Is converting MXF to pro-res worse than recording directly to pro-res

[NickMDal]

Hi. I use Canon camcorders that record to MXF. Also have a Ninja Inferno that I record directly to (recorded as pro-res). When Ninja SSD memory runs out, I shoot to SD cards or Cfast cards in MXF.

If I play the compressed MXF files in the camcorder to the Ninja (recording it as pro-res), do those pro-res files come out as good as when video is live recorded to the Ninja?

[poisondeathray]

Direct to Inferno is always better

MXF to Inferno means you suffer 1 generation of avoidable quality loss. Depending on which Canon camera, it might be substantial quality loss (e.g. if it records 50Mbps MPEG2 422, it's 8bit instead of 10bit, and will already have more artifacts)

[NickMDal]

That makes sense, thanks. Am using an XC15 305mb/s and XF400 at 160. Both are 8 bit, 422.

I've always wondered if recording direct to the Inferno with these cameras caused some loss, since neither can produce raw footage. Isn't compression required for all processing including exporting via HDMI?

[poisondeathray]

It's processed from raw, but usually an uncompressed signal. That's still on step better better than a lossy compressed signal especially if it's true 10bit

But some cameras have a degraded signal from their HDMI port , and sometimes it's 8bit (sometimes its purposefully degraded to "force" user to make other upgrades $ to the body)

Check user forums, people have probably tested measured the HDMI out on your models

[NickMDal]

Thanks so much! Thought I'd never get an answer to the HDMI output question. Canon would not answer on their forum, but you did