Z-Cam used on Mission Impossible

[ntblowz]

As crashcam or compact rig setup where space is limited but still looks good on big screen!

Interesting it was recorded in Prores but not raw format, is it because prores is good enough?

 

https://ymcinema.com/2023/07/17/the-action-camera-behind-mission-impossible-7/?expand_article=1

[barefoot_dp]

Of all the high-end jobs I've worked on using Arri's, not one of them was shot in raw. And I've never shot a single raw clip on any of my ZCams. You'll get a much better end result by spending extra time focusing on production design and lighting than you will by switching in to raw mode - and bigger productions know this.

Prores is good enough for 95% of professional use (or 99% if 4444 is available). The people here who complain about any new camera that does not shoot raw are out of touch with reality.

[kye]

2 hours ago, ntblowz said:

As crashcam or compact rig setup where space is limited but still looks good on big screen!

Interesting it was recorded in Prores but not raw format, is it because prores is good enough?

https://ymcinema.com/2023/07/17/the-action-camera-behind-mission-impossible-7/?expand_article=1

Interestingly enough, they've used Zcam on previous MI films...

https://ymcinema.com/2020/10/09/z-cam-e1-crash-cam-spotted-in-mission-impossible-7/

1 hour ago, barefoot_dp said:

Of all the high-end jobs I've worked on using Arri's, not one of them was shot in raw. And I've never shot a single raw clip on any of my ZCams. You'll get a much better end result by spending extra time focusing on production design and lighting than you will by switching in to raw mode - and bigger productions know this.

Prores is good enough for 95% of professional use (or 99% if 4444 is available). The people here who complain about any new camera that does not shoot raw are out of touch with reality.

Agreed.  

My impression was that there are three types of productions:

• High budget feature films / flagship TV series
  These have the budget to use high resolution RAW capture, high-end cameras and fancy lenses, significant budget for professional colour grading, to promote the film they get lots of media attention and interviews etc.  The process is overseen by professional folks who know how to extract every ounce of quality.
   
• Low-medium budget feature films / most TV shows
  These don't have the budget for extravagances and shoot with only the level of equipment that is necessary for professional results, using lower resolutions and Prores, using solid but less remarkable cameras and lenses, get minimum colour grading budget, and get far less media attention (and basically no media attention for technical matters). The process is overseen by professional folks who know how to do the basics so that the result is solid but is delivered within budget .
   
• Amateur features / short films / cat videos
  Devote more person-hours to their short film than major Hollywood feature films but spend that time obsessing over camera specifications and lens technical sharpness tests, scouring over the latest $100M feature film post-workflow and trying to implement every tool and technique, insisting on only the best.
  Most of the time their lack of basic understanding means the result is worse than even very low budget professional productions.

A quick search revealed that IMDB says that Game of Thrones was shot on Prores and mastered in 2K....  

Quote

Cinematographic Process

• Codex(season2-)
• Digital Intermediate (2K)(master format)
• Dolby Vision
• HDCAM SR(season 1)
• HDR10
• Hawk Scope(anamorphic, season 8, source format, some scenes)
• ProRes(season 2-)
• Redcode RAW(some shots, Season 5-)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/technical/

and more searching reveals that it was the first three seasons shot in 1080p, then 3.2K from Season 4 onwards:

Quote

It’s easy to forget now, but Game of Thrones was the first hour-long HBO drama to be captured entirely digitally. The first three seasons were shot in 10-bit 4:4:4 at 1920x1080 resolution using then prototype ARRI Alexa cameras (save for a bit of footage in the first episode that was actually shot on 35 mm film, left over from HBO’s original failed pilot). For Season One the captured image was recorded on HDCAM SR videotape using a tape-based workflow, with color correction done on set. For Seasons Two and Three, the production went tapeless, recording that same image data via Codex and datapacks. Though this source material was upsampled to 4K (at a 1.78:1 aspect ratio), it’s shocking how good it looks. HDCAM SR has an HQ recording mode that provides an 880 Mbps video data rate with low compression, so the detail visible in the Ultra HD image is improved a bit; it’s rock solid, tighter-looking, and much less noisy than the previous Blu-ray presentation. A few shots appear a little optically soft, but in general the overall detail is very good—not native 4K good, but still impressive as hell all things considered.

