CloudVisual
Core User of DJI
Flight distance : 97545420 ft
United Kingdom
Offline
|
Felixtm Posted at 2-23 05:16
I'm sure you are correct but the rendering and transcoding time is much longer. 265 is further from prores than 264. we should be making drones which shoot closer to prores than further away from it.
If you want ProRes, you should be flying a Cine version of your drone.
Not sure what you mean about rendering and transcoding the footage. FCPX handles h.265 like a dream, especially if you're using a Mac Studio. Again, the 'old' h.264 which can't reliably handle anything above 4K (and 10bit) will be the bottleneck here. I can't ever say I've sat in FCPX thinking 'boy this h.265 footage is a pain to use', but I have kicked myself having shot 10bit footage in h.264 and my client complaining that it won't play - a quick conversion using handbrake to h.265 and it plays perfectly.
I've never really thought of either codec being 'further away' from ProRes before, but if I looked at the two, h.265 is much closer to ProRes as it'll shoot 10Bit up to 8K. You're probably looking at the bitrate of the two and assuming that a higher bitrate must equal better footage, but h.265 is just more efficient at delivering the same quality content.
Might I suggest you search for h.264 vs h.265 and have a read up on the facts, as I feel that anything anyone says in this thread will just fall on deaf ears, as the solution to your problem lies solely with your choice of codec. |
|