WEAPON LOWEST COMPRESSION: Carbon vs Magnesium (The Numbers)

[Nick Morrison]

Hey gang, I went through the DSMC Media Operation Guide, and pulled the lowest COMPRESSION LEVELS for both WEAPON CARBON and WEAPON MAGNESIUM (across all mags).

Below you'll find a list with both cameras compared.

The results are interesting:

1) MAGNESIUM is not as different to CARBON as one may think. If you shoot 24 and 48, you may not notice the difference at all.

2) To get the CARBON's max data levels, you HAVE TO SHOOT ON 512 or 1TB mini-mags!!! The 240's and 120's are NOT CAPABLE of these lower compressions!

This is an added expense/hurdle CARBON owners may need to factor in.

3) On 240 mini-mags, both CARBON and MAGNESIUM Weapon are virtually identical in performance.

Here's both camera's LOWEST compression levels compared at HD from 6K to 4K:

CARBON FIBRE w/ 512 & 1TB
6KHD 24 3:1
6KHD 48 5:1
6KHD 60 6:1
6KHD 75 8:1

5KHD 24 2:1
5KHD 48 4:1
5KHD 60 5:1
5KHD 96 8:1

4KHD 24 2:1
4KHD 48 3:1
4KHD 60 3:1
4KHD 96 5:1
4KHD 120 6:1

CARBON FIBRE w/ 240 & 120
6KHD 24 4:1
6KHD 48 6:1
6KHD 60 8:1
6KHD 75 10:1

5KHD 24 3:1
5KHD 48 5:1
5KHD 60 6:1
5KHD 96 10:1

4KHD 24 2:1
4KHD 48 3:1
4KHD 60 4:1
4KHD 96 6:1
4KHD 120 8:1

MAGNESIUM w/ ALL MINI MAGS: 1TB, 512, 240 & 120
6KHD 24 4:1
6KHD 48 7:1 *
6KHD 60 8:1
6KHD 75 10:1
*the only one that's higher on MAGNESIUM on a 240 Mini-Mag

5KHD 24 3:1
5KHD 48 5:1
5KHD 60 6:1
5KHD 96 10:1

4KHD 24 2:1
4KHD 48 3:1
4KHD 60 4:1
4KHD 96 6:1
4KHD 120 8:1

I triple checked the numbers, but if anything looks off....just let me know!


CONCLUSIONS:

ADVANTAGES OF CARBON:
1) 4K Prores
2) Virtually losless compression at 6K (3:1) and 5K (2:1).
3) Lower compression for high speed (8:1 at 75fps 6K, 8:1 96fps 5K).
4) Path to 8K

ADVANTAGES OF MANGESIUM
1) On 240 mags, virtually identical to Carbon
2) At 24, 48, and 60fps compression levels still fantastically competetive/robust:

6KHD 24 4:1
6KHD 48 7:1
6KHD 60 8:1

5KHD 24 3:1
5KHD 48 5:1
5KHD 60 6:1

3) PRICE: Especially If you get the $5K aluminum price drop AND the $5k AKS credit, the price/performance ratio of Magnesium is OUTSTANDING

 

[Brian Merlen]

I think the harder part is people want to also know the limits for simultaneously doing prores at various settings too. That's where CF shines the most and the faster mini mags. But since there are a lot more variables it will be tough to chart it out


but appreciate the info none the less and thank you for sharing! I just think the devil is in the details on over cranking various prores sizes and bit rates

 

[Nick Morrison]

I think the harder part is people want to also know the limits for simultaneously doing prores at various settings too. That's where CF shines the most and the faster mini mags. But since there are a lot more variables it will be tough to chart it out


but appreciate the info none the less and thank you for sharing! I just think the devil is in the details on over cranking various prores sizes and bit rates

Great point and simultanous recording!!! Great point.

 

[Brian Merlen]

If you have weapon already would you mind testing same exact test but with dual recording enabled? Like ideally on every prores setting and same fps and compression on r3d files? Cuz like at some point I wonder whether the mag or camera boards hit a bottle neck? Like xq or 4444 eat a ton of data in 4K and 1080 so I have to wonder where the limitations will be on MG and CF with either speed mags

 

[Nick Morrison]

If you have weapon already would you mind testing same exact test but with dual recording enabled? Like ideally on every prores setting and same fps and compression on r3d files? Cuz like at some point I wonder whether the mag or camera boards hit a bottle neck? Like xq or 4444 eat a ton of data in 4K and 1080 so I have to wonder where the limitations will be on MG and CF with either speed mags

I don't have a Weapon, but agree someone should jump on this!

