HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444

[Erik Lindahl]

It would be interesting to compare ProRes 4444 as both a TRANSPORT codec and a PRODUCTION codec. If it compares well to HDCAM SR as a transport codec that would be awesome. My fear it will not hold up to uncompressed formats in production. It has to width-stand 2-3 generation and still hold for perfect keying and color correction. The 12-bit of the format speaks in it favour but it’s still a compressed format that will deteriorate between generations.

So, in the future, my question really is when working with film can we go:

Film > Telecine > ProRes > Output

And hold the same or better quality than the established standard we use today

Film > Telecine > HDCAMSR > Uncompressed > Output

If the first workflow DOESN’T hold it would be interesting to see if / how just using ProRes as the transport codec would, i.e:

Film > Telecine > ProRes > Uncompressed > Output

The few projects I’ve done with ProRes before have been riddled with compression artifacts. This can of course be due to the original recording media (AVCIntra on one project was pure hell to color correct and key).

Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
————————

[Russell Lasson]

[Erik Lindahl] “Film > Telecine > ProRes > Output

And hold the same or better quality than the established standard we use today “

Hopefully it is as good as a HDCAM SR DI workflow. But even if it isn’t, people are going to see that it can be a much less expensive option and they’re going to do it. Independents are just going to eat up ProRes 4444, especially those shooting on digital cinema cameras.

Now if AJA can somehow manage ProRes 4444 support on the Ki Pro over a 3Gbps HDSDI signal, then watch out! That makes it a sub-$4k, 4:4:4 recording option that will play very, very nicely with an edit system that has 1.3+ million users. That could be a very impressive combination. Even if it isn’t “technically” as good as the current options.

[Erik Lindahl] “The few projects I’ve done with ProRes before have been riddled with compression artifacts. This can of course be due to the original recording media (AVCIntra on one project was pure hell to color correct and key). “

I’d suggest looking into Gary Adock’s article on ProRes:

https://provideocoalition.com/index.php/apple/story/prores_a_closer_look/

-Russ

Russell Lasson
Colorist/Digital Cinema Specialist
Color Mill
Salt Lake City, UT
http://www.colormill.net

[Rafael Amador]

Here there is a lot of useful info about the new Prores:

https://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper_July_2009.pdf

Cheers,
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Hector Berrebi]

hi Russell

this from the new ProRes white paper:

doesn’t it suggest ProRes 4444 is 6.7:1?

also, HDCAM SR has an HQ mode with 880 Mbs and 2:1 compression ratio
which ProRes is quite far from…

i don’t think ProRes is meant to compete with SR…

but having it available for cheep, from SD to 28k in 4:4:4 and 12 bit color depth with support for alpha channel , in RGB or YCbCr color space is so cool and probably so useful

is there a better work format on the market?

this so much kicks DNxHD in the ass… it used to have in its favor over Prores, the fact that it supports alpha channel and offline sizes.

now it only has the fact its free 🙂

new ProRes definitely means DNX needs a brush-up

lets hope AjA are working on a new input for the Ki-Pro…

Hector Berrebi
Schibber Group
prePost Consulting

[Erik Lindahl]

Post-houses might embrace this format given it proves to be on-par with HDCAM SR it might serve very well as a transport codec. My concerns remain if it’s good enough for a finishing codec or not.

What ever the case there is still going to be a cost and time-gap before it really takes any serious leap. If a device like the AJA KI where to embrace the 4:4:4 ProRes codec things could perhaps change, quite rapid…

Looking at the real high-end, the two major telecine-facilities here in Stockholm either go from film to dpx files, then grade or go from film and directly grade to HDCAM SR. If we today require QuickTime files these always come from the HDCAM SR source. A film to ProRes transfer might be simlar to HDCAM SR but the end user where to get a Film > HDCAM SR > ProRes > ??? transfer you have passed through two different compressed codecs.

So yeah, the question remains – good enough for transport and / or production.

Looking at working with digital formats such as RED again I’m not sure either. Given this is an extremely compressed format finishing in another compressed format feels so-so. Visually lossless isn’t a lossless format, after 2-3 generation ugly issues can show them selves on post-heavy shots (given then you perhaps should avoid RED in the first place).

Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
————————

[Erik Lindahl]

HDCAM SR has an HQ mode with 880 Mbs and 2:1 compression ratio
I believe I stated the same thing in another thread. I’ve even had discussions with post houses regarding going HDCAM SR 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 and they’ve suggested 4:2:2 since it has less compression artifacts given lower color resolution.

I still hold a level of “uncertainty” regarding the whole use of ProRes for high-end finishing, given it very much has hits home for a lot of post-production. I could have loved to see a lossless 4:2:2:4 and 4:4:4:4 codec with similar aspects as ProRes (but of course with larger filesizes).

Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
————————

[Arnie Schlissel]

[Erik Lindahl] “Post-houses might embrace this format given it proves to be on-par with HDCAM SR it might serve very well as a transport codec”

Not to be cynical, but post houses will embrace whichever format makes the most sense to them economically and logistically. If they can charge a client a few dollars more to use one format over another, they will offer it. If they can save a few dollars or a few minutes by using a specific format, they will.

Post houses that adopted D5 before HDCam SR was available continue to sing its praises over SR. The shops that waited and bought the SR decks poo-poo D5 in favor of SR.

Those shops that adopted DPX will trash talk TIFF. Those that standardized on TIFF will sing it’s praises over all other formats.

The same will hold true with all flavors of ProRes. For shops that have an FC centric workflow, ProRes 4444 will be the hottest thing since sliced bread. Shops that are Avid or Autodesk centric will reluctantly agree to accept it.

Arnie
Post production is not an afterthought!
https://www.arniepix.com/

[Russell Lasson]

[Hector berrebi] “doesn’t it suggest ProRes 4444 is 6.7:1? “

Excellent find! I couldn’t find a data rate for 12-bit uncompressed, but there it is.

So correction, ProRes 4:4:4 is 6.7:1 compression.

-Russ

Russell Lasson
Colorist/Digital Cinema Specialist
Color Mill
Salt Lake City, UT
http://www.colormill.net

[Russell Lasson]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m a FCP house… and everyone else stinks!

🙂

-Russ

Russell Lasson
Colorist/Digital Cinema Specialist
Color Mill
Salt Lake City, UT
http://www.colormill.net

[Mark Raudonis]

It is the networks or studios who dictate a delivery format, not the post houses. So all of this debate is MOOT! Pro Res may be a fine format for internal workflow, but if it has to go out the door as a deliverable, the studios are going to demand a tape (for archival reasons). Last time I checked, no tape format I know saves to Prores (except LTO as data).

So, don’t throw away your HDCAMsr decks yet. You’re still going to need them for a good long time.

mark