-
Is ProRes 4444 the right thing fomr me?
-
[Adam Claude Jones] “The deliverable is 35mm filmout and digital projection for movie theaters. — Capturing the 10bit 4:2:2 1920×1080 signal straight out of the camera’s SDI to a computer.”
You gain nothing by going to 4444 in this workflow- ProRes HQ offers you virtually the same capabilities
without the extra overhead even for 35MM filmouts (which I have done and will be showing at NAB).“What is the advantage of Cineform for cross platform?
While editing, keying and color grading will be done on a Mac, there may be some parts of composited on the Windows platform and they returned to Mac for editing finishing.”If the editing and finishing were being done simultaneously I would say go to Cineform. however since the edit and finish will be on a mac, doing this would take away all of the RT performance on the Mac, since Cineform’s codec does not offer the same level of realtime playback as Apple’s own codec.
Stay with ProRes.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows for the Digitally Inclined
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
-
[Rafael Amador] “But there are many advantages on going to Prores 444 from the moment you have to render firs time your picture. “
I disagree.
Unless the camera captures and outputs a 444 / 12bit signal there is no earthly reason to capture and work in ProRes 4444, Use that for the graphics and greenscreen output segments only.
IMHO — NEVER transcode to a higher quality ProRes codec if you do not have a specific reason too.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows for the Digitally Inclined
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
-
[gary adcock] ”
Unless the camera captures and outputs a 444 / 12bit signal there is no earthly reason to capture and work in ProRes 4444″
As usual, you don’t read what I write.
I haven’t talk of capturing 444.
I said that there is no reason to do so.
What I said, and say again, is that we have all the reasons to to output 444 from Color, when whatever we import may becomes 32b RGB.
If you don’t see the advantage of no downsampling, I see it very clear.
Rafael -
[Adam Claude Jones] “So why not convert to 4444 before going into FCP? “
Adam,
I have worked on almost 50 ProRes > filmouts projects in the last 3 years and do not recommend this workflow at all. Taking guidance from someone with limited experience (only a couple of months if I remember correctly) using the the latest versions of the ProRes codec and is quoting the marketing materials and not real experience with ProRes 4444 and filmouts.
My number one reason, most film recorders work with frame based content as DPX or from HDCamSR Master tapes- if you use the workflow prescribed you will be doing 2 additional conversions that are not necessary, and with those come issues like the TC can slip with a software transcode, if the TC follows at all, as can be the case when using Apple’s media manager.
IF you want the highest quality go directly to DPX from Color not back into ProRes, if you are going to tape you gain nothing by converting the files prior to output.
Do a search on Google for ” ProRes a Closer Look” and you will find the original article I wrote on ProRes.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows for the Digitally Inclined
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
-
[gary adcock] “aking guidance from someone with limited experience (only a couple of months if I remember correctly) using the the latest versions of the ProRes codec and is quoting the marketing materials and not real experience with ProRes 4444 and filmouts. “
To be accurate my experience with Prores 444 is just three weeks, but I work in this business since 26 tears ago.
Apart of playing with buttons, I have a formation. I’ve been togth to understand how a machine works reading a manual.[gary adcock] “IF you want the highest quality go directly to DPX from Color not back into ProRes, if you are going to tape you gain nothing by converting the files prior to output. “
Coming from 10b Unc, DPX or Cineon makes no sense.
Is no me who say so.
Is Joseph Owens, colorist and telecine expert:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/223/12685#12692
Rafael -
[Rafael Amador] “To be accurate my experience with Prores 444 is just three weeks, but I work in this business since 26 tears ago.”
I am not questioning how long you have been in the Video Business.
I do question your knowledge of the ProRes 4444 codec and workflow you are communicating about with a scant 3 weeks of practical knowledge of the 4444 codec. In that time exactly how many filmouts have you done?
In the last month I have been part of 4 projects (not DI or tape – real 35mm filmouts) from ProRes masters and I had 3 different workflows- your methodology ended up being the most troublesome for both the editors and the Lab.
“Coming from 10b Unc, DPX or Cineon makes no sense. “
Then you do not understand the filmout process as it works for this type of delivery. I will re-iterate “[gary adcock] “IF you want the highest quality go directly to DPX from Color not back into ProRes”
A frame based DPX output from Apple’s Color is part of the App’s original operation and design and if Adam is going to a file based output device why not? – since these systems are most likely Linux or windows based OS’s and likely not able to handle ProRes content natively.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows for the Digitally Inclined
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
-
Gary,
I haven’t say that going DPX is not better than going 444.
That is JO who say that.
What I say is that is better keep 444 than HQ.
Difficult to understand my point?
Or do you recommends down-sampling?
Up to your Prores papers, Adan should be capturing in Prores SQ.
Is you who always say that Prores HQ is only for 2K.
