Dunno, maybe this is not an issue anymore.īut nothing beats visual inspection of the material. mlv) cause I liked using some of the "forbidden" ML tools (features requiring Global Draw ON which was supposed to be turned OFF for raw recording). I am a bit behind on ML developments, but back when I was shooting ML raw (MLV didn't existed yet) I would occasionally get corruption in the ML. Now, of course, you shouldn't be getting errors in the MLV in the first place, but you never know with (some) CF cards and high rate recording. And if there are errors in the MLV, these errors will translate to the DNGs. While slimRAW is, I believe, extremely reliable and can also verify the written output for you, it obviously can't verify the MLV input for errors since it has no way of recognizing them. Using MLVFS to feed MLV into slimRAW should probably be the fastest way, since this skips the original mlv->dng conversion and directly outputs compressed cdng. Thanks, looks like a cool product to save some expensive RAID storage. Do I need to purchase two separate licenses, or will it allow me to use the same license on each computer (like Adobe products) as long as I don't have both using the same license at the same time? Third, how does licensing work? I generally shoot for myself, but I use a computer at work to process footage occasionally. I've had my fair share of issues finding the right software to do the conversions from MLV, and I finally found a version of raw2cdng that works pretty reliably. Second, I would like to know if anyone has had any issues with crashing or bad frames in the compression process. So, can anyone give me a reasonable explanation about why slimraw would make playback and editing better in PPcc? This has lead me to believe that PPcc is the issue over file size and data rates. I want to know if this will actually improve performance, as resolve plays the files fine, and PPcc has hiccups. I converted these the MLV files using RAW2CDNG (which I has proven to be the best performance and reliable out of all the options out there). As it stands I get choppy, and drop frame performance reading 16bit CDNG content on Premiere Pro. Currently I have an i7 3930K and have a server feeding a 10GbE pipe with 650MB/s of read and write performance. The first and most important is about performance in Premiere and After Effects. Quote I have a few questions before I commit to purchasing SlimRAW. If you aren't in a hurry, you may gain some additional space by passing DNG Converter's output through DNGStrip, a free tool that strips some of DNG Converter's useless chaff from the compressed files, which I've written some years ago: But hey, Switch is free and I am sure Danne is doing a great job with the whole Switch pipeline. DNG Converter is no match for slimRAW neither in terms of file size achieved, nor in terms of speed (last time I checked, slimRAW was 32 times faster on a quad-core CPU). If the CPU is the bottleneck, performance may degrade.Īs for the differences between slimRAW and Switch, Danne will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Switch uses Adobe's DNG Converter. If storage is the bottleneck, Resolve performance should improve. Second, performance in Resolve with compressed DNG will depend on what's the bottleneck of your system when streaming the raw footage. Well, that and the fact that there was no log raw output in DNG Converter.Ī bit late, but here are some answers for posterity.įirst, your lossless DNG question is answered in slimraw's faq: But the main issue that initially pushed me towards making slimraw back in the day was the excruciatingly slow processing of DNG Converter. The thing is, DNG Converter is made for photos, and it has the peculiarity that it inserts thumbnails (previews) in each frame which certainly is pointless for video, and it adds a bunch of useless conjured metadata. (Well, DNG Converter will convert all input to nominal 16-bit regardless of true input bit depth, so the decompressed file will be nominally 16-bit, but that's mostly technical details.) Regardless, results will be truly lossless with any compressor, and compressed files will decompress to the same original file. That's because slimraw tries a lot of stuff on the fly to get the smallest results (and even more stuff to try can be enabled through an option), while the others fix parameters in advance. SlimRAW will produce files significantly smaller than DNG Converter and way smaller than anything that uses Blackmagic's setup for Canon linear raw (usually ~15% smaller, sometimes more). But the spec allows for a lot of wiggle room and choices to make, which accounts for significant differences in compressed pixel data size. Anything "lossless dng" uses the same spec when compressing the pixel data.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |