That means 207 GB/hr for DNXHR SQ or 316 GB/hr for DNXHR HQ. If you want to edit in 4K you'll need a Thunderbolt RAID drive capable of 500 Mb/s (that's megabits per second, if you want megabytes or MB/s divide by 8) for DNXHR SQ or 750 Mb/s for DNXHR HQ. For everything else, there's 23.98 fps and you can always convert from one to the other at the end. You can sync 48k audio to either frame rate but any conversion after the sound is married to the picture will require a sample rate conversion if the frame rate is changed for any reason. The frame rate difference will need to be accounted for when exporting to standard video devices that expect 23.98 fps. The camera records only at 24.00 fps when in 4096x2160 mode. You don't want to try to edit h.264 4K for more than a day. Why is it so much bigger than what comes out of the camera? Because it's using a compression scheme that compresses each individual frame rather than a group of pictures (GOP) so although it's larger it's much more suitable for editing purposes. If you want a higher data rate, use DNXHR HQ which is a 8-bit codec rather than HQX which is the 10-bit version as you don't have any data to put in those extra 2-bits and the higher compression rate to stuff those 2 empty bits into the codec would be useless. DNXHR SQ would be a better match for your source material. No benefit from the source material (that was lost in the camera) but you can maybe minimize any further banding issues by rendering to a higher bit rate.ģ. The only time to use DNXHR HQX might be on the final rendered output when you've applied color correction and want the benefit of rendering 8-bit sources into a 10-bit codec. No harm, but no gain and the cost is substantial and you get no benefit. This is the equivalent of putting High Octane gas in your economy car. Bigger in this case is not necessarilly better. DNXHR HQX is a 10-bit format at a much higher data rate than your recording format can achieve. The camera will record 4K internally at h.264 8-bit 4:2:0.