# IPB vs ALL-I settings



## Wilmark (May 22, 2012)

Has anyone done any extensive comparison about choosing between these two settings other than the fact that one produces much larger files. The manual says it is easier to edit in post.


----------



## Axilrod (May 22, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> Has anyone done any extensive comparison about choosing between these two settings other than the fact that one produces much larger files. The manual says it is easier to edit in post.



All-I may have a bit more latitude in terms of post, but I thought the IPB responded to changes just fine and I honestly couldn't tell the difference between the two. I've heard if there is going to be a lot of motion involved that ALL-I is better, but for relatively static subjects I think IPB is just fine (and much smaller!)


----------



## psolberg (May 23, 2012)

IMO all-i looks worse often and not better often enough so I wouldn't use it for anything as the file size doesn't really yield better quality.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (May 23, 2012)

I think the basic deal is that you get more latitude in post, but only if you are editing frame by frame. If you are applying edits to the whole take, then IPB is just as good for editing. Furthermore, IPB has more detail in each frame because it isn't reliant on each frame providing all the information for the entire frame. Many people have reported block artifacts with ALL-I, because it requires significant compression in each frame. 

Think about it, truly uncompressed 1080, ALL-I should be (2M(resolution)*3bytes(24bit color)*(24fps)=144 MB/s=1.1Gb/s

The 5dmkiii max data rate is 1/10th of that, so it requires massive compression in each frame. IPB circumvents this issue somewhat by putting more detail in a key frame.


----------



## Cptn Rigo (May 23, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> I think the basic deal is that you get more latitude in post, but only if you are editing frame by frame. If you are applying edits to the whole take, then IPB is just as good for editing. Furthermore, IPB has more detail in each frame because it isn't reliant on each frame providing all the information for the entire frame. Many people have reported block artifacts with ALL-I, because it requires significant compression in each frame.
> 
> Think about it, truly uncompressed 1080, ALL-I should be (2M(resolution)*3bytes(24bit color)*(24fps)=144 MB/s=1.1Gb/s
> 
> The 5dmkiii max data rate is 1/10th of that, so it requires massive compression in each frame. IPB circumvents this issue somewhat by putting more detail in a key frame.



144 MB/s=1.1Gb/s mhhh.... nope


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 23, 2012)

Cptn Rigo said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > I think the basic deal is that you get more latitude in post, but only if you are editing frame by frame. If you are applying edits to the whole take, then IPB is just as good for editing. Furthermore, IPB has more detail in each frame because it isn't reliant on each frame providing all the information for the entire frame. Many people have reported block artifacts with ALL-I, because it requires significant compression in each frame.
> ...



Actually, I believe that is correct, provided you only go to 1 decimal places. Google Calculator results.


----------



## Graham King (May 23, 2012)

144MB x 8bit/byte = 1.152Gb


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (May 23, 2012)

Cptn Rigo said:


> 144 MB/s=1.1Gb/s mhhh.... nope



144 MB/s=1.15Gb/s=.144GB/s

Everybody happy now?

If you think about it, the 5d mkiii can handle 6 fps @ 25MB per shot, so its capable of doing over short bursts(at least in terms of processing). But they can definitely do better than the bit-rate they currently offer.


----------



## psolberg (May 24, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Cptn Rigo said:
> 
> 
> > 144 MB/s=1.1Gb/s mhhh.... nope
> ...



the pathways for stills record raw data. video needs to be processed and tons of data discarted. this bitrate is likely baked in the circuits and can't be really upped or they would have started higher. if you want higher rates you need a clean uncompressed HDMI out. hopefly magic lantern will find a way since that is the only real solution to bitrate issues.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (May 24, 2012)

psolberg said:


> the pathways for stills record raw data. video needs to be processed and tons of data discarded. this bit rate is likely baked in the circuits and can't be really upped or they would have started higher. if you want higher rates you need a clean uncompressed HDMI out. hopefully magic lantern will find a way since that is the only real solution to bit rate issues.



I don't know. Just think about what the 1D-C can pump out, with Raw 4k. the DIGI 5 processor is a big leap over 4.


----------



## marvinhello (May 26, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > the pathways for stills record raw data. video needs to be processed and tons of data discarded. this bit rate is likely baked in the circuits and can't be really upped or they would have started higher. if you want higher rates you need a clean uncompressed HDMI out. hopefully magic lantern will find a way since that is the only real solution to bit rate issues.
> ...



1D C doesn't have Raw 4K, it uses Motion JPEG compression, at 8bit 4:2:2, bitrate 500Mbps. Still highly compressed.


----------



## Axilrod (May 26, 2012)

marvinhello said:


> Rega
> 1D C doesn't have Raw 4K, it uses Motion JPEG compression, at 8bit 4:2:2, bitrate 500Mbps. Still highly compressed.



This is very true, but it still looks damn good.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (May 27, 2012)

So the 5D3 should be able to rock it at 250Mbs. Thanks for the correction on the lack of Raw on 1DC.


----------



## marvinhello (May 27, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> So the 5D3 should be able to rock it at 250Mbs. Thanks for the correction on the lack of Raw on 1DC.



5D3 uses H264 compression, it's a bit different from Motion JPEG, I prefer Motion JPEG


----------