Isn’t it?
rafael -
Rafael
How many film outs have you done? This is an area where I make my living- handling just this type of issues on the high-end, I only give out information based on my own knowledge and experience , not on material I have read on or based on someone else’s work.[Rafael Amador] “What I say is that is better keep 444 than HQ”
Transcoding to a different version of the codec can cause compression errors – and rendering to ProRes 4444 will not gain any extra bit depth not even from color- then Transcoding to 4444 then to another output is a adding an extra step to the process.
Once again, in filmout workflow, this is a needless and unwarranted step- go straight to DPX (since DPX are up to 12bit from Color and 16bit in the film world – nothing is lost).
“Or do you recommends down-sampling? “
What down sampling are you referring to? Adam is starting with 10bit master recording from the camera , and I have never talked about downsampling anything – are you saying that Color can output a 32bit file? it cannot,
“Up to your Prores papers, Adan should be capturing in Prores SQ. Is you who always say that Prores HQ is only for 2K. Isn’t it? “if you have actually read the article you would see that I have never said that – what I did say was there is no advantage for most users to transcode to ProRes HQ from previously captured camera files on any camera that is not capable of shooting/ recording more than 10bit data- and all of those cameras are capable of more that 1080 acquisition.
Capturing directly from the camera via HDSDI is different, since there is no camera compression going on.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows for the Digitally Inclined
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
-
Well, first I would like to start by thanking both of you for your input. In such a gigantic forum you were the only 2 who bothered replying and not only that but going into deep detail. Thanks!
I would also like to thank you Rafael. I know you are trying to help with the best of the intentions and based on the best of your experience. But considering Gary’s experience I think there’s something to be learned here for all of us. This thing although technical isn’t really exact science in many ways. You will find people pulling for both camps when it comes to any number of subjects, specially when it comes to what looks better, which in this case can also apply to quality. But in the end of the day all you got is your own experiences, which do not come without making mistakes and making mistakes is how you grow and learn about what works and what doesn’t. From the 3 of us Gary seems to have made the most mistakes because he’s the one doing it for the longest and for that reason he is probably the one who knows what works best which makes him the most experienced. Knowledge is great but experience is king! Don’t take this or Gary’s comments in a personal way, I’m sure he like you has the best of the intentions and is just trying to share his personal experiences on the matter. It’s all about the exchange of good info.
Coming back to the initial topic, Gary (Thanks a bunch for all the deep info), so if I got it right, I should capture it in ProRes 422 (because 4444 would be the same quality and just more storage space), edit it on a ProRes 422 timeline in FCP, send to Color and when finished in Color rather than using the send to FCP function I shoulder render it out as a DPX image sequence. I think I got it. But there’s just one thing though. The footage is green screen which means before it even comes into FCP is needs to be keyed and composited, which will be done most likely in Shake. Shake doesn’t really like Prores that much I hear (quicktime in general actually) and even if you go in as ProRes you should definitely not render out as Prores from Shake You should render a DPX or EXR. So it seems to me going into FCP as ProRes would not really be a good idea since it needs to go trough Shake first. Of course, you could cut in FCP, send to Shake and come back as DPX, but that would mean going into Shake as ProRes. So, should it be all convert to DPX first thing after capturing in ProRes to start it all in DPX already?
I guess one of the workflow could look like: capture>edit>composite>back to edit>color grade>back to FCP>final output.
Or what would you suggest and when should it leave Prores?
By the way, there will also be XDCAM and HDCAM footage (recorded in camera) mixed with the show which are the non green screen portions if it needs to be taken in consideration. So they should probably be either converted to ProRes 422 right away or to DPX depending on what is done for the green screen stuff?My head is about to go kaboom!
Thanks a lot for the great support.
-
[Adam Claude Jones] “Well, first I would like to start by thanking both of you for your input.”
You are most welcome.
I would also like to say your comments were very well stated, I thank you for those also.One correction on my part, my production manager told me that I have only done 26 film related projects in the last 45 days, not the 50 I claimed yesterday, so my experience was mis-stated and I stand corrected.
“But there’s just one thing though. The footage is green screen which means before it even comes into FCP is needs to be keyed and composited,”
Every workflow is different, I have not had the issues with Shake that you refer to. I have had no issues handling ProRes/HQ materials in Shake.
I agree about your comment not to output to ProRes from Shake and the DPX > ProRes route can bring up gamma issues on some machines.
The simple rule is to keep as much of your content in the same format and frame rate as possible, VFX workflows are often completely separate from post and require managing them as a complete entity unto itself, then handling the conversion after that element is finalized.
[Adam Claude Jones] “So they should probably be either converted to ProRes 422 right away or to DPX depending on what is done for the green screen stuff? “
Once again, the DPX output I am referring to is only for use if that format is required (preferred) for the film scanner to be used. DPX files can be a huge encumbrance when people are not prepared for that level of data (about 30% larger file sizes than 10bit uncompressed)
These questions need to be answered BEFORE you go into Production or Post.
I am not able to decide what your workflow is from a few questions here on the cow. You will need to make your own choices as to how this production will handle files from different sources.(note: that my company specializes in designing and de-bugging workflows of this nature)
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows for the Digitally Inclined
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up