Nikon Z6 + Ninja V vs Blackmagic Pocket 4k

[DBounce]

43 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Weather sealing going with an external recorder attached to?! Good luck... LOL : -)

So you would use it with an external monitor attached in the rain? Interesting choice. I almost never carry the external monitor. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the Z6 can actually capture video internally. And it looks pretty dam good. 

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Have you ever shoot with?

I've been finding 1920 x 1080 (also available on 4K DCI & UHD) ProRes PXY shot on P4K much away from your description, pretty the opposite BTW... : )

4:2:2 makes all the difference anyway.

Yup.

You'd have to use a very poor H.264 encoder if it looks as bad as ProRes Proxy at the same bitrate.

Again, not talking about serious production here. I'm saying for people who want to use their camera for casual purposes, the presence of lower bitrate video is a benefit, while obviously the Z6 with an Atomos has ProRes as well.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

So you would use it with an external monitor attached in the rain? Interesting choice. I almost never carry the external monitor. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the Z6 can actually capture video internally. And it looks pretty dam good. 

Don't reverse the quote, buddy ; ) Yours inferred so, not mine! If you compare clauses, you can't change them to distort the output as your wish. To argue a point must concur fair premises all way long (bias is invariably used to born from that precise path ; -)

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

Yup.

You'd have to use a very poor H.264 encoder if it looks as bad as ProRes Proxy at the same bitrate.

Again, not talking about serious production here. I'm saying for people who want to use their camera for casual purposes, the presence of lower bitrate video is a benefit, while obviously the Z6 with an Atomos has ProRes as well.

No idea on your testing conclusions, obviously : ) You have good quality lower bitrate (35Mbps for 1080p and higher than about 150Mbps for 4K DCI 25p) anyway on P4K and with most robust 4:2:2 for casual outcome.

Take a look on this to second something else not by my hand this time (if necessary):

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_ProRes#Apple_ProRes_422_Proxy

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5988053?answerId=26267966022#26267966022
 

EDIT -- Sorry for the 1st link in Portuguese, I didn't find it in English though.

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

(...)

Take a look on this to second something else not by my hand this time (if necessary):

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_ProRes#Apple_ProRes_422_Proxy

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5988053?answerId=26267966022#26267966022
 

EDIT -- Sorry for the 1st link in Portuguese, I didn't find it in English though.

From Apple's April 2018 white paper:

https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper.pdf

Anyone here still have memory of that professional Panasonic 90's D5?

PSNR stands for peak signal-to-noise-ratio.

Any doubts yet? ; -)

[KnightsFan]

@Emanuel maybe i should do another blind codec test for everyone comparing h264 with prores proxy?

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

@Emanuel maybe i should do another blind codec test for everyone comparing h264 with prores proxy?

Why not? For the fun : ) Some variables must be considered though. The way it is implemented. The use you have it for. Acquisition, as workflow tool, intended for first or multi generation, etc. Better to not forget those 'apples to oranges' and 'horses for courses' principles to fit. What device will you perform both h.264 and ProRes PXY at equivalent bitrate?

My experience comes from different devices so it is my testing eye and the theory behind.

Once I don't have anything mine under identical circumstances to show up, let's some other findings flow anyway no matter where our convictions stand through ; )

 

 

[KnightsFan]

@Emanuel ideally we could find someone to record on both an atomos and internally on really any camera. In 1080p, prores proxy is about 35 Mbps so a f3 would be great. In 4k we could compare a gh5s in 150 Mbps mode with prores proxy.

I dont have an external recorder, so on my own i am limited to finding some raw or uncompressed footage and using ffmpeg. Obviously thats using an overpowered encoder, unfortunately, though i can lower the encoding speed. The benfit of doing it with ffmpeg, though, is that we can run psnr tests if you are interested, though psnr is a really bad metric for video quality. From wikipedia:

"Although a higher PSNR generally indicates that the reconstruction is of higher quality, in some cases it may not. One has to be extremely careful with the range of validity of this metric; it is only conclusively valid when it is used to compare results from the same codec (or codec type) and same content.[8][9]

Generally, PSNR has been shown to perform poorly compared to other quality metrics when it comes to estimating the quality of images and particularly videos as perceived by humans."

And you are right that we are mainly interested in a specific context. My original context was casual use: snapping a family video, or uploading to facebook with little to no editing.

