Bitrates. Where do you draw the line?

[Andrew Reid]

Remember when the 1D C came out, with MJPEG 4K. 500Mbit/s file sizes were a real struggle in a practical sense.

Now we have this enormous range, anything from 100Mbit H.264 to 3000Mbit RAW.

I am interested what kind of file sizes people are comfortable with and using most in 2022.

Do you find yourself sticking with smaller file sizes like 200Mbit H265?

Would you shoot much ProRes 422 HQ if you had a Nikon Z9 (2700Mbit)?

If so what are you editing from (HDD or SSD?) and archiving master files with?

Looking forward to hearing from you all. Just for reference. Here's what I think...

- Best overall codec is ProRes 422 LT in 4K oversampled from 8K on X-H2. 435Mbit and image quality is flawless

- Bitrate sweet spot for me is around 200Mbit. I find that kind of file size nice and manageable over time. Anything bigger is more of a special occasion thing.

- I don't mind 8bit at all as long as it has some colour science mojo going on

- ProRes 422 HQ in GH6 and Nikon Z9 is too big, not practical in my opinion - may as well shoot raw?

- HVEC on S1 and S1R has some very nice mojo going on and tiny file sizes so a thumbs up to them.

- I don't shoot BRAW, prefer Cinema DNG on Sigma Fp-L. Special occasions only but great for pulling stills from a short burst at 24fps.

[FHDcrew]

I’m liking oversampled 1080p Prores HQ, bitrate around 220mb/s but with that Prores mojo and editing performance. I use a Nikon Z6, special HDMI settings, and an Atomos Ninja Star to achieve this. 
 

Really an underrated format though, capturing that oversampled video directly. 1/4 the file size but detail loss is not massive compared to 4k. 

[TomTheDP]

Tough question. I love shooting higher bitrates with lower resolution. The Alexa Classic 2k lets me shoot in 444 without massive files and super smooth NLE experience. Sometimes I do crave 4k recording. With the relatively cheap costs of SSDs shooting 12bit 4k on the Sigma FP is doable. Still long term storage becomes a pain the more data you rack up. Maybe I just need a better archiving system. 

I'd say when shooting 4k its nice to have 5:1 compression option, really saves you a lot of space with no noticeable loss in IQ. 

Prores 422 seems to look nice and isn't too big. Of course with 8k its pretty massive, 4k or 2.8k things aren't so bad. Prores LT is a little brittle for me. But maybe shooting 8k kind of makes up for it. 

I just can't buy into the 6k-8k hype. 4k is a sweet spot for me and I don't mind shooting HD either. 

[Andrew Reid]

14 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

I’m liking oversampled 1080p Prores HQ

Username checks out 😉

Honorable mention to EOS R3 with 6K C-RAW (24.00p/23.98p): Approx. 720 Mbps

That it is actually quite a nice data rate for 6K RAW compared to most other cameras which are 2000Mbit+

[FHDcrew]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Username checks out 😉

Honorable mention to EOS R3 with 6K C-RAW (24.00p/23.98p): Approx. 720 Mbps

That it is actually quite a nice data rate for 6K RAW compared to most other cameras which are 2000Mbit+

Yeah that's kind of the story by my username haha

[Benjamin Hilton]

I feel like for most projects the 150mb/sec on the S1 is about the biggest I'd comfortably go. I never feel like I don't have enough data to work with in that codec outside of raw, but it is big enough to really eat through some hard drives. I'm still editing off of small SSDs, doing all our long term storage on cheap 8 or 12tb HDDs. I really don't find myself needing more data compression wise on most cameras, but I do always use an external monitor with my color science LUT on it, so I'm getting pretty close to the final image in camera exposure and WB wise. I would love to shoot raw just from my experience with photography, but the file sizes make it not an option outside of Red r3d. 

 

I'd have to say, I've been shooting with a lot of cameras over the years on a verity of projects including a lot of high end cinema cameras. I am really really impressed with the image out of the S1 and the a7Siii. I've been shooting with them both recently and they are really gold mojo wise. Couldn't ask for much more unless I'm going for the specific Red or Arri look. Which overall doesn't matter too much because few people even know what that means outside of a small niche of cinematographers. 

