-
Apple Pro Res decision
I’m capturing 30p HDV footage from a Canon XH-A1s that will be later converted to mix into a 24p 7D sequence and colour corrected. The final output will be Blue Ray disc projected onto a cinema large screen. Should I be capturing HDV- ProRes 422 or would HDV – ProRes422 HQ be a noticeably worthwhile capture format in this workflow?
Any help on this matter is greatly appreciated.
-
9 Replies
-
No, capture to standard prores 422, HQ will just fill up more space with no point.
😀
Tom Morter-Laing
Freelance Editor,
Certified Apple Product Proffessional, 2010
http://www.depictproductions.co.ukSony Z5, with Rode NTG2.
iMac 27″ intel i7 2.93GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI HD5750 [1GB GDDR5], 2TB Int. SATA with 2TB External HDD; (FW800), with Elgato Turbo H264HD. -
HDV is dreadful in post. Go to Pro Res 422 HQ.
However, remember that when you capture via HDV, you cannot change it to ProRes 422 HQ while capturing. You must ingest as HDV THEN transcode to ProRes 422 HQ, then edit.
~Michael
.: michael kammes mpse
.: senior applications editor . post workflow consultant
.: audio specialist . act fcp . acsr
.: michaelkammes.com
.: twitter: @michaelkammes
.: facebook: /mkammesHear me pontificate: Speaking Schedule .
-
[Michael Kammes] “remember that when you capture via HDV, you cannot change it to ProRes 422 HQ while capturing.”
You can however, capture from HDV to ProRes422 in one stage
-
Personally, I would stick with ProRes422. Considered opinion by tech savy people here is that for frame sizes up to 1920 x 1080, HQ offers no advantage over 422. It uses more disk space and requires faster drives.
If you want to make a sample of both and try projecting both to see if you can see a difference, then that should be the basis of your decision and then deal with the drive space and speed requirements. Given that the final will have to be crunched back to H264 to go on BluRay, my expectation is that you won’t see any difference in a standard workflow.
-
Sorry this may have been covered before, but why would you ever want to convert HDV to PR 422 HQ? Isn’t that just like using a bigger container for the same amount of rice? It doesn’t have any advantages with HDV. (Could be wrong here, just am sure a lot of people have said that in previous posts).
😀
Tom Morter-Laing
Freelance Editor,
Certified Apple Product Proffessional, 2010
http://www.depictproductions.co.ukSony Z5, with Rode NTG2.
iMac 27″ intel i7 2.93GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI HD5750 [1GB GDDR5], 2TB Int. SATA with 2TB External HDD; (FW800), with Elgato Turbo H264HD. -
Since the edit is mixed with some 7D footage, does that make HQ more relevant to the workflow?
It seems unless I am mistaken, you can also capture from HDV-ProRes HQ in one step. Is there any danger with HQ over filling the container with rice, being cautious (re post wear…) aside from more hard drive space?
I really appreciate the discussion and tried to look this question up before posting this, but can’t seem to resolve a definitive answer. Those that think HQ is important often seem to point to maintaining the integrity of the footage in post. Coming from an SD background, I don’t have the experience yet to know… ?
-
From what I’ve read and know, HQ was developed with 10 bit/ uncompressed in mind. Both HDV and the 7Ds H264 both are 420 and highly compresed acquisition codecs, in fact, HDV is considered widely as a non full- raster codec (not “true” HD, dare I use that term even though it sickens me slightly). HQ has a very large bandwidth as it were to encompass thus. So not only will you be wasting a lot of disk space, you will also be slowing the process down by using more processor power. Standard 422 is meant to be able to take many generations of compression, so as long as you keep a tidy workflow and aren’t recompressing hundreds of times, you won’t and shouldn’t have to worry about generational loss
anyway. Seriously, I can’t see any reason why you’d want HQ when your acquisitions were what they were.
You can’t add colour information, generational loss isn’t an
issue, and even if you come to use better sources (even if they’re high quality graphics or something) 422 is an acceptable level of subsampling for pretty much every HD channel I have looked at.
Hopefully someone will confirm all of this for both of us, but as Isay I’m going offprevious posts and the White paper about prores (can’t find it now, I’ll have a loom through my inbox and see if I can to send it to you).😀
Tom Morter-Laing
Freelance Editor,
Certified Apple Product Proffessional, 2010
http://www.depictproductions.co.ukSony Z5, with Rode NTG2.
iMac 27″ intel i7 2.93GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI HD5750 [1GB GDDR5], 2TB Int. SATA with 2TB External HDD; (FW800), with Elgato Turbo H264HD. -
[Thomas Morter-Laing] “White paper about prores”
Link here. An interesting read.Here’s a relevant table:
-
You know what would actually be best is if you turn it into whatever codec the 7d edit sequence is set for.
otherwise rendering will occur.
HQ is overkill on anything equal or less than 1080 period.
But in this case, matching it is useful.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up