hdmi external recorders

Anyone using the shogun or assassin? I ordered one for my rx10ii but was wondering if it helped anyone on their gh4 or any other camera with 4k out?

The assassin external recorder on my rx10ii is a waste.. Just got done doing some testing. Although it does get rid of some compression artifacts and retains some detail in terms of sharpness (the prores is more 'noisy' because it has more data in the shadows, but after running it through denoiser you would end up with basically xavc)
It is NOT worth the 9x file size.

I'm sticking with internal xavc 100mb. It really is a solid codec after comparing it. I guess for weaker codecs or just to have a nice 7" monitor it would be worth it. But the weight penalty and awkwardness isn't in this case.

I'm assuming it would benefit the footage from a GH4 since it would allow it to be sent through HDMI out as 10 bit and saved directly as pro res vs 8 bit and h.264? Thoughts. I've been wondering the same. My internet speeds aren't fast enough to upload anything beyond h.264 at the moment but in the future I do wonder about doing 10 bit out and pro res once my connection can handle it.

Honestly, I don't think it was a bit depth thing... but I might be totally wrong.

What I noticed was that the footage was 'noisier' with the external, but maintained the detailed and the pixels didn't smear into one another because it wasn't being compressed.

http://we.tl/QQzWymDVB9

Here is an example file between assassin and the internal. In this scenario I didn't see much. And when I was in daylight I didn't see much benefit either.

Let me know what you think if you grab the demo. ISO was at ~500 I believe.

I've always noticed that losing the heavy compression makes noise more apparent. It was a big disappointment for me at first, (a few years ago with the Z5U and early Atomos HDMI recorder and then PIX220) and even the FS700 shooting RAW has more sensor noise apparent but I learned to love NEAT for Video. Which, by the way, is out with version 4, I just picked it up, and it is pretty awesome ... but it's good to be in control of how much grain vs detail loss rather than have the compression do it for you, and the benefit is that the motion doesn't suffer.

p.s. It would take me 4-5 hrs to download yer file - if you have still frames?

I'll drop you some screens later.

Everything you are describing I agree with, but it's just time investment. It takes me 30min to export a clip with denoise on it, vs ~2min

You guys have to be very selective by rendering clips when it take 30 minutes with denoise. Or lot of coffee will help while waiting. :)
I am happy with my simple editing solution, nothing fancy...

Just rendering to Miraizon PRHQ is a form of NR ... just tried it again, and it's true - the noise goes away. This on my new laptop which is not plagued by the problems my desktop has (which won't even render to Miraizon now for some reason)

I know I'm inefficient in production of stock - but I kinda like longer renders. Can't keep up with my own keywording anyway, and my submissions to other sites have fallen off for the most part due to that.

When I first was working with external recorders, the lack of "amazing difference" between the HDV and AVCHD and the ProRes (besides more noise) had me confused. The in-camera compression is "generally" pretty darn efficient for "general" work, and the external recorder is a true PITA to work with, and causes lost shots (think of camera as a quick draw pistol) ... takes more effort to get a shot shot quickly.

If you are spending the time to do color work that's when you'll see the difference, and where it's worth it. Saves the time to transcode AVC to ProRes too.

Are you using denoiser or Neat? I hate denoiser. Neat I love - can dial things in so nicely that it's not a lossy thing. Still is a lot slower render though.

Gene, Is neat faster to render than denoiser?

that's why I'm not doing it patuwe. And dumping the files takes a lot longer, since they are 9x the size. Not worth the benefit... at least not with the rx10ii.