[TomTheDP]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I feel like for most projects the 150mb/sec on the S1 is about the biggest I'd comfortably go. I never feel like I don't have enough data to work with in that codec outside of raw, but it is big enough to really eat through some hard drives. I'm still editing off of small SSDs, doing all our long term storage on cheap 8 or 12tb HDDs. I really don't find myself needing more data compression wise on most cameras, but I do always use an external monitor with my color science LUT on it, so I'm getting pretty close to the final image in camera exposure and WB wise. I would love to shoot raw just from my experience with photography, but the file sizes make it not an option outside of Red r3d. 

 

I'd have to say, I've been shooting with a lot of cameras over the years on a verity of projects including a lot of high end cinema cameras. I am really really impressed with the image out of the S1 and the a7Siii. I've been shooting with them both recently and they are really gold mojo wise. Couldn't ask for much more unless I'm going for the specific Red or Arri look. Which overall doesn't matter too much because few people even know what that means outside of a small niche of cinematographers. 

What about BRAW? 12:1 is pretty light. 

[Benjamin Hilton]

9 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

What about BRAW? 12:1 is pretty light. 

I haven't tried it yet, really want to though. I almost used a pocket 6k last year for a project, but didn't end up getting it to fit on my steady cam rig, had to bail and use a gh5 at the last minute. Really want to test b-raw though at some point, although I've heard it's really not the same as raw

[TomTheDP]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I haven't tried it yet, really want to though. I almost used a pocket 6k last year for a project, but didn't end up getting it to fit on my steady cam rig, had to bail and use a gh5 at the last minute. Really want to test b-raw though at some point, although I've heard it's really not the same as raw

That is true, its technically not RAW. You might like BRAW off the Panasonic S1. 

[newfoundmass]

It really depends. I think for 90+% of my work 150Mbit is more than enough if I don't need to push the image around in post much. Storing/archiving the footage is a big factor. When you're filming a multi-cam live event and have four cameras with 3-4 hours of footage from each camera that gets to be a lot of space, especially when you're doing it multiple times a month. I've honestly thought about transcoding some of the unedited footage to save space. 

I really need to work on a server instead of using 5TB drives and try doing off site backups, but it gets to be so expensive.

[Django]

10 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Best overall codec is ProRes 422 LT in 4K oversampled from 8K on X-H2. 435Mbit and image quality is flawless

- Bitrate sweet spot for me is around 200Mbit. I find that kind of file size nice and manageable over time. Anything bigger is more of a special occasion thing.

I agree and if I get an XH2S I would be probably be shooting 422 LT most of the time. It's my preferred codec when doing exports.

The problem with bigger file sizes is for me not just archiving but mainly file sharing. I travel a lot and I'm constantly sending files to editors, production house, clients etc. Finding a good internet connection is harder than one may think (at least here in France) so working with RAW or even ProRes HQ is a total nightmare in transfer times. 

I can't shoot lower than 4K (production house won't accept it) and I refuse going back to 8-bit so its a bit of a conundrum but yeah its nice to have options in-camera.

RED still probably has the best IQ/ratio with its patent, one of the reasons I was considering a Komodo.

[MrSMW]

Well this year, whatever the standard is with the S1H in 4k 50p (200?) and the S1R in 10 bit 5k 30p and 8 bit 4K 50p.

But moving to Fuji, not sure yet…

Probably going to shoot your suggested 8k option with the pair of XH2’s I intend to use for roaming stills and static video (the latter in 8k 25 or 30p) plus a single XH2s roaming video in 4K 50p/4K 100p with the closest settings as the 8k static stuff.

Slightly different topic I know, but neither the XH2 nor the XH2s individually meet my needs, but as a pairing used for specific things, they do.

[Thpriest]

The 150mbit from the S1 is more than enough for my general needs. I try to get everything right in camera and the S1 is great for that. The 10bit gives enough room to deal with exposure with Madrid’s really bright sky. Although I think Prores and Prores LT would be a nice option for quick turn around stuff.

