June 20, 2013, 04:32:33 AM

Author Topic: ALL-I vs IPB  (Read 16245 times)

M.ST

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 362
  • 1D X / 1 Ds Mark III / H5D-60
    • View Profile
Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 06:11:21 AM »
ALL-I is better in quality and better in cutting.
2 x 1D X, 2 x 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II, 350D, some new camera and lens prototypes, almost all the latest L lenses and some Zeiss lenses,  Hasselblad H5D-60 with almost all lenses, Gitzo and Manfrotto tripods, Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed System, Sekonic L-758DR and a lot of other stuff

canon rumors FORUM

Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 06:11:21 AM »

HurtinMinorKey

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
    • carolineculler.com
Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2012, 12:22:49 PM »
ALL-I is better in quality and better in cutting.

ALL-I shows macro blocking because it has to draw each frame independently, and the bit-rate is just not high enough to draw all the detail.  This is the reason that inter frame often looks better when viewed in motion. 
www.carolineculler.com
blog.carolineculler.com

victorwol

  • EOS M
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2012, 03:00:52 PM »
ALL-I is better in quality and better in cutting.

I respectfully disagree....  as HurtinMinorKey stated, even if you have more bits per frame, those need to represent the full frame, on each frame, while the other one, only the difference so at the end, you see less compression with the IPB than with the ALL-I yes it is easier to edit with it, but if it comes to image quality, I rather have IPB by far.
1D X - 5D MKIII - 7D - 24 f1.4L - 8-15 L - 50 1.2L - 85 1.2L - 15 2.8 - 16-35 2.8L - 24-105 4.0L - 70-200 2.8 LII - 24 TSE - 45 TSE - 90 TSE - MPE 65 - 180 f3.5L - 100 2.8L II - 580EX and a few Einsteins.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2012, 03:00:52 PM »