Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just ordered an FX3 and can't decide on wether to go for a 320GB or 640GB CFexpress Type A card?

I'm will be shooting in XAVC S-I 4K from 25fps up to 125fps (in S&Q). I use a good amount of slowmotion in my workflow.

I'm not really sure if 320GB is enough for a day of shooting? A day of shooting for me is somewhere between 1-2 hours of footage, and on rare occasions up to 3 hrs.. Every day after a shoot i backup the footage and format the card for the next day. So i only need the card to last for a day (1-2hrs footage).

I was also thinking about getting a V90 card and a smaller 160GB CFexpress. Then i can shoot 25fps on the V90 (i think the V90 card can handle XAVC S-I 4K) and 125fps on the CFexpress. But then i'll have to manually switch between the cards every time i switch frame rates, if the camera doesn't do it automatically? I guess it's possible to setup the different framerates and cards in shooting mode - so it won't be such a big problem.

Does anyone shoot with either of these cameras and have experience in using the XAVC S-I 4K format with different frame rates that can maybe guide me to what the best option is for me?

I found a guide which states that in this mode in 50/60fps you will get approx. 25min on a 160GB card. So 25fps would be around 50min. And with a 320GB card that would be around 1hr and 40min. If this is true the 320GB won't be enough right? So 640GB is the safer option? But $1400 is crazy! 🤯

Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For that kind of money you could buy a Ninja V+ (on sale) + 1TB SSD drive (and not a $400 Angelbird one) and still have Close to $600 in your pocket. But if you ignore my suggestion I'd lean towards the larger card. It's always a disaster when you get a 'Card Full' message with nowhere else to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/16/2022 at 11:57 PM, Kenneth Hansen said:

I just ordered an FX3 and can't decide on wether to go for a 320GB or 640GB CFexpress Type A card?

I'm will be shooting in XAVC S-I 4K from 25fps up to 125fps (in S&Q). I use a good amount of slowmotion in my workflow.

I'm not really sure if 320GB is enough for a day of shooting? A day of shooting for me is somewhere between 1-2 hours of footage, and on rare occasions up to 3 hrs.. Every day after a shoot i backup the footage and format the card for the next day. So i only need the card to last for a day (1-2hrs footage).

I was also thinking about getting a V90 card and a smaller 160GB CFexpress. Then i can shoot 25fps on the V90 (i think the V90 card can handle XAVC S-I 4K) and 125fps on the CFexpress. But then i'll have to manually switch between the cards every time i switch frame rates, if the camera doesn't do it automatically? I guess it's possible to setup the different framerates and cards in shooting mode - so it won't be such a big problem.

Does anyone shoot with either of these cameras and have experience in using the XAVC S-I 4K format with different frame rates that can maybe guide me to what the best option is for me?

I found a guide which states that in this mode in 50/60fps you will get approx. 25min on a 160GB card. So 25fps would be around 50min. And with a 320GB card that would be around 1hr and 40min. If this is true the 320GB won't be enough right? So 640GB is the safer option? But $1400 is crazy! 🤯

Thank you!

I would not recommend XAVC-SI unless your default is 60 fps

Generally at 10 bits 422 it works like this 25fps -> 250 mbps 60fps ->600 mbps 10 mbps per frame

Consider that XAVC S 4K does 25/50/100 without issues (other than editing the files you need a robust machine)

Unless you get motion artifacts I would go XAVC S and forget SI entirely. 

If you want to go XAVC-SI you will need twin 256 GB cards to give you some autonomy this may be more expensive than buying an external recorder however you can then take it anywhere while a recorder is really for controlled environments

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...