[Thpriest]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I'd have to say, I've been shooting with a lot of cameras over the years on a verity of projects including a lot of high end cinema cameras. I am really really impressed with the image out of the S1 and the a7Siii. I've been shooting with them both recently and they are really gold mojo wise. Couldn't ask for much more unless I'm going for the specific Red or Arri look. Which overall doesn't matter too much because few people even know what that means outside of a small niche of cinematographers. 

As an S1 and S5 owner it'd be very interesting to hear your opinion of the differences between the S1 and A7Siii and if you could only have one which would it be. I love the look and the S1's images, the ibis is great, the ergonomics are great but as we all know the AF isn't (and my eyes are getting older). I wonder if the AF benefits of the A/Sii are really worth it as how it deals with other stuff, iso, colours, ibis, 180 degrees, etc seem a bit of a hassle compared to the simplicity of use of the S1 but I'm not sure if that's the case!

[kye]

15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Remember when the 1D C came out, with MJPEG 4K. 500Mbit/s file sizes were a real struggle in a practical sense.

Now we have this enormous range, anything from 100Mbit H.264 to 3000Mbit RAW.

I am interested what kind of file sizes people are comfortable with and using most in 2022.

Do you find yourself sticking with smaller file sizes like 200Mbit H265?

Would you shoot much ProRes 422 HQ if you had a Nikon Z9 (2700Mbit)?

If so what are you editing from (HDD or SSD?) and archiving master files with?

Looking forward to hearing from you all. Just for reference. Here's what I think...

- Best overall codec is ProRes 422 LT in 4K oversampled from 8K on X-H2. 435Mbit and image quality is flawless

- Bitrate sweet spot for me is around 200Mbit. I find that kind of file size nice and manageable over time. Anything bigger is more of a special occasion thing.

- I don't mind 8bit at all as long as it has some colour science mojo going on

- ProRes 422 HQ in GH6 and Nikon Z9 is too big, not practical in my opinion - may as well shoot raw?

- HVEC on S1 and S1R has some very nice mojo going on and tiny file sizes so a thumbs up to them.

- I don't shoot BRAW, prefer Cinema DNG on Sigma Fp-L. Special occasions only but great for pulling stills from a short burst at 24fps.

Great topic.

Short answer is that I don't think I really need much more than 200Mbps.  I'd prefer an internal downscaled compressed RAW, but as that's not available, I'd settle for ALL-I h264 or Prores in either 1080p or 4K.

Long answer is - I wish you could control bitrate and codec independently on all cameras!  Sadly, they're preset and not uniform between cameras/brands.

As you know, I shoot my own travels and the odd adventure, which means I have a low number of projects per year, but shoot a lot of footage during those projects.  It also means I'm shooting while in moving vehicles, while walking / on stairs, and it means I'm shooting in (essentially) completely uncontrolled conditions.  Most venues ban tripods and frown on "professional" looking rigs, so an understated appearance is a criteria not a preference.

I care about two things.  The first is what the camera can capture, and the second is my experience in post.

What the camera can capture is determined by stabilisation, DR, and practicalities (turn-on time, battery life, etc).  This is why I've got the GH5.  It's also why I'm extremely reluctant to get an external recorder.  With a MILC, lens, and mic, the rig already gets long stares from security guards and members of the public alike.

My editing experience is that I want an ALL-I codec so my MBP can edit smoothly (forwards and backwards is crucial when you edit to music like I mostly do).  I edit on 1080p timelines so that my colour grading doesn't kill the machine, which is necessary when shooting in high-DR available-light situations, and might also need stabilisation in post too. I publish to YT in 1080p because it's good enough, and even if I wanted to upload in 4K for the YT bitrate I can just upres from 1080p and be fine - no-one can tell.  I store the files on internal or external SSD for editing, which is why I care about the total file size for an individual project.  It gets archived on spinning disks so my overall storage costs aren't huge.

