Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity Forums Panasonic Cameras AVC-Intra to ProRes422 (HQ) or Normal ProRes?

  • AVC-Intra to ProRes422 (HQ) or Normal ProRes?

    Posted by Doug Nichol on July 28, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    How much of a visual difference is there between the normal ProRes 422 and the (HQ) version? I just realized my “Log and Transfer” from AVC-Intra was set to “normal” rather than “HQ”. I took in 105G of AVC-Intra P2 material the other day and this resulted in a Final Cut folder that was 128G in size. My guess is the HQ version will be nearly double that. Is it better to take it in as normal, do the edit then re-capture as HQ for the final edit? Is there a big visual difference for a documentary or would this be just for EFX work? Maybe I should ask this question in the Final Cut forum instead, but let me know if anyone has any opinions.
    Thanks.

    Jeremy Garchow replied 17 years, 9 months ago 5 Members · 6 Replies
  • 6 Replies
  • Noah Kadner

    July 29, 2008 at 7:53 am
  • Gary Adcock

    July 29, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    [Doug Nichol] “How much of a visual difference is there between the normal ProRes 422 and the (HQ) version? I just realized my “Log and Transfer” from AVC-Intra was set to “normal” rather than “HQ””

    Doug,

    I just finished some extensive testing of ProRes and you are fine, In all of my testing I found that ALL software conversions to ProRes consistently played back better when the conversion was done in the same manner as you did.

    Live Capture was better with ProResHQ, but I universally recommend the Standard ProRes for ALL software conversion – less horsepower, storage and bandwidth are needed.

    gary adcock
    Studio37
    HD & Film Consultation
    Post and Production Workflows
    Inside look at the IoHD

  • Doug Nichol

    July 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Thanks Gary – appreciate the info.
    Doug

  • Evangelos Achillopoulos

    July 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    I was wondering… why we don’t have the option of 422 10bit uncompressed ??? is it AVC-Intra a similar to Prores codec? so its not trans coding but re wrapping? For VFX and finishing I would prefer the Uncompressed instead of Prores for offline… its a matter of confidence… Noah any news from the Panasonic front, regarding AVC-Intra natively to FCP???

    Evangelos Achillopoulos
    Elec. Engineer
    DIT, DI/VFX supervisor

  • Noah Kadner

    July 31, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    [Evangelos Achillopoulos] “Noah any news from the Panasonic front, regarding AVC-Intra natively to FCP???”

    Looks like probably not from Apple. They seem pretty focused on the transcode workflow. However there are some third party apps that enable this, for example:

    https://mxf4mac.com/products/mfx4qt/

    -Noah

    My FCP Blog. Unlock the secrets of the DVX100, HVX200 and Apple Color and Win a Free Letus Extreme.
    Now featuring the Sony EX1 Guidebook, DVD Studio Pro and Sound for Film and TV.
    https://www.callboxlive.com

  • Jeremy Garchow

    August 2, 2008 at 5:30 am

    I don’t know if this is an Apple or Panasonic deal. Panasonic only gives out a decoder for AVC-I, not an encoder so there’s no way to edit AVC-I native as you can’t render to it. Also, when using Calibrated Software to read the native MXF files, AVC-Intra plays back very slow (less than real time). This is all a function of the codec, from what I understand, and not Quicktime. As of now, I don’t know if it could even be possible in FCP as the AVC-I codec is not real time.

    Jeremy

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy