Thread: Get Compressed 3:1-5:1 RAW for your Pocket, Cinema, or Production Camera

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1 Get Compressed 3:1-5:1 RAW for your Pocket, Cinema, or Production Camera 
    I remember seeing someone asking about compressed raw the other day and I remember going through the replies and not seeing this as an option so I figured I'd start a thread and let everyone know that such an option exists.

    I'm not sure if there is another software out there that does the same thing but I use "SlimRaw." What's cool is that I don't necessarily have to save the original RAW files from the camera before applying any compression to the footage to feel the benefits of the smaller files immediately. It also as an option to output the compression to 2 different destinations so that way with one go you can archive the newly compressed footage in both a master and backup drive.

    When searching for a B-Cam for my Ursa I was looking into the Production Camera and/or Ursa Mini but I decided to go with the Production camera because of it's size, weight, and cheap media. My biggest issue is that I always shoot in 3:1 Raw on my Ursa so I felt it was kind of silly that my B-Cam footage would use more storage then the A-Cam so I looked for a solution and SlimRaw has literally breathed in more life into my Production and Pocket camera.

    I got the software at www.SlimRaw.com (I'm on a PC)

    If someone has another option or workflow I would love to hear it! Hope all is well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,223
    I don't follow what you are suggesting here because SlimRaw is not an in-camera compression tool. In my interest and opinion, smaller files are best needed when recording RAW in camera because that is where there media storage is limited. On a computer, I could care less since storage can be very large and cheap, and the workflow is manageable. I might be missing something here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by EYu View Post
    I don't follow what you are suggesting here because SlimRaw is not an in-camera compression tool. In my interest and opinion, smaller files are best needed when recording RAW in camera because that is where there media storage is limited. On a computer, I could care less since storage can be very large and cheap, and the workflow is manageable. I might be missing something here.
    I definitely feel you there. Unfortunately, I don't know of a portable solution to perform such compression on the fly however shooting 4K raw is no joke and can eat your DIT drives fast (of course just like your media cards) no matter how much money and resources I have to spend on drives I prefer to have my project in fewer drives as possible as I often times triple archive the projects.

    However, I think this solution is great for people like me who otherwise would not shoot in RAW due to the archiving size as shooting on a 256GB or 580GB SSD allows plenty of time for the DIT to SlimRaw the media in time before the next card is full and ready to be offloaded.

    Sorry this post didn't offer a solution for you, but I hope this community continues to support and foster more posts like this that can potentially help others out there who may be looking for such a solution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by EYu View Post
    I don't follow what you are suggesting here because SlimRaw is not an in-camera compression tool. In my interest and opinion, smaller files are best needed when recording RAW in camera because that is where there media storage is limited. On a computer, I could care less since storage can be very large and cheap, and the workflow is manageable. I might be missing something here.
    Ditto what you said though it's also nice to have smaller files on the computer as well. A number of very smart people have spoken on this saying that the processor cannot handle this job. But we've never heard that from someone who absolutely knows the answer. I know they're listening though. You never know, maybe.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Kastel View Post
    I definitely feel you there. Unfortunately, I don't know of a portable solution to perform such compression on the fly however shooting 4K raw is no joke and can eat your DIT drives fast (of course just like your media cards) no matter how much money and resources I have to spend on drives I prefer to have my project in fewer drives as possible as I often times triple archive the projects.

    However, I think this solution is great for people like me who otherwise would not shoot in RAW due to the archiving size as shooting on a 256GB or 580GB SSD allows plenty of time for the DIT to SlimRaw the media in time before the next card is full and ready to be offloaded.