Considering all the above, I'd prefer an internal downscaled compressed RAW format, maybe in something like 3K, which would give some latitude for the stabilisation and cropping in post.  
This would be ALL-I and with less brutal compression so would be fast to edit, it would have excellent bit-depth for serious grading from bad lighting, it wouldn't have strange colour profiles baked-in that make WB refinement in post a challenge, and the bitrates wouldn't be prohibitive.

Second to this, I'd be happy with either:

• 1080p Prores HQ (~170Mbps)
• ~200Mbps 10-bit 422 ALL-I h264 (not h265 as it's more intensive in post)
• 4K Prores LT is a bit larger in file sizes but the ease of Prores decompression compensates for the extra resolution (on a 1080p timeline) and the extra resolution would be useful if I wanted to stabilise or crop in post
• 4K 400Mbps 10-bit 422 ALL-I h264 (not h265) is also an option too

Since the pandemic made my cancel all my travel I've taken a step back and concentrated more on editing and sound design, and been paying more attention to the look of professional TV/movies and ignoring camera YT, I've become less precious about IQ and more focused on what will be smaller and faster and inconspicuous to get more of the shots I need even if the image is a bit more rough-n-ready.  In reviewing past projects I've found that I would have liked more shots for montages, so it's about coverage.  In high-end travel shows (e.g. Parts Unknown and even things like Chefs Table) there are shots with things clipped (other than the sun) and shake and various artefacts of difficult shooting, so if it's good enough for them it should be good enough for me.  It's obvious they edit for content, rather than making pretty (boring) pictures.

My ideal shooting experience would be a smartphone with acceptable image quality.  Sadly, the latest iPhone only uses Prores to faithfully reproduce the disastrous image processing they do prior to compression, so that's unlikely to be acceptable for a long long time.  Maybe over sharpened 8K is good enough on a 1080p timeline to match un-molested 1080p footage?  Maybe it'll need to be 12K before the artefacts are blurred out.

[Andrew Reid]

25 minutes ago, kye said:

Great topic.

Short answer is that I don't think I really need much more than 200Mbps.  I'd prefer an internal downscaled compressed RAW, but as that's not available, I'd settle for ALL-I h264 or Prores in either 1080p or 4K.

I would love an internal 2.8K RAW codec around 300Mbit.

A good balance of image quality and practicality.

I have moved on from 1080p but 2.8K never got the attention it deserved. It's a big step up from 1080. As the original BMCC showed!

Closest at the moment is the 6K C-RAW from EOS R3 in 24p mode at 720Mbit.

Or ProRes LT on the X-H2 which I think stands up very well to some of the lighter RAW codecs and BRAW.

ProRes RAW file sizes are a bit silly so won't be rushing out to buy an external recorder any time soon!

Canon RAW lite seems to edit quite fluidly on my MacBook Pro 16" (m1 pro)

It's a shame EOS R3 cannot downsample the RAW to 2.8K and 4K in-camera as I don't particularly need 6K.

[kye]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I would love an internal 2.8K RAW codec around 300Mbit.

A good balance of image quality and practicality.

I have moved on from 1080p but 2.8K never got the attention it deserved. It's a big step up from 1080. As the original BMCC showed!

Closest at the moment is the 6K C-RAW from EOS R3 in 24p mode at 720Mbit.

Or ProRes LT on the X-H2 which I think stands up very well to some of the lighter RAW codecs and BRAW.

ProRes RAW file sizes are a bit silly so won't be rushing out to buy an external recorder any time soon!

Canon RAW lite seems to edit quite fluidly on my MacBook Pro 16" (m1 pro)

It's a shame EOS R3 cannot downsample the RAW to 2.8K and 4K in-camera as I don't particularly need 6K.

I think when it comes to 1080p vs 2-3K it really matters if it's downsampled or not from the sensor, as obviously the downsampled will have more detail.  You're absolutely right about ~2.5K sensor cameras outputting 2K or 1080p, hugely underrated.
I'm not sure how I'd go with a 1080p sensor - I've got both the OG BMPCC and BMMCC but I've struggled to get the level of resolution and sharpness I want.  The GH5 downsampling to 1080p is a bit on the sharp side but easily adjusted with a very slight blur.

