UHD - Mp4 or XF-AVC ?

[AJL14]

Hi guys,

Just planning a shoot with my new Canon XF-400 camera, and beginning tests. So I thought before I even start I'd ask you professionals for some advice.

1. Which format (codec) does EDIUS handle better? And seeing that I have yet to upgrade from my older editor - which might play and edit easier?

2. File size being virtually the same - do any of you witness a picture quality differential between the 2 codecs?

3. Which codec needs more EDIUS color correction in order to deliver the best end product? I've seen that the XF-AVC naked picture lends itself to not only easier color correction, but yields a better result that CC onto Mp4 pictures.

4. And finally - does the XF-AVC yield a reduced color and contrast picture (a RAW pix) and therefore needs a LUT to bring in up to acceptability?

Thanks for your help - I appreciate knowing a little more about the XF-AVC codec results before I begin the tests. I am used to ProRes, etc.
Alan

[Jerry]

It sounds as if the XF file is more efficient than a similar .mp4 is on your system.
That may end up being the deciding factor at the end of the day.

[AJL14]

I hear you, Jerry. Of course after this trip of ours to Europe, I may bite the bullet (big bullet) and upgrade my system - as you so many times have brilliantly suggested! We'll be back in September, and most probably there'll be all kinds of new discoveries to chose from. I will need your expertise to help me decide.

Hope all is well. I'll call and chat before we leave.
Best,
Alan

[ulyssesvideo]

XF-avc is a better codec than mp4... but they both only do 150MBPS bitrate... and I think only in 8bit 4:2:0 recording to cards.
Was there a reason why you didn't buy a dslr like a Panasonic GH5? the recording files are much better quality.

[AJL14]

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the info. I'm a Director/Cinematographer, and besides TV drama shows do a great deal of run-and-gun shooting and a hobby of travelogues. Therefore I'm used to "video" cameras (used to be called "film" cameras) and zoom lenses which are invaluable to my way of photographing. I've been waiting for a good lightweight pro Video camera with a large sensor - therefore the Canon XF400/405.

But in no way can I argue that your reference of the GH5 doesn't deliver a better quality picture. Absolutely gorgeous stuff comes out of that camera. Just not my style of "filming" though.

Have a great summer - er, Winter - in Aussie-land. And thanks again.
Alan

[Jerry]

Since Alan is using 8 bit UHD 59.94p, either camera will do the job because both will record this internally.

The Canon is better suited for Alan's purposes due to the fact that the camera is better for run and gun type shooting.

I would have recommended the 705 if Alan was shooting 10bit UHD 59.94p.

[ulyssesvideo]

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the info. I'm a Director/Cinematographer, and besides TV drama shows do a great deal of run-and-gun shooting and a hobby of travelogues. Therefore I'm used to "video" cameras (used to be called "film" cameras) and zoom lenses which are invaluable to my way of photographing. I've been waiting for a good lightweight pro Video camera with a large sensor - therefore the Canon XF400/405.

But in no way can I argue that your reference of the GH5 doesn't deliver a better quality picture. Absolutely gorgeous stuff comes out of that camera. Just not my style of "filming" though.

Have a great summer - er, Winter - in Aussie-land. And thanks again.
Alan

Hey Alan.. totally agree about the run and gun aspect... I still have my pana 3100G as well.....

yes..winter here down under! and it's biting!

[AJL14]

Hi Jerry,

Have had great success in setting up the Canon XF-400. In testing, mp4 runs better in EDIUS than XF-AVC - and actually looks a bit better coming out of m y 4K projector to the 14 ft. screen. Other than eliminating many of the control buttons on the camera, the 400 (and the simplicity of the setup screen), makes the camera quite versatile in nearly every respect. Even a gamma control delivers a "raw-like" picture which when color corrected with a LUT in EDIUS results in a virtually professional picture. So far, I'm thrilled with the results. So other than the camera and shotgun/stereo mike attached making it not as easy to carry around Europe - I think it might be well worth it. I'm lifting weights to get into better shape :).

But oh my, as you and Pat both so wisely predicted, I'm going to have to upgrade my EDIUS computer when we get back - for with either codec of 4K files it stutters worse than King George of England.

Still testing.... more later. Be good to yourself.
Alan