-
FCP 7 and ProRes 422
Hey gang,
You know, when FCS3 was marketed to us, Apple made the claim that ProRes 422 renders were much faster than in FCP 6. Now… who was the moron that made that claim and what computer did they use to come to that conclusion.
My experience has been that rendering under ProRes 422 takes three to four times longer than in FCP 6.
My workflow has come to a halt while I’m working with ProRes. Yeah, it looks good but I cannot see any difference than I would working under DVCProHD.
When FCP7 came out, the AJA drivers were very buggy and we were forced to work in ProRes until they fixed their driver for the Kona series cards. Good grief! I have a timeline that I had to open today and re-render about 7 30 second commercials that belong with the show, so far its taken almost 45 minutes to render. If I were in DVCProHD, it would only take about 3 minutes to render (in reality I wouldn’t have to render these commercials because they were edited in DVCProHD). Its about that much difference.
Let me say that our systems are not the newest architecture. They are the first gen Mac Pro systems – a Quad 3.0 and an Octocore 3.0. Both with Kona 3 cards, 8 gig of RAM, ATTO Celerity FC-41ES cards, and both have the same graphics cards – the Radeon X1900.
It looks like FCS3 was written solely for the new architecture of Mac Pro system and will work with older system but at a much greater reduced capacity. That sucks…!
Ok… I’m done… I won’t gripe about this anymore.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
6 Replies
-
Who claimed it rendered faster in FCP 7? Marketting? They claim a LOT of stuff that isn’t true. And I know that a lot of people on the ProApps teams don’t like what Marketting claims most the time.
I haven’t noticed it being slower. Just the same.
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Thanks, Shane…
Its a real shame that marketing is allowed to make ANY claims they want to sell a product, even if they are not true. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that… but they do it anyway.
As a comparison… I have a 10 sec show slate that was made in Motion. Rending in ProRes422, it takes about 20 minutes. Rendering the exact same slate with the same information inside using DVCProHD takes only about three minutes.
Can anyone tell me why ProRes 422 is better if it takes about four times longer to render? Isn’t time expensive?
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
[Wayne Carey] “Can anyone tell me why ProRes 422 is better if it takes about four times longer to render”
Better than DVCPRO HD? Well, it’s 10-bit vs DVCPRO HD’s 8-bit. It is full raster 1920×1080, vs DVCPRO HDs 1280×1080. It has a higher data rate, that is why it takes longer to render. So if you don’t mind the loss of resolution and color depth, then use DVCPRO HD. If time is that important over quality, it is a good option.
[Wayne Carey] “Isn’t time expensive?”
Yes. Which is why I do a lot of rendering overnight. Save doing it until I have to. Then I set a big batch encode. If I can’t, well, I have two edit systems…
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Shane Ross] “Better than DVCPRO HD? Well, it’s 10-bit vs DVCPRO HD’s 8-bit. It is full raster 1920×1080, vs DVCPRO HDs 1280×1080. It has a higher data rate, that is why it takes longer to render. So if you don’t mind the loss of resolution and color depth, then use DVCPRO HD.”
All very true… but when your program comes to air, can you really see the difference? The timelines I have been fighting with are for ESPN. They air HD in 720p, so I have to cross-convert to 720p on output. The reasoning…. our cameras only shoot 1080, not 720. But the Kona 3 gives me that option.
I’ve rendered lots of graphics thru DVCProHD and I honestly cannot see a visible difference in the quality of the programs. Besides all of this… a lot of networks are airing DVCProHD as one of their main formats.
[Shane Ross] “Yes. Which is why I do a lot of rendering overnight. Save doing it until I have to. Then I set a big batch encode. If I can’t, well, I have two edit systems… “
Another good one… But most of the time, I have stuff that has to go out the door today, so I don’t have the luxury of overnight renderings most of the time. Besides… what happens when FCP has crashed in the middle of the night and you get into to your work and find out that you didn’t get anything rendered? That has bitten me before.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
[Wayne Carey] “ut when your program comes to air, can you really see the difference?”
I doubt it. By the time it gets compressed to hell. Now, what is the source? DVCPRO HD, or other HD format? I always edit DVCPRO HD as DVCPRO HD. Beginning to think I want to do the same with HDV to be honest…
[Wayne Carey] “what happens when FCP has crashed in the middle of the night and you get into to your work and find out that you didn’t get anything rendered?”
Yeah…yeah. I have to render again. True.
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Hey wayne
the only time i am using Prores is if my material is XDcam. My sequence is XDCAM_HD but my Compression is Prores422. Its not as fast as DVCPROHD, but its faster than XDCam_HD.
I kinda have to do that, because the only way i can edit the XDcam_HD is to Import and Transfer. I have no player, and I really dont want to re-compress all the footage to pro res or DVCPROHD.
Maybe that was the speed claim? that pro res was faster than XDCAM HD? or HDV? or any of the GOP Formats?
When working off formats that i can capture with my Kona LHe, its DVCPROHD all dee way!
“I like video because its so fast!”
Bob Flood
Greer & Associates, Inc.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up