So, I'm thinking about archiving issues, and I know there's a ton of different opinions, but I'm just wanting to know, if I have a 50GB Blue-Ray disc, how much RAW 4K footage would fit on that 50GB? As in, hours and minutes (most likely minutes)...
Thread: Red and Blue-Ray
|
|
05-22-2007, 01:57 PM
So, I'm thinking about archiving issues, and I know there's a ton of different opinions, but I'm just wanting to know, if I have a 50GB Blue-Ray disc, how much RAW 4K footage would fit on that 50GB? As in, hours and minutes (most likely minutes)...
05-22-2007, 02:02 PM
The REDDRIVE is 320 gb and will hold about 3 hrs of footage (not exact) we haven't gotten final confirmation on data rates yet. So your 50 GB Disk will hold about half an hour of raw footage. OUCH
05-22-2007, 02:05 PM
figure about 25 minutes of 4k at 24fps per 50gb blu-ray disc. but the real issue is the cost of each dual layer disc and transfer speed. right now i'm seeing just under $1/gig and transfer speeds of just under 10mb/sec. that's just under 90 minutes to transfer 25 minutes of actual footage. not great but both will get better. hopefully soon.Originally Posted by Brandon Freeman
05-22-2007, 02:07 PM
Okay. So, if I decided to shoot 2k instead, does the footage get recorded as 2k to the hard drive or is it still RAW 4k, and downconverted when transfered?
And if it does record in 2k, am I getting a smaller file size, or the same size, but a picture less compressed?
Sorry for all these questions -- I've studied the chart for a while now, but can't seem to get these questions answered.
05-22-2007, 02:12 PM
Wow. Looks like I'm still waiting to make a decision for what I'm shooting my next film with.
05-22-2007, 02:33 PM
Sorry for the triple post, but...
Isn't redcode a bit more compressed than RAW? Would it not be advisable to shoot 4k 24fps w/ REDCODE?
Confused noob, sorry.
ADDED SO AS NOT TO QUADRUPLE POST :) :
So, it appears that there are three quality formats. I don't know how I missed this. Am I correct, then, in assuming that REDCODE RAW (which is different from RAW, correct?) will be at about the same bit-rate as XDCAM HQ (35mbps)? (I understand that it's a different encoding style entirely, so I'm not worried about encoding 4k with only 30 mbps.) Then, would a 50 GB blue-ray hold about the same amount of REDCODE RAW as XDCAM HQ data?
I hope I'm not bugging anyone with all these questions...I'm just learnin'. Thanks for your time in advance.
05-22-2007, 03:32 PM
Brandon; I'll try to answer...
Here goes. Feel free to correct me, anyone.
Redcode is a way of compressing RAW files. RAW is not a compression scheme, but describes the unprocessed data coming off the sensor (as opposed to YUV or RGB)
It is not the same bitrate as HDCAM HD. Bitrates are quoted using upper and lower case letters, mainly to confuse noobs, i think.
b= bit
B= byte or 8 bits.
XDCAM HD =35 Mb/sec
Redcode = approximately 30 MB/sec or almost 8 times as much data.
If my math is correct, that works out to 240 Mb/sec.
So a 50 GB Blu-Ray wouldn't hold as much.
Incidentally, XDCAM HD 35 uses a high-rate compression scheme similar to HDV. Although it looks pretty good, RedCode will be much better, just going by the numbers. And about 5x as many pixels.
05-22-2007, 03:45 PM
Yeah, I just figured out the b and the B on wikipedia. Doh.
Wow. So I am really going to need to figure out the whole storage space thing if I do go with Red.
So, I guess that makes it about 1.5 GB per minute. Hm.
05-22-2007, 03:53 PM
If it makes you feel any better, it's about the same data rate as uncompressed SD video.
And check out the other threads. There's lots of ideas on storage.
05-22-2007, 03:57 PM
And the thing I have to keep remembering too, is this is a camera that would easily sell for 3x its price, yet is only $17.5k -- so after all the lenses and stuff, you spend around $50k or maybe a bit more for an entire set-up that in any other circumstance would be $500k or more.
Ho...ly...crap. Red is awesome.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |