.
DJI are pretty clueless when it comes to codecs and compression in general (we only have to look at their awful intra frame issues on previous cameras to see this)
They (wrongly) believe that the more horsepower you throw at a camera the better it is.

Actually the more horsepower you throw at a camera the better it is. That HP allows for you to have options. But hey what do I know about cameras other than the Arri Alexa's that I have consulted on and the other Pro gear I work with daily and consult for.

 

[The Editor]

Actually the more horsepower you throw at a camera the better it is. That HP allows for you to have options. But hey what do I know about cameras other than the Arri Alexa's that I have consulted on and the other Pro gear I work with daily and consult for.

My point is horsepower alone does NOT make a good camera.
There are many factors together that produce a good camera.

 

[AMGPilot]

My point is horsepower alone does NOT make a good camera.
There are many factors together that produce a good camera.

I am well aware of what makes a good camera there are 2 things, Sensor and processing power everything thing else is options

Someone mentioned that they are unhappy with no ProRes4444 available across the board. The X5S has been designed to integrate into professional work flow. 98% of everything shot is shot ProRes 422 there really is no need for ProRes 4444 in a pro workflow because at that point you would run RAW, exactly what DJI has done.

 

[Barry Goyette]

I am well aware of what makes a good camera there are 2 things, Sensor and processing power everything thing else is options

Someone mentioned that they are unhappy with no ProRes4444 available across the board. The X5S has been designed to integrate into professional work flow. 98% of everything shot is shot ProRes 422 there really is no need for ProRes 4444 in a pro workflow because at that point you would run RAW, exactly what DJI has done.

Someone here. Um, not sure where you acquired that 98% stat. There are very few cameras on the market that shoot ProRes. The vast majority of professional cameras use proprietary codecs of a number of flavors. As for why you would shoot 422 vs 444 vs Raw. ProRes codecs are production codecs designed to be edited directly without transcoding. 422 (really HQ) is a high quality codec for general use, but will suffer degradation over multiple generations (such as broadcast TV). It generally has lower bit and color depth (than 4444xq)making it less appropriate for significant grading, and for inclusion in VFX workflows. 4444xq is the highest quality codec apple makes, and is generally considered a "production" alternative to RAW. It's considered "master" quality. It also supports HDR which 422 doesn't. The vast majority of Television drama shot on Alexa is shot on 4444xq as RAW workflows are too expensive even in this environment. RAW is typically used in feature production and Commercials, and by 20-something "DP's" with a lot of time on their hands. 4444xq, while having a bit rate close to RAW, can be dropped directly into any timeline that supports ProRes, and that's why it is an important alternative to RAW, which requires extensive conversion before it can be edited.

DJI's implementation of 4444xq is incomplete. It doesn't cover the range of formats the camera is capable of. In it's encoding appears to be something less than 12bit, which is troubling, and the automatic m4/3 lens corrections have been uniquely left out of all the ProRes processing, which makes no sense for a "production" codec.

 

[AMGPilot]

Someone here. Um, not sure where you acquired that 98% stat. There are very few cameras on the market that shoot ProRes. The vast majority of professional cameras use proprietary codecs of a number of flavors. As for why you would shoot 422 vs 444 vs Raw. ProRes codecs are production codecs designed to be edited directly without transcoding. 422 (really HQ) is a high quality codec for general use, but will suffer degradation over multiple generations (such as broadcast TV). It generally has lower bit and color depth (than 4444xq)making it less appropriate for significant grading, and for inclusion in VFX workflows. 4444xq is the highest quality codec apple makes, and is generally considered a "production" alternative to RAW. It's considered "master" quality. It also supports HDR which 422 doesn't. The vast majority of Television drama shot on Alexa is shot on 4444xq as RAW workflows are too expensive even in this environment. RAW is typically used in feature production and Commercials, and by 20-something "DP's" with a lot of time on their hands. 4444xq, while having a bit rate close to RAW, can be dropped directly into any timeline that supports ProRes, and that's why it is an important alternative to RAW, which requires extensive conversion before it can be edited.