Ive actually seen both those videos before. The first test is flawed because the canon is a completely different processing pipeline. The codec is one of many variables.

Both tests are flawed as they were uploadrd to you tube, which is a significantly lower bitrate than either of the two original clips. So unless you are specifically trying to decide which looks better on youtube, it is pretty useless to compare codecs in a youtube video.

[Emanuel]

Casual use indeed : ) PSNR -- figures follow identical variables though, could only match real life finds. Always the first scope I intend to.

Have you followed those two videos up there? The 1st one matches my non-scientific impression from casual shooting of my own. From my experience with P4K I've become impressed how good ProRes PXY is and how useful can be for professional usage without much need of over processing your footage at post. Impressive to my book. We have a winner IMO : -)

I'd rather shoot PXY over H.264 hands down any time at equivalent bitrate.

BTW from my own testing, I am not exactly a H.265 lover either, despite its goodies. I'm eager to wait and test BRAW I expect to be the last innovation since sex was invented only to quote some other good old fellow : -D

Disclaimer: I am a Windows & Android guy surrendered to this Apple's contribution to our craft.

[Emanuel]

Once you've answered me from your edit, only to obviously second from YT streaming you have too little. The only point is how they resist to such YT stress though. There's always something to conclude from there.

The first test is definitely not under identical variables so it is not a scientific one nor is intended to be as the tester warns us from his own disclaimer.

 

Where real life stands there then?

There's little to no sense at all to underestimate ProRes Proxy as unusable and inferior to H.264.

Thus, "pretty terrible", you wrote before?

What can we say in respect of H.264 to compare with?

To call it... ' pretty horrible ' ?! : X

When every samples about, actually point out in the other way round.

You can defend the tests are far to be ideal, fact. As much as you suggested to do a blind test admitting in the subsequent post you are unable to perform such fair test since you are limited in your resources. So, you don't have any evidence on the contrary either, because anything you may find proves exactly the misconception, that is, the opposite. And by far.

 

Let alone my own personal experience off now (E : -)

 

[webrunner5]

Yeah there is not a Lot of difference between the examples in either video. Not surprisingly they both drop down in sharpness the lower the bit rate. So even the proxy is usable if it is not being used for Pro work I would say. The colors stand up so that is a plus. I mean low bit rates can work, look at the Canon C100. Of course it is being down sampled from 4K, so that helps it out a lot.

[Emanuel]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah there is not a Lot of difference between the examples in either video. Not surprisingly they both drop down in sharpness the lower the bit rate. So even the proxy is usable if it is not being used for Pro work I would say. (...)

It depends on the job, of course. Not for post work for sure, but events as for instance? It fits the cup if low light, movement and grading are not demanding. For casual use like home videos then matches it perfectly. As much as H.264 if not better from my own experience. Much better in that test up there.

[KnightsFan]

@Emanuel I might do some more scientific tests later, but here's an example. The source was a 10 bit 4K XT3 clip shot at 200 Mbps. I transcoded using ffmpeg. To make it more even, I lowered the CRF on the H.264 until it encoded at over twice the speed of the ProRes version. Hardware encoding was off. This means that the H.264 actually took less processing power to encode. We could actually increase the quality of the H.264 clips without adding any extra data simply by using a slower setting.

ProRes Proxy: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s8jpbgEvBQdduMul90kdDovQEU-xeJ0e

H.264 (same bitrate): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1G8caHjIW--qLSmNNoLSkaBl2g2sPDU0j

H.264 (<1/10 bitrate): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fIg87fLa0V0KvCnGksRoHEGEWgROadKz

Download and watch them at 100 zoom. I think it's clear that both H.264 files look better than ProRes Proxy in this scenario. I also notice that when watching in the Google Drive viewer, I can't see much difference (thanks, YouTube compression!), although it is night and day when downloaded and played in the app of your choice. Do you disagree?

If you think the difference is an in-camera encoder being worse, just imagine if a C100 looked as bad as that ProRes Proxy shot. And remember that in this case H.264 encoded in under half the time.

Naturally there are MANY problems with this test, but I didn't have much time today. Obviously H.264 benefits from it being a mostly static shot. (though to be fair, the ProRes won't get any BETTER with more motion, it's just that H.264 will get worse). It would be interesting to also test some scenes with a LOT of motion. A handheld walk through the woods perhaps, or even a video that cuts every single frame to a different scene.

