DJI Mavic 3 Pro Cine ProRes and H.265 Tests
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Comparisons of the DJI Mavic 3 Pro Cine's ProRes and H.265 codecs. Film with the 24mm Hasselblad lens in D-log. The DJI LUT has been applied.
10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes HQ, ProRes 422, ProRes LT compared with 10-bit 4:2:0 H.265.
1:41 is where the difference is 'noticeable.' but not sure if enough to justify 3X price of cine. Great video.
Thanks - there is a bigger picture than just the test. One thing to keep in mind is how much post-production you do or don't to your files and also if you are doing this commercially as opposed to as a hobby/fun. ProRes will always hold up better to sustained work in post whereas compressed codecs will fall apart much quicker. If that's something you need or your clients need then it's advantageous to have. Similarly, the cine version of the drone will film in 10-bit 4:2:2 on all three cameras in ProRes. The non-cine version is limited to 4:2:0 in either 8-bit or 10-bit depending on the settings. There can be a noticeable difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2.
@@roemerfilm I appreciate the reply. I'm currently deciding between the Mavic 3 Cine vs Mavic 3 Pro. Some say the M3Pro has sharper video/ software since its the final iteration of the line and that the 10 bit DLog coming out of it is comparable to ProRes. Would you say that having ProRes is the ultimate advantage and future proof of the M3 Cine and that 10 bit 4:2:2 would almost always be better in appearance and workflow than 10 bit 4:2:0 if all else remains the same?
@@_misterJ "Some say the M3Pro has sharper video/ software since it's the final iteration of the line" - not sure what that means. As in, DJI has announced they've ended the line so they decided this one model should have the sharpest video? Or it's the most recent iteration therefore it has the sharpest video, even sharper than the higher end model? Either way it doesn't make much sense to me and sounds like online hearsay. It also should be noted that if anything over the years with DJI the problem has been not been blurry video as much as over-sharpened video without the ability to turn the sharpening down or off. I'm talking about early Phantoms until now.
"Would you say that having ProRes is the ultimate advantage and future proof of the M3 Cine and that 10 bit 4:2:2 would almost always be better in appearance and workflow than 10 bit 4:2:0 if all else remains the same?" Having been a photographer for almost 40 yrs but having specialized in video production for the last 15 years, hands down with any camera system 4:2:2 almost always looks better than 4:2:0 when placed side by side. That's not to say that 4:2:0 cannot look very good and DJI's implementation of 10-bit 4:2:0 does help with gradations (e.g. smoother skies or water) vs. 8-bit. But it's when 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 are compared side by side that you see the difference and see what you are missing with 4:2:0.
There can be a difference in workflow as well. While ProRes files are bigger many computers can run/edit them more easily than H.265.
If you have a chance to rent or a borrow a M3Cine that would be my recommendation. Run some tests and that will tell you if having 10-bit 4:2:2 is worth it for you. It is a good deal more money and as you originally said - you may not feel it's worth it.
@@roemerfilmYou bring up many valid points to consider. A gentleman by the name of Jake Sloan did the 'sharper camera comparison,' seemed odd to me as well and I thought he was using different apertures, but it could be an issue with his particular drone. If you felt like checking it out. ruclips.net/video/H31HoVbI5sA/видео.html
thank you
I've been looking for this comparison, thank you for uploading it.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching.
Normally you should not see any difference between 422 Prores and H265 as H265 is highly optimized for high res.
Also if you need fast editing, you can work with Proxies or just convert H265 to DVXHQ and you get a ProRes like file (uncompressed).
DR is the same, color editing flexibility is the same, even if some people say 422 admit more tolerance, we never seen such thing.
Good work.
Thanks for your comment and for watching! I wasn't expecting to see a difference as I have been working with ProRes, H.265, and H.264 for long time. But looking at the original files on a 5K monitor ProRes HQ and the regular ProRes 422 do show better clarity and after doing some post production the shadows are holding up better. Yeah, it's not really increased DR, just better suited if one is doing significant postproduction to the files.
Sure one can always use proxies and filming in H.265 will save a ton of space but... on the Mavic 3 Pro Cine filming in any of the ProRes flavors gets you 10-bit 422 as opposed to 10-bit or 8-bit 420. That may not be noticeable in some situations but I have found in the past that 10-bit over 8-bit and 422 over 420 can be very helpful when filming areas of subtle gradations. It is especially noticeable for bodies of water, walls, and often the sky.
@@roemerfilm In ProRes you have same Limited RGB?
Not that I'm aware of. I'm not having issues in crushed blacks or losing highlights, etc. I'm editing on Macs, using FCP, etc.Whether or not it's doing something in the background to ID, adapt or compensate, I can't say. I've seen your thread over at forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=266448&extra=&page=1 so I know what you're getting at.
@@roemerfilm Would be interesting to see if they kept the Limited RGB in ProRes also...
Thanks.
@@johnny_blz Yep, for those of us using the drones for work we all have to make a judgment call, price vs. features relative to our clients' needs. I do a lot of video and have had footage used in TV commercials. Being able to provide the client with ProRes files and/or to edit ProRes in-house has made a difference in those situations.
Many don't need that or it's not worth the difference in price.
thanks for doing this!
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks! Did you do any tests on the tele lenses?
Not per se but I've used them a lot on client projects and for personal work. All three can now do ProRes (after FW updates since the original release) and if you want all three to be closer in terms of color/tonal range then you can go with D-Log M since the longest tele lens can only do D-Log M. The other two do D-Log or D-Log M.
I find the image from the longest lens does tend to run a bit bluer than the other two lenses. I don't know if that's a fault of its chip or color science or the fact that it tends to be compressing a lot more atmosphere(?) But it is easily corrected in post.
This client video uses the wide and medium lenses (the drone shots bookend the video): ruclips.net/video/2teQAF2f5EY/видео.htmlsi=yY0CWYFzEeYgdRBY . This video of personal work uses all three of the M3P Cine's lenses throughout: ruclips.net/video/su26Ot6Oth8/видео.htmlsi=w876QOCIbUP1MPRL . Thanks!
@@roemerfilm thanks again! Great work! I’m considering buying the cine model as on the pro model, the 166mm lens only has ‘normal’ codec, no LOG
@@RiverVoicesfilms Thanks! I had thought the FW update last fall brought D-log M to the 166mm lens/camera on both models (Pro and Pro Cine). DJI's spec page shows that the non-Cine model should be able to do D-Log M with the 166mm lens in 10-bit 4:2:0 H.265. www.dji.com/mavic-3-pro/specs
not worth the upgrade
Depends - if you are doing a lot of video work for clients then the option of 10-bit 4:2:2 via ProRes on all three cameras and in log or even non-log capture can be well worth it. If you are filming for yourself or primarily doing stills then it’s a feature you don’t need. The Pro non-cine version is limited to 8-bit or 10-bit 4:2:0.