DJI's implementation of 4444xq is incomplete. It doesn't cover the range of formats the camera is capable of. In it's encoding appears to be something less than 12bit, which is troubling, and the automatic m4/3 lens corrections have been uniquely left out of all the ProRes processing, which makes no sense for a "production" codec.

Incorrect Barry. How often have you used production cameras? I use Arri Alexa's pretty much everyday shooting film and TV and yes we use ProRes and no it doesn't degrade over many generations. Of course 422 has less color depth (and subsequently less but rate) than 444 but that the point to make it a more efficient container. And in 98% of production you won't notice the difference between something shot 422 or 444. Also lens correction is never applied in camera and not part of ProRes. if you choose to use it (it's VERY rarely if ever used) it's done in post not at the time of capture so no it's not troubling that DJI left it out

 

[Barry Goyette]

Incorrect Barry. How often have you used production cameras? I use Arri Alexa's pretty much everyday shooting film and TV and yes we use ProRes and no it doesn't degrade over many generations. Of course 422 has less color depth (and subsequently less but rate) than 444 but that the point to make it a more efficient container. And in 98% of production you won't notice the difference between something shot 422 or 444. Also lens correction is never applied in camera and not part of ProRes. if you choose to use it (it's VERY rarely if ever used) it's done in post not at the time of capture so no it's not troubling that DJI left it out

Horses for Courses. We all have different needs. You seem to imply that because you don't need 4444, then no one does. Apparently Apple wasted a lot of time. Apparently Arri did too, including it on it's cameras like that. Sad. Of course DJI was much smarter, only applying it to a small portion of its available formats. Much less wasted time.

Yes, 422hq (you keep referring to it as 422...which doesn't really hold up as well as you imply) does hold up well to multiple generations. But 4444xq gets special designation from Apple first in terms of dynamic range and extensive grading: (from Apples Pro Res White paper)

Apple ProRes 4444 XQ: The highest-quality version of Apple ProRes for 4:4:4:4 image sources (including alpha channels), with a very high data rate to preserve the detail
in high-dynamic-range imagery generated by today’s highest-quality digital image sensors. Apple ProRes 4444 XQ preserves dynamic ranges several times greater than the dynamic range of Rec. 709 imagery—even against the rigors of extreme visual efects processing, in which tone-scale blacks or highlights are stretched signifcantly. Like standard Apple ProRes 4444, this codec supports up to 12 bits per image channel and up to 16 bits for the alpha channel.

and next by a special designation as a "camera original" (422hq is described as a finishing codec)



And yes, you probably never have put a Micro 4/3 lens on your Alexa. If you had, you've find that the distortions involved are of a completely different ilk than your super speeds and master primes. (of course Arri says their lenses are distortion free). Micro 4/3 lenses that fit on the x5s are designed with huge distortions and "automatic" corrections in order to make them compact and lightweight. They are different in implementation than the typical modest corrections you see on 35mm still lenses or expensive cine primes (for instance you can't turn them off in photoshop, they are just "there"). I'm sure you'd rather try to fix them in post, but frankly, if I'm shooting to a production codec like 4k ProRes, I'd rather have those corrections applied to an oversampled 5.2k RAW frame during encoding to 4k ProRes than lose quality and time by applying it in post. Even the RAW files from the X5s have "automatic" distortion corrections applied (you can't really turn them off except by processing in Resolve which simply doesn't currently have the ability to recognize them.)

I'm not an expert relative to Alexa. Does it even have the ability to apply lens corrections in camera? Or do you just turn that feature off. Just trying to figure out your statement about lens corrections never being applied in camera. This would make sense shooting in RAW, but in any situation where the image is oversampled and compressed, lens corrections should be applied in camera (as every still camera made does when outputting jpegs -- I realize the video world is a little behind on this...except....