I think that my requirement for ALL-I codecs might not apply once I go to the new Apple silicone, as my MBP is intel based and really lags in video editing performance in comparison.  It's still lightening on 1080p ALL-I footage though, so it's fine there.  I remember researching the intel ones on h265 hardware acceleration and could never find if it was hardware with 10-bit files, although I think they said that it was with 8-bit.  The Apple chips should have enough power just to muscle it regardless I'd imagine - especially if it's a 4K or lower file.

For some reason the manufacturers still seem to think that only the good codecs/bitrates are needed on the native resolutions, which is a pity to have to choose between 50-100Mbps 1080p and 2000Mbps 6K!  In that way an external recorder would be great as you'd have in-between options, but it's a whole other level of hassle.

[FHDcrew]

37 minutes ago, kye said:

I think when it comes to 1080p vs 2-3K it really matters if it's downsampled or not from the sensor, as obviously the downsampled will have more detail.  You're absolutely right about ~2.5K sensor cameras outputting 2K or 1080p, hugely underrated.
I'm not sure how I'd go with a 1080p sensor - I've got both the OG BMPCC and BMMCC but I've struggled to get the level of resolution and sharpness I want.  The GH5 downsampling to 1080p is a bit on the sharp side but easily adjusted with a very slight blur.

I think that my requirement for ALL-I codecs might not apply once I go to the new Apple silicone, as my MBP is intel based and really lags in video editing performance in comparison.  It's still lightening on 1080p ALL-I footage though, so it's fine there.  I remember researching the intel ones on h265 hardware acceleration and could never find if it was hardware with 10-bit files, although I think they said that it was with 8-bit.  The Apple chips should have enough power just to muscle it regardless I'd imagine - especially if it's a 4K or lower file.

For some reason the manufacturers still seem to think that only the good codecs/bitrates are needed on the native resolutions, which is a pity to have to choose between 50-100Mbps 1080p and 2000Mbps 6K!  In that way an external recorder would be great as you'd have in-between options, but it's a whole other level of hassle.

If you just need 1080p and can pick up a cheap Ninja Star then it's not really a hassle.  The thing is tiny, weighs very little, and has excellent battery life with just one NPF550.  So many cameras can output oversampled 1080p via their HDMI anyways that many cameras would benefit, and Prores 1080p gives a nice medium when it comes to bitrate

[Al Dolega]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I have moved on from 1080p but 2.8K never got the attention it deserved. It's a big step up from 1080.

Yes, same here, I wish the camera companies would be brave enough to do some intermediate resolutions/frame rates between HD and UHD.

A 2.5-2.8K option would be a really great choice for finishing to HD while having some room for cropping and having a bit of oversampling for that nice sharp-but-not-sharpened look.

It could also help fill gaps in the spec sheet for marketing, for instance the A7IV (and my S1) can't do 4K60 at less than an s35/APS-C crop, but if it could do 2.5-2.8K at ~1.3x, or even full-frame, that would be a lot more attractive, while still keeping some distance to the A7sIII, A1 etc.

[mercer]

After shooting ML Raw for the past 5 years and ProRes on a BMMCC, I don't know if I can ever go back to a highly compressed h.26... codec.

That said, I'm not immune to progress so I am tempted by the advancements in tech, particularly IBIS, DCI-4K>DCI-2K, AF, Dual ISO, etc... but at the end of the day, resolution, et al have little effect on story. So I find there is a real sweet spot for 1080p RAW/ProRes for data rates to final look.

As much as I am intrigued by the FP Raw (even in 8bit for B&W), GH6 (ProRes), XH2s (ProRes), R3 (RAW)... unless I hit the lottery, I really don't see any NEED to upgrade for a couple more years.

And with that said, I might buy an FP tomorrow.

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I have moved on from 1080p but 2.8K never got the attention it deserved. It's a big step up from 1080. As the original BMCC showed!

I know you haven't been a fan of BM as a company for a little while, but remember that the P4K shoots 2.8K in S16 mode. With the prices dropping on them, I will say I am tempted to trade in my M2K for a P4K for that mode alone.