If you can source some 4k RAW clips or uncompressed RGB 444 HD clips, I'm happy to do more tests in conditions of your choosing.

[KnightsFan]

AND... just for fun, I encoded using H264 All-Intra. It was an 8 second encode (fastest of all the tests, actually--maybe I should drop encoding speed to 20 seconds and see if it improves). I think this is a subjective one. This version clearly has a noise overlaid, but resolves more detail than ProRes Proxy by a good margin. Noise vs reduced resolution? Very tough choice. Both are pretty bad. Maybe for our scenario--family videos--ProRes is better since people might find the flicker distracting? This is a worst case for H.264. 99% of scenes will benefit significantly from P and B frames.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lie32Rfmezd0eLH_IrQ5TQbUA9MsPJ85

[Emanuel]

Thanks for your test : )

Actually I find them much indistinguishable at first sight as much as in the 2nd test I've posted, apart the greenish tint you also find along the 1st test up there going with the H.264.

Match my own finds BTW when seems pretty clear to me H.264 4:2:0 is more prone to chroma artifacts than a superior container as ProRes 4:2:2 Proxy really is at equivalent bitrate.

Less professional-like look that's what you intend for your home videos? If so, fits the class ; )

When we crop, I find your ProRes Proxy sample slightly softer but in the same way I much prefer DJI M2P to P4P outcome : -)

Here are three crops from your triple samples -- ProRes Proxy is the 3rd and 6th of the series:

 

In conclusion, for family and certain professional usage, ProRes Proxy looks like very able to handle.

As you fairly pointed out, let alone H.264 to more easier break when motion is involved. Let's not forget H.264 was designed for delivery, not acquisition.

Speaking of devil, what setup used for this test?

[KnightsFan]

@Emanuel There is no greenish tint in Resolve, though I see it in your screenshots. It must be an artifact from your player. Are you using VLC? EDIT: Yeah, definitely an artifact from your player/screen capture software. Your screenshot is significantly greener than the original file when shown side by side in Resolve.

 

21 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Speaking of devil, what setup used for this test?

Camera in a tripod, I think. It's an old test clip I found in my PC's recycling bin. I was testing settings on my friend's XT3.

21 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

As you fairly pointed out, let alone H.264 to more easier break when motion is involved. Let's not forget H.264 was designed for delivery, not acquisition.

Even the All I version of H264 retained more detail and didn't have those weird blurry bits moving about. And for casual video, acquisition and delivery happen on the same clip. I'm not going to transcode just to upload to Facebook. And ProRes Proxy wasn't designed for either, it's designed as proxy.

Can't tell if you're joking about ProRes being even remotely close? I mean I guess if the artifacts below are acceptable to you then so be it. I mean just look at the jagged edges on the roof and the bands of blurriness, which move up and down as you play the video. H.264 looks clean and consistent. This is a 100% crop from ProRes Proxy. I'm not even zooming in at all. Can't see how this is at all acceptable for pro use except as proxies.

[KnightsFan]

Ran PSNR analysis against the original file.

ProRes Proxy avg: 31.52

H264 (same bitrate) avg: 33.79

H264 (<1/10 bitrate) avg: 33.35

H264 (All Intra) avg: 31.73

The H.264 files are all mathematically closer to the original file, in addition to being visually closer. Even the All Intra version!

[Emanuel]

So, you end to confirm H.264 is more prone to introduce chroma artifacts at the end user than ProRes Proxy after all? LOL ; )

I am not kidding about ProRes Proxy at all. Some video capture tasks don't demand for higher than such either professionally or for home videos.

Proxy title has nothing to do with the use of proxies, don't compare different stuff, we're not speaking about the same : )

Where's your fairness on that sample you posted now?

You will tell me resolution doesn't play a part when you blow up your outcome?! : D

Where's the H.264 sample to compare with?

Why not some motion tests to stress the H.264 codec and what about to compare with a ProRes PXY file then? ; -)

I'd formally say you can add artifacts of any codec out there taking it beyond its own limits. So, we can variably turn any valuable codec in shitty macroblocking as we push it further longer proper usage for.

 

Here you have half-dozen arguments to stand everything already said earlier.