....I own a C300 mark II, which has the ability to apply lens corrections, I leave it on and have never regretted it. It applies EF lens corrections (which are minor compared to M4/3 corrections) to the raw image, and outputs a very nice compact 12bit 444 xf-avc file, which I find to gives me extra quality in grading.

Let me put it this way, AMG. One of the signature features of this new platform was its inclusion of ProRes, both the 422hq and 4444xq versions. I waited for this version of the inspire because I didn't and still don't love the RAW workflow for video (I love RAW's capabilities and the quality is in another league, but I know it's really not ever going to fit into my production workflow except for special cases). You may be happy with shooting 422hq and dealing with the distortions in post and that's fantastic.

But I see it differently. DJI's implementation of this keynote feature is substandard. Right now I'm pretty certain that DJI's flavor of 4444xq in 4k is 10bits or less, meaning that it literally is no better than the 422hq codec, which is troubling, (the reality here is that cinecore probably doesn't have enough power to process 4444 in 12bits in 4k, making the lack of a 2k version 4444 even more glaring) . I find the distortion issue on both ProRes flavors to by hugely problematic for a production (speed) codec like prores. The distortions are so great that you'd "never" not correct them unless you're a skate punk and like 5% barrel distortions (do you know of a single tool that will apply m4/3 corrections to ProRes footage? Tell me how you do it with your x5s shooting 422hq, I'd love to learn.)

 

[gruvpix]

Horses for Courses. We all have different needs. You seem to imply that because you don't need 4444, then no one does. Apparently Apple wasted a lot of time. Apparently Arri did too, including it on it's cameras like that. Sad. Of course DJI was much smarter, only applying it to a small portion of its available formats. Much less wasted time.

Yes, 422hq (you keep referring to it as 422...which doesn't really hold up as well as you imply) does hold up well to multiple generations. But 4444xq gets special designation from Apple first in terms of dynamic range and extensive grading: (from Apples Pro Res White paper)

Apple ProRes 4444 XQ: The highest-quality version of Apple ProRes for 4:4:4:4 image sources (including alpha channels), with a very high data rate to preserve the detail
in high-dynamic-range imagery generated by today’s highest-quality digital image sensors. Apple ProRes 4444 XQ preserves dynamic ranges several times greater than the dynamic range of Rec. 709 imagery—even against the rigors of extreme visual efects processing, in which tone-scale blacks or highlights are stretched signifcantly. Like standard Apple ProRes 4444, this codec supports up to 12 bits per image channel and up to 16 bits for the alpha channel.

and next by a special designation as a "camera original" (422hq is described as a finishing codec)
View attachment 11908


And yes, you probably never have put a Micro 4/3 lens on your Alexa. If you had, you've find that the distortions involved are of a completely different ilk than your super speeds and master primes. (of course Arri says their lenses are distortion free). Micro 4/3 lenses that fit on the x5s are designed with huge distortions and "automatic" corrections in order to make them compact and lightweight. They are different in implementation than the typical modest corrections you see on 35mm still lenses or expensive cine primes (for instance you can't turn them off in photoshop, they are just "there"). I'm sure you'd rather try to fix them in post, but frankly, if I'm shooting to a production codec like 4k ProRes, I'd rather have those corrections applied to an oversampled 5.2k RAW frame during encoding to 4k ProRes than lose quality and time by applying it in post. Even the RAW files from the X5s have "automatic" distortion corrections applied (you can't really turn them off except by processing in Resolve which simply doesn't currently have the ability to recognize them.)

I'm not an expert relative to Alexa. Does it even have the ability to apply lens corrections in camera? Or do you just turn that feature off. Just trying to figure out your statement about lens corrections never being applied in camera. This would make sense shooting in RAW, but in any situation where the image is oversampled and compressed, lens corrections should be applied in camera (as every still camera made does when outputting jpegs -- I realize the video world is a little behind on this...except....