    Sorry this post didn't offer a solution for you, but I hope this community continues to support and foster more posts like this that can potentially help others out there who may be looking for such a solution.
    I didn't mean it in a wrong way and SlimRaw definitely has its place and use. I tried the demo once and it's nice. I may be using it someday to keep files small for easy archiving. An in cam option would be perfect. Best to you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    I was interested but I am still hesitant that it will work in a real set with a powerful laptop, usb 3.0 drives and onthefly compression. When I shoot BMPC raw on an Ad the DT never stops offloading. Can anybody tell me how much more time does it take to do a dual drive onthefly compression 3 to 1 vs just copy on a spinning 3.5 usb external drive. The demo version just does 3 frames so there is no way to test this scenario.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by EYu View Post
    I didn't mean it in a wrong way and SlimRaw definitely has its place and use. I tried the demo once and it's nice. I may be using it someday to keep files small for easy archiving. An in cam option would be perfect. Best to you!
    Appreciate the reply! Yeah it's definitely helped me out a ton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by abasfly View Post
    I was interested but I am still hesitant that it will work in a real set with a powerful laptop, usb 3.0 drives and onthefly compression. When I shoot BMPC raw on an Ad the DT never stops offloading. Can anybody tell me how much more time does it take to do a dual drive onthefly compression 3 to 1 vs just copy on a spinning 3.5 usb external drive. The demo version just does 3 frames so there is no way to test this scenario.
    This is a bit tricky to answer cause it primarily depends on three variables: input storage throughput (sustained throughput of the SSD docking solution), output storage throughput (sustained throughout of the USB3 HDD), and CPU power (processing throughput). Depending on which of these is the bottleneck in your offloading case, you can get faster offload, slower offload or no change in offload speed when using slimraw. And if you have dual output enabled, then the throughput of the second output device is another possible bottleneck.

    Usually, input throughput (SSD) is significantly higher than output throughput (HDD). In this situation -- provided that you have enough CPU power (powerful laptop) -- you should observe faster offload when using slimraw. The reason is that compression reduces the size of the files written out, which in turn reduces the requirement for output storage throughput.

    In general, if you order input, output and processing throughput from slowest to fastest, the following behaviour should be observable when using slimraw:
    1) If output storage is the slowest link in the pipe -- faster offload speed.
    2) If input storage is the bottleneck -- no change in offload speed.
    3) If CPU processing is the bottleneck -- slower offload speed.

    FWIW, here is the CPU processing throughput of slimraw as measured on an i7 4770 CPU (4 cores + hyperthreading) under Windows 7 in a few typical cases:
    12-bit uncompressed to lossless -- 590 MB/s
    14-bit uncompressed to lossless -- 560 MB/s
    12-bit Blackmagic lossless to 3:1 -- 230 MB/s (slower throughput due to the need to first decompress the losslessly compressed input for 3:1 recompression)
    These are approximate and YMMV somewhat with entropy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by cpc View Post
    This is a bit tricky to answer cause it primarily depends on three variables: input storage throughput (sustained throughput of the SSD docking solution), output storage throughput (sustained throughout of the USB3 HDD), and CPU power (processing throughput). Depending on which of these is the bottleneck in your offloading case, you can get faster offload, slower offload or no change in offload speed when using slimraw. And if you have dual output enabled, then the throughput of the second output device is another possible bottleneck.

    Usually, input throughput (SSD) is significantly higher than output throughput (HDD). In this situation -- provided that you have enough CPU power (powerful laptop) -- you should observe faster offload when using slimraw. The reason is that compression reduces the size of the files written out, which in turn reduces the requirement for output storage throughput.

    In general, if you order input, output and processing throughput from slowest to fastest, the following behaviour should be observable when using slimraw:
    1) If output storage is the slowest link in the pipe -- faster offload speed.
    2) If input storage is the bottleneck -- no change in offload speed.
    3) If CPU processing is the bottleneck -- slower offload speed.

    FWIW, here is the CPU processing throughput of slimraw as measured on an i7 4770 CPU (4 cores + hyperthreading) under Windows 7 in a few typical cases:
    12-bit uncompressed to lossless -- 590 MB/s
    14-bit uncompressed to lossless -- 560 MB/s
    12-bit Blackmagic lossless to 3:1 -- 230 MB/s (slower throughput due to the need to first decompress the losslessly compressed input for 3:1 recompression)
    These are approximate and YMMV somewhat with entropy.
    Appreciate this thoughtful post. I'm wondering if when recording compressed files in the camera directly if this is what is required of the on board camera processor? Or does it simply write the compressed file not requiring any processing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    3,202
    No, the camera has to process the file in order to compress it, compression is done by camera video processor, as is ProRes, or any other codec processing. In the case of Raw files, they only get the compression applied, no other processing.
    DS
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Production Camera, pocket cinema camera, speedbooster, and more!
    By Faymus Media in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-17-2016, 09:35 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2015, 08:11 PM
  3. FS: Wooden Camera Cage for Cinema and Production 4k Camera
    By celledral in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-17-2014, 05:32 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-19-2014, 02:09 PM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 08:06 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •