Capture Problems with ProRez 422 HQ

[Michael Dreesman]

Hi Gary,

Except for the raid configuration, I have the same setup as you and the same problem. I can capture uncompressed 10bit 1080i footage all day without issue but cannot capture or playback ProRes 422 through the Kona 2 card without dropping frames.

I did a test and transcoded 1080i footage to ProRes 422 (HQ) and found it would not play back smoothly out the Kona 2 until I changed the Video Playback setting (under Audio/Video Settings in FCP) to “AJA Kona 1080i29.97 8bit (1920×1080)”, a workaround to be sure as picture quality appears to be somewhat compromised. Interestingly enough, playback of the same clip using the “AJA TV” app. looks every bit as good as 10bit uncompressed (to my eyes anyway), and without any discernible dropped frames. Go figure.

AJA support suggested that the problem may be with the speed of the Dual G5 and it’s inability to convert from uncompressed to ProRes and vice versa on the fly. Looks like it’s time for me to upgrade to a new mac (and a Kona3), or the IoHD, or both!

Good luck,
Mike

[Gary Morris mcbeath]

Hi Michael,

l also tried the 8 bit playback, and found the same: reduced image quality, but smoother playback.

I was going to call AJA Tuesday, but they will probably tell me the same.

Apple’s recomended system is the dual 2.5; I purchased FCS2 based on those recomendations, my system being in excess of that.

Frustrating.

Thanks,
Gary

[Michael Sacci]

the reason that hardware accelaration in not needed with ProRes is that it is a full raster codec, meaning on a 1920×1080 timeline it is 1920×1080 vs DVCProHD which is 1280×1080 so the rescaling requires a lot of processor power which the Kona cards pitch in on.

But you need to note that ProRes HQ needs more than twice the hard drive bandwidth as DVCProHD.

[Gary Adcock]

[piper] “First, my system: G5 dual 2.7, 4.5 GB ram, Kona 2, 4.0 driver, OS-X 10.4.9, QT 7.6, scratch disk is an 8 bay hardware raid 3, tests 54-57 MB/s write, read 68-72 with AJA system test. More than the minimum specs listed in system requirements. “

It is my understanding that the HQ version of ProRes needs an intel machine when compressing 1080 content.

Have you tried using the standard version of ProRes? if so what was re result?

gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows

[Gary Morris mcbeath]

Gary,

No, I have not tried the ProRez 8 bit; I can do that in the next day or so. That would help isolate the problem.

However, it is the 10 bit HQ codec I’m interested in for the work I do.

Quite busy today, on a shoot tomorrow and Wednesday. But I’ll try to squeeze it in, and I’ll report back with results.

Thanks,

Gary
SaltAire Cinema Productions

[Oliver Peters]

piper,

I believe they are both 10-bit codecs if the material is 10-bit.

[piper] “it is the 10 bit HQ codec I’m interested in for the work I d”

The difference is 145 Mb/s versus 220 Mb/s, not 8-bit versus 10-bit.

Sincerely,
Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Michael Palmer]

I have tried every format of PR with my 2.3 dualcore g5 with esata raid that can capture 10 bit uncompressed HD and it does not keep up with the transcode. I’ve tried 1080i, 720p and SD. Drops 30-50% of the frames. I do know AJA has said the Intel Mac Pro does work, so I guess we need to ungrade our hardware. Does Apple’s new software codec lead to hidden agenda?
Michael Palmer

[John Ladle]

hidden agenda? heck ask avid–apple wants to sell you the hardware!

seriously-the pro res 422 is computationally expensive. a lot has gone on in computing and an 8 core on FCP 6 really illustrates that. i had a 2.0 G5 pci-x, i had been holding on to the quad G5, but now the 8 core has much more value to me with this suite. my quad G5 works, but doesnt have the “PING”. my friends with 8 cores are reporting increased RT around all facets of the application.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Repost from FCP Forum…

Woe Nelly! Let’s keep everything in perspective here. If we look at raw performance numbers, take a look at barefeats, the computational power between a PowerPC Quad and an Intel Quad is VERY close. Moreover, the Intel chips lack the killer Altivec processor of the G5. While the Intel chips have SSE2, it pales in comparison.

Thus, one would have to presume that Apple has NOT bothered to optimize the codec for the PowerPC. A codec is usually a perfect candidate to have its math vectorized. This is what Altivec does.

I would recommend sending “feedback” to Apple to get the codec optimized for PowerPC. Otherwise, one could call this “forced obsolescence”.

Jeff Bernstein
Digital Desktop Consulting

[Jeremy Garchow]

What’s your point if it can’t compress on a dual G5, but it can on a Quad G5?

You really think Apple is going to go back and optimize the codec for PowerPC? And why does my intel macbook Pro run faster than my dual 2.0 G5? How does that pale in comparison? Does bare feats measure how fast Prores compresses/decompresses on a G5 compared to the latest macpro?