https://thedigitalbits.com/item/game-of-thrones-complete-series-4k-uhd

I wasn't able to find any original source for the above, but it appears to be the consensus.  The fact it was shot in 10-bit 4:4:4 suggests it was compressed as RAW isn't 10-bit.  Prores 4444 XQ spec is 396Mbps so this is roughly equivalent.

Season 1 used the HDCAM SR format:

Quote

HDCAM SR was introduced in 2003 and standardised in SMPTE 409M-2005.[5] It uses a higher particle density tape and is capable of recording in 10 bits 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 RGB with a video bit rate of 440 Mbit/s, and a total data rate of approximately 600 Mbit/s.[6] The increased bit rate (over HDCAM) allows HDCAM SR to capture much more of the full bandwidth of the HD-SDI signal (1920×1080). Some HDCAM SR VTRs can also use a 2× mode with an even higher video bit rate of 880 Mbit/s, allowing for a single 4:4:4 stream at a lower compression or two 4:2:2 video streams simultaneously.[6] HDCAM SR uses MPEG-4 Part 2 Simple Studio Profile[5] for compression, and expands the number of audio channels up to 12 at 48 kHz/24-bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCAM

So yeah, Prores is good enough.

[Snowfun]

On 7/18/2023 at 12:21 AM, barefoot_dp said:

The people here who complain about any new camera that does not shoot raw are out of touch with reality.

Although some of the people here actually enjoy processing and playing with raw files. With no time constraints or commercial production schedules to worry about, us amateurs are permitted to enjoy raw and, by implication, might justifiably complain when a new camera doesn’t do raw. We’re just in touch with a different reality.
But in the commercial environment of “bigger productions”  I agree with the point you make.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

Although some of the people here actually enjoy processing and playing with raw files

I have not had the chance...yet, but would like to because as with anything in this world, what anyone else is doing does not really matter, only what YOU are doing.

My next quest is to see:

A. If I can take my hybrid capture to the next level which would be stills + video + stills from video. It's the latter I am currently missing because 4k does not cut it for me. It just doesn't. I've tested that one out and it's either 6 or 8k to get the kind of result I would want.

B. To see if raw video would then make a difference in that regard.

C. And only then decide whether it has any place in my future or whether stills from video could replace any form of stills capture in the first place.

I am sure it is very much a case of those with the highest budgets can pull the most from 'lesser' material whereas those with the smallest budgets can sometimes do with the extra bit of help/latitude etc that tech can sometimes bring.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that wedding videographers might shoot in 4k+ whilst Hollywood is 'only' shooting 2k a lot of the time.

I think I need an IMAX camera next...

I've seen BarbieHeimer on YouTube.

I'm gonna make WeddingHeimer 😉

[Evgeniy85]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:43 PM, kye said:

High budget feature films / flagship TV series
These have the budget to use high resolution RAW capture, high-end cameras and fancy lenses, significant budget for professional colour grading, to promote the film they get lots of media attention and interviews etc.  The process is overseen by professional folks who know how to extract every ounce of quality.

I worked on medium-sized productions and have friends who worked on high-budget shows for HBO and Netflix. They only film RAW for VFX plates and everything else is in ProRes. 

[M_Williams]

On 7/19/2023 at 1:59 PM, Evgeniy85 said:

I worked on medium-sized productions and have friends who worked on high-budget shows for HBO and Netflix. They only film RAW for VFX plates and everything else is in ProRes. 