Don't rule anything out based on misconceived ideas. Unusable terrifying remarks on ProRes Proxy are anything but pretty much inaccurate. As simple as that.

 

In more than 30 years from a personal note BTW, my family videos never looked so cinematic from PXY files. Not even when I was used to shoot them in Super 8mm film. Today, I have no even need to go higher than 1080p, go figure!

 

E : -)

 

[KnightsFan]

5 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

So, you end to confirm H.264 is more prone to introduce chroma artifacts at the end user than ProRes Proxy after all? LOL ; )

It seems that somehow you have added a green tint that I cannot reproduce. That's why I asked which software you used, so I could check it on my end. I've tried my clips in VLC, MPC-HC, and DaVinci Resolve and I can't get the green tint.

6 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Where's your fairness on that sample you posted now?

You will tell me resolution doesn't play a part when you blow up your outcome?! : D

What do you mean? The image I posted is a 1:1 crop, it was not blown up. You can see the exact same artifacts in the image you posted.

7 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Where's the H.264 sample to compare with?

I posted four total samples, one ProRes Proxy and three variants of H.264. What further H.264 comparison do you want?

8 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Why not some motion tests to stress the H.264 codec and what about to compare with a ProRes PXY file BTW?

Feel free to send me clips to compare. As I showed, even the H.264 All-Intra variant is visually and mathematically better, so motion shouldn't make any difference.

8 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I'd say you can add artifacts of any codec out there taking it beyond its own limits. So, we can variably turn any valuable codec in shitty macroblocking as we push it further longer proper usage for.

This is absolutely true. However, all of the samples I posted were directly transcoded from the original 10 bit 4k file with no edits or effects. I didn't push either one. Again, feel free to send Raw or Uncompressed source files in the scenarios of your choosing and I'm happy to run the test again.

[Emanuel]

PotPlayer.

OK, not from a blow up : ) So, I've just checked you have a better H.264 outcome there.

This doesn't mean you'll be able to reproduce every situation under different shooting circumstances.

As you fairly inferred before, let alone motion to see some H.264 to easily break.

This means you're unable to use it for family videos or even professionally?!

Sure not, this delivery pattern is the mainstream acquisition standard so far.

For some reason a operator is mandatory. A camera doesn't shoot per se, no matter how good auto-this auto-that AF included is : D

You'll properly set up your tools accordingly the needs.

 

The whole point I stand is:

ProRes Proxy is not unusable and can be better than H.264 as we've already seen samples about.

Does this mean it will happen all the course?

I'd conclude not all the time.

You've already added something useful to the debate.

I just don't buy that "pretty terrible" remark from yours. Pretty inaccurate to my book to say the least : ) Unfortunately, all my PXY files are private related. I'd obviously tend to avoid it for narrative and documentary stuff for exhibition as my main playground. Never had my doubts on it. 4K follows the task force. Other than that, PXY 1080p will suffice the family job.

 

Nice to discuss it with you in a civil manner BTW, not possible everyday currently as much as ProRes Proxy files to serve as analogy LOL (E : -)

 

[KnightsFan]

12 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

PotPlayer.

Just downloaded and tried PotPlayer, still no green tint on my end. I have no idea what could be causing it for you, but you may want to try changing your renderer in PotPlayer, or at least verify whether it happens with every H.264 file or just these.

17 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

This means you're unable to use it for family videos or even professionally?!

Of course you can use it any way you want, I just think there are better options available. And, to get back on topic, the whole reason I brought it up was that I would rather have a Z6 on a casual sightseeing trip than a Pocket 4K. Both for photos and videos. I use my camera for paid gigs, but also for non-pro stuff. So that's a genuine consideration I need to make before buying.

22 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

ProRes Proxy is not unusable and can be better than H.264 as we've already seen samples about.

I have yet to see a place where ProRes proxy is better than H264 with the same bitrate. As I said, YouTube comparisons between completely different cameras don't really show anything about the acquisition codec. But yeah, if it works for you then use it.

13 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I just don't buy that "pretty terrible" remark from yours. Pretty inaccurate to my book to say the least : )

That's fair. "Terrible" in an absolute sense might be harsh, but in my experience, it's not as good as H.264.

13 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Nice to discuss it with you in a civil manner BTW

Same! I guess I've derailed the topic enough so I'll leave the files as they stand and let people draw their own conclusions.