....I own a C300 mark II, which has the ability to apply lens corrections, I leave it on and have never regretted it. It applies EF lens corrections (which are minor compared to M4/3 corrections) to the raw image, and outputs a very nice compact 12bit 444 xf-avc file, which I find to gives me extra quality in grading.

Let me put it this way, AMG. One of the signature features of this new platform was its inclusion of ProRes, both the 422hq and 4444xq versions. I waited for this version of the inspire because I didn't and still don't love the RAW workflow for video (I love RAW's capabilities and the quality is in another league, but I know it's really not ever going to fit into my production workflow except for special cases). You may be happy with shooting 422hq and dealing with the distortions in post and that's fantastic.

But I see it differently. DJI's implementation of this keynote feature is substandard. Right now I'm pretty certain that DJI's flavor of 4444xq in 4k is 10bits or less, meaning that it literally is no better than the 422hq codec, which is troubling, (the reality here is that cinecore probably doesn't have enough power to process 4444 in 12bits in 4k, making the lack of a 2k version 4444 even more glaring) . I find the distortion issue on both ProRes flavors to by hugely problematic for a production (speed) codec like prores. The distortions are so great that you'd "never" not correct them unless you're a skate punk and like 5% barrel distortions (do you know of a single tool that will apply m4/3 corrections to ProRes footage? Tell me how you do it with your x5s shooting 422hq, I'd love to learn.)

Excellent post - I too am discouraged by DJI's omission of various ProRes flavours and 10-bit colour in 4444xq (I think you are correct on your assumption). Not to mention lack of high framerate options in ProRes. I also agree that ProRes as a capture codec is now suitable for multi-gen processing, negating the need for such advanced raw codecs.
Let's face it, very very few cinematographers are going to use an Inspire 2 on a professional production. The craft should be marketed towards high-end TV and some commercial work. Instead, DJI goes all out with raw functionality (nice to have, don't get me wrong), but leave ProRes as a bit of an afterthought.
We use a Canon C500 w/ Odyssey 7Q+ for most of our production work, and while they haven't thought of EVERYTHING (ahem, no 4K ProRes at high frame rates), it offers the level of flexibility I would expect from a professional system.
Apples to oranges of course, this is a drone (some might even say a glorified toy). DJI is getting closer and better, it's just too bad we need to fork out $10k for an entirely new production kit and are still looking for missing features on each new iteration.

 

[acasonj]

Horses for Courses. We all have different needs. You seem to imply that because you don't need 4444, then no one does. Apparently Apple wasted a lot of time. Apparently Arri did too, including it on it's cameras like that. Sad. Of course DJI was much smarter, only applying it to a small portion of its available formats. Much less wasted time.

Yes, 422hq (you keep referring to it as 422...which doesn't really hold up as well as you imply) does hold up well to multiple generations. But 4444xq gets special designation from Apple first in terms of dynamic range and extensive grading: (from Apples Pro Res White paper)

Apple ProRes 4444 XQ: The highest-quality version of Apple ProRes for 4:4:4:4 image sources (including alpha channels), with a very high data rate to preserve the detail
in high-dynamic-range imagery generated by today’s highest-quality digital image sensors. Apple ProRes 4444 XQ preserves dynamic ranges several times greater than the dynamic range of Rec. 709 imagery—even against the rigors of extreme visual efects processing, in which tone-scale blacks or highlights are stretched signifcantly. Like standard Apple ProRes 4444, this codec supports up to 12 bits per image channel and up to 16 bits for the alpha channel.

and next by a special designation as a "camera original" (422hq is described as a finishing codec)
View attachment 11908


And yes, you probably never have put a Micro 4/3 lens on your Alexa. If you had, you've find that the distortions involved are of a completely different ilk than your super speeds and master primes. (of course Arri says their lenses are distortion free). Micro 4/3 lenses that fit on the x5s are designed with huge distortions and "automatic" corrections in order to make them compact and lightweight. They are different in implementation than the typical modest corrections you see on 35mm still lenses or expensive cine primes (for instance you can't turn them off in photoshop, they are just "there"). I'm sure you'd rather try to fix them in post, but frankly, if I'm shooting to a production codec like 4k ProRes, I'd rather have those corrections applied to an oversampled 5.2k RAW frame during encoding to 4k ProRes than lose quality and time by applying it in post. Even the RAW files from the X5s have "automatic" distortion corrections applied (you can't really turn them off except by processing in Resolve which simply doesn't currently have the ability to recognize them.)