Agreed. Most RAW is used for VFX. I know the cinematographer of Whiplash (2014) and it was shot on an Alexa in ProRes 4:4:4. Nebraska was shot on an Alexa M and Alexa 4:3 in ProRes 2K. Moonlight was Alexa XT Plus on ProRes 4:4:4. It's also more common to shot ProRes for shows.

Exceptions are productions that use RED, because obviously you'd shoot REDCODE RAW there.

I think RAW is becoming more common to use on mid and high budget films, probably because storage/media costs have decreased a lot, and RAW is much more easy to edit with today's computers.

[kye]

2 hours ago, M_Williams said:

I think RAW is becoming more common to use on mid and high budget films, probably because storage/media costs have decreased a lot, and RAW is much more easy to edit with today's computers.

I don't think we should extrapolate that to decide what is best for the prosumer market.

If we compare RAW with Prores (especially Prores 4:4:4 which is sadly completely lacking from the prosumer market), then we see that:

• Prores is compressed, but so are most forms of RAW
  RAW has to be de-bayered but RAW is also frequently compressed in a lossy way as the bitrates are almost unmanageable otherwise - this is especially true considering that most implementations of RAW are at the sensors full resolution, or are a brutal crop into the sensor completely revising your whole lens package
• RAW is ALL-I, but so is Prores
• Prores is constant-bitrate per pixel, but so is RAW
• RAW is "professional" quality, but so is Prores

The comparison even extends into licensing, where there's been frequent speculation about licensing fees being a barrier to why manufacturers are reluctant to include Prores, and with RAW the patents are also a barrier.

The more I think about this, the more that I think cameras should just implement the full-range of Prores codecs (LT, 422, HQ, and 444) and forget about RAW with all the BS that seems to go along with it...  the image quality, bit-depths, bit-rates, performance in post, support across platforms, and licensing all seems to be similar to RAW or in the favour of Prores.

[TomTheDP]

On 7/26/2023 at 3:06 AM, kye said:

I don't think we should extrapolate that to decide what is best for the prosumer market.

If we compare RAW with Prores (especially Prores 4:4:4 which is sadly completely lacking from the prosumer market), then we see that:

• Prores is compressed, but so are most forms of RAW
  RAW has to be de-bayered but RAW is also frequently compressed in a lossy way as the bitrates are almost unmanageable otherwise - this is especially true considering that most implementations of RAW are at the sensors full resolution, or are a brutal crop into the sensor completely revising your whole lens package
• RAW is ALL-I, but so is Prores
• Prores is constant-bitrate per pixel, but so is RAW
• RAW is "professional" quality, but so is Prores

The comparison even extends into licensing, where there's been frequent speculation about licensing fees being a barrier to why manufacturers are reluctant to include Prores, and with RAW the patents are also a barrier.

The more I think about this, the more that I think cameras should just implement the full-range of Prores codecs (LT, 422, HQ, and 444) and forget about RAW with all the BS that seems to go along with it...  the image quality, bit-depths, bit-rates, performance in post, support across platforms, and licensing all seems to be similar to RAW or in the favour of Prores.

I also think the sensor matters a lot more than the codec. The Alexa looks great in Prores 422, but its still reading out at 14 bits and getting most of the dynamic range. 

One of the reasons I prefer prores to RAW is because you can downsample. This saves you data without losing much resolution. Downsampled 2k on the Alexa looks about as good as the full 3.2k resolution, but you use way less space. I have downsampled 6k to 2k on the S1H. The 2k side by side with 6k is almost indistinguishable unless you are really cropping in a lot. Shooting in 6k resolution is super data heavy. The last film I worked on we shot on the URSA 12K in 12k. Crazy data rates. I wish the Ursa 12k had an option to downsample from 12k to 4k prores. 

The in camera 4k RAW on the URSA 12K is noticeably less detailed than the 12k. Down sampled 12k Prores would look insanely sharp. 

Of course you can always shoot in whatever codec and transcode in post, but its just nice to get it in camera, throw it on your computer and it's ready to go.