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Don't forget HDRx (guessing that it merely doubles the numbers...some might round down a step, i.e. from 6 to 5 or from 20 to 19):

CARBON FIBRE w/ 512 & 1TB

6KHD 24 6:1
6KHD 48 10:1
6KHD 60 12:1
6KHD 75 16:1

5KHD 24 4:1
5KHD 48 8:1
5KHD 60 10:1
5KHD 96 16:1

4KHD 24 4:1
4KHD 48 6:1
4KHD 60 6:1
4KHD 96 10:1
4KHD 120 12:1

MAGNESIUM w/ ALL MINI MAGS: 1TB, 512, 240 & 120
6KHD 24 8:1
6KHD 48 14:1 *
6KHD 60 16:1
6KHD 75 20:1
*the only one that's higher on MAGNESIUM on a 240 Mini-Mag

5KHD 24 6:1
5KHD 48 10:1
5KHD 60 12:1
5KHD 96 20:1

4KHD 24 4:1
4KHD 48 6:1
4KHD 60 8:1
4KHD 96 12:1
4KHD 120 16:1

 

[PatrickFaith]

Hey gang, I went through the DSMC Media Operation Guide, and pulled the lowest COMPRESSION LEVELS for both WEAPON CARBON and WEAPON MAGNESIUM (across all mags)...
The results are interesting:

1) MAGNESIUM is not as different to CARBON as one may think. If you shoot 24 or 48, you may not notice the difference at all.

2) To get the CARBON's max data levels, you HAVE TO SHOOT ON 512 or 1TB mini-mags!!! The 240's and 120's are NOT CAPABLE of these lower compressions!

This is an added expense/hurdle CARBON owners may need to factor in.

3) On 240 mini-mags, both CARBON and MAGNESIUM Weapon are virtually identical in performance.
... PRICE: Especially If you get the $5K aluminum price drop AND the $5k AKS credit, the price/performance ratio of Magnesium is OUTSTANDING

Your right, also I shoot 95% of the time anamorphic format, and the difference I think get's makes the difference even less meaningful when I'm under 5:1. Another thing, is the main thing I shoot under 5:1 is for noise reduction, and the slightly lower noise of the magnum I think makes it even more meaningless. Only reason at least for me to get CARBON is for the 8k, but even the 8K I'm getting that for the extra 4 mm of height I'll get on my current lenses (I'm staying with master prime anamorphic's, way too expensive for me to switch to VV master prime quality lenses in 2016). So the difference between magnum (lol ... my name for the magnesium since i think it kicks butt much more then i expected, plus I have to look up the magnesium word every time i spell it) and VV Carbon fiber isn't really much for us anamorphic guys.

[... but that extra few MM height on the VV sensor though is worth it to me as I compare that to the cost of MPA glass which is about $45k per lens]

 

[Patrick Tresch]

3) PRICE: Especially If you get the $5K aluminum price drop AND the $5k AKS credit, the price/performance ratio of Magnesium is OUTSTANDING

As a side note : why isn't this info on RECON? This is the game changer for the Magensium deal! Is this the new AKS credit that last until 1rst of december, if we ask gently our bomb squad with some flowers and whisky?

Pat

 

[Phil Holland]

As a side note : why isn't this info on RECON? This is the game changer for the Magensium deal! Is this the new AKS credit that last until 1rst of december, if we ask gently our bomb squad with some flowers and whisky?

Pat

The thread you referenced is in Recon.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

The thread you referenced is in Recon.

Yes page 68 post 678.
Such an announcement should get it's own thread IMHO.

 

[Björn Benckert]

The compression ratios are one thing but the big difference is carbon upgrades to 8k magnesium does not.


Also the 4k process thing I think only will be really a thing when shooting 8k as then downscale to quarter res and then ad compression at 4k will probably do wonders when shooting in lowlight etc.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The compression ratios are one thing but the big difference is carbon upgrades to 8k magnesium does not.


Also the 4k process thing I think only will be really a thing when shooting 8k as then downscale to quarter res and then ad compression at 4k will probably do wonders when shooting in lowlight etc.

Yup agreed. Or even shooting 8K down to 2K 444 quicktimes.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Yup agreed. Or even shooting 8K down to 2K 444 quicktimes.

Yes, that should produce 2k looking like glass even att high digital gain levels for sure.

 

[Patrick Kendall]

Great chart / article Nick! I have to admit, I've always shot at a slightly higher compression, 10:1 to give me 20% more drive space. (Each step is about 10%) Makes a big difference to me when I'm out shooting and in post with my own projects and my clients can't tell the difference (I know, I know).

I've got my sights set on a bigger 512gb card when I switch over to VV... I may go back to the default setting of 8:1, but I think I will still be a bit of a conservationist when it comes to compression vs drivespace..

 

[Nick Morrison]

Great chart / article Nick! I have to admit, I've always shot at a slightly higher compression, 10:1 to give me 20% more drive space. (Each step is about 10%) Makes a big difference to me when I'm out shooting and in post with my own projects and my clients can't tell the difference (I know, I know).

I've got my sights set on a bigger 512gb card when I switch over to VV... I may go back to the default setting of 8:1, but I think I will still be a bit of a conservationist when it comes to compression vs drivespace..

Hey Patrick! Yeah, we're shooting 8:1 mostly, and 5:1 on smaller jobs where we can afford it. So in that environment, Mangesium would perform identically to Carbon....which is important to keep in mind!

Lets get coffee!

 

[Zeb B]

. . . carbon upgrades to 8k magnesium does not.

yet . . . everything changes

 

[Ryan Purcell]

Hmmm - I thought that accessory deal was long gone. ( I guess being in the dark about that kept me from agonizing over possibly upgrading - so there's a bright side.!) Looking forward to messing around with one soon.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hmmm - I thought that accessory deal was long gone. ( I guess being in the dark about that kept me from agonizing over possibly upgrading - so there's a bright side.!) Looking forward to messing around with one soon.

Jarred brought it back to life. Today was the last day.