I'm not an expert relative to Alexa. Does it even have the ability to apply lens corrections in camera? Or do you just turn that feature off. Just trying to figure out your statement about lens corrections never being applied in camera. This would make sense shooting in RAW, but in any situation where the image is oversampled and compressed, lens corrections should be applied in camera (as every still camera made does when outputting jpegs -- I realize the video world is a little behind on this...except....

....I own a C300 mark II, which has the ability to apply lens corrections, I leave it on and have never regretted it. It applies EF lens corrections (which are minor compared to M4/3 corrections) to the raw image, and outputs a very nice compact 12bit 444 xf-avc file, which I find to gives me extra quality in grading.

Let me put it this way, AMG. One of the signature features of this new platform was its inclusion of ProRes, both the 422hq and 4444xq versions. I waited for this version of the inspire because I didn't and still don't love the RAW workflow for video (I love RAW's capabilities and the quality is in another league, but I know it's really not ever going to fit into my production workflow except for special cases). You may be happy with shooting 422hq and dealing with the distortions in post and that's fantastic.

But I see it differently. DJI's implementation of this keynote feature is substandard. Right now I'm pretty certain that DJI's flavor of 4444xq in 4k is 10bits or less, meaning that it literally is no better than the 422hq codec, which is troubling, (the reality here is that cinecore probably doesn't have enough power to process 4444 in 12bits in 4k, making the lack of a 2k version 4444 even more glaring) . I find the distortion issue on both ProRes flavors to by hugely problematic for a production (speed) codec like prores. The distortions are so great that you'd "never" not correct them unless you're a skate punk and like 5% barrel distortions (do you know of a single tool that will apply m4/3 corrections to ProRes footage? Tell me how you do it with your x5s shooting 422hq, I'd love to learn.)

Well said! Very interesting read. Thanks

 

[AMGPilot]

Horses for Courses. We all have different needs. You seem to imply that because you don't need 4444, then no one does. Apparently Apple wasted a lot of time. Apparently Arri did too, including it on it's cameras like that. Sad. Of course DJI was much smarter, only applying it to a small portion of its available formats. Much less wasted time.

Yes, 422hq (you keep referring to it as 422...which doesn't really hold up as well as you imply) does hold up well to multiple generations. But 4444xq gets special designation from Apple first in terms of dynamic range and extensive grading: (from Apples Pro Res White paper)

Apple ProRes 4444 XQ: The highest-quality version of Apple ProRes for 4:4:4:4 image sources (including alpha channels), with a very high data rate to preserve the detail
in high-dynamic-range imagery generated by today’s highest-quality digital image sensors. Apple ProRes 4444 XQ preserves dynamic ranges several times greater than the dynamic range of Rec. 709 imagery—even against the rigors of extreme visual efects processing, in which tone-scale blacks or highlights are stretched signifcantly. Like standard Apple ProRes 4444, this codec supports up to 12 bits per image channel and up to 16 bits for the alpha channel.

and next by a special designation as a "camera original" (422hq is described as a finishing codec)
View attachment 11908


And yes, you probably never have put a Micro 4/3 lens on your Alexa. If you had, you've find that the distortions involved are of a completely different ilk than your super speeds and master primes. (of course Arri says their lenses are distortion free). Micro 4/3 lenses that fit on the x5s are designed with huge distortions and "automatic" corrections in order to make them compact and lightweight. They are different in implementation than the typical modest corrections you see on 35mm still lenses or expensive cine primes (for instance you can't turn them off in photoshop, they are just "there"). I'm sure you'd rather try to fix them in post, but frankly, if I'm shooting to a production codec like 4k ProRes, I'd rather have those corrections applied to an oversampled 5.2k RAW frame during encoding to 4k ProRes than lose quality and time by applying it in post. Even the RAW files from the X5s have "automatic" distortion corrections applied (you can't really turn them off except by processing in Resolve which simply doesn't currently have the ability to recognize them.)

I'm not an expert relative to Alexa. Does it even have the ability to apply lens corrections in camera? Or do you just turn that feature off. Just trying to figure out your statement about lens corrections never being applied in camera. This would make sense shooting in RAW, but in any situation where the image is oversampled and compressed, lens corrections should be applied in camera (as every still camera made does when outputting jpegs -- I realize the video world is a little behind on this...except....

....I own a C300 mark II, which has the ability to apply lens corrections, I leave it on and have never regretted it. It applies EF lens corrections (which are minor compared to M4/3 corrections) to the raw image, and outputs a very nice compact 12bit 444 xf-avc file, which I find to gives me extra quality in grading.

Let me put it this way, AMG. One of the signature features of this new platform was its inclusion of ProRes, both the 422hq and 4444xq versions. I waited for this version of the inspire because I didn't and still don't love the RAW workflow for video (I love RAW's capabilities and the quality is in another league, but I know it's really not ever going to fit into my production workflow except for special cases). You may be happy with shooting 422hq and dealing with the distortions in post and that's fantastic.

But I see it differently. DJI's implementation of this keynote feature is substandard. Right now I'm pretty certain that DJI's flavor of 4444xq in 4k is 10bits or less, meaning that it literally is no better than the 422hq codec, which is troubling, (the reality here is that cinecore probably doesn't have enough power to process 4444 in 12bits in 4k, making the lack of a 2k version 4444 even more glaring) . I find the distortion issue on both ProRes flavors to by hugely problematic for a production (speed) codec like prores. The distortions are so great that you'd "never" not correct them unless you're a skate punk and like 5% barrel distortions (do you know of a single tool that will apply m4/3 corrections to ProRes footage? Tell me how you do it with your x5s shooting 422hq, I'd love to learn.)

Arri does not ever apply lens correction in-camera. Why? We don't have to. There is a reason that the lenses we put on our Alexas cost what they do. (A Cooke S4 prime is around $24,000 PER Prime lens. A 12-1 Optimo is North of $150,000) they don't need it.

Just like we don't need anything over 422 for TV use. You need higher for massive VFX work but 422 is just fine for VFX for TV/streaming. Hell, our last episode has over 300VFX shots in it and we originate in 422. You also seem to be very uninformed of any post workflow and the "Degradation" in it... there isn't.

As for the Canon applying Lens Correction on the EF lenses, well that because Canon made choices in designing the lens, and its a requirement for them and yes you can turn off the Lens Correction since it's not really baked into the Image file, rather it's in the Metadata sidecar along with a ton of other information

Why did DJI not go with 4444? Because the balance of ProRes 422 and Cinema DNG have you covered with pretty much every image container format you would want. and if you really wanted something that the camera doesn't natively do you can transcode the CinemaDNG into anything you want

Gruvpix said, "Let's face it, very very few cinematographers are going to use an Inspire 2 on a professional production." Problem is the Inspire2 is what is used in most "Professional Productions". I can show you a ton of footage that we shot on our #1 ABC/Disney show that was shot with an I2 in Prores 4K Ultra HD

I do this for a living, I shoot the #1 show on ABC that is in its 17th season, I consult for manufactures and I am the Tech Chairman of one of the Hollywood letter orgs. I know what I'm talking about because I use this stuff every day.

But hey, you think you know better