-
ProRes
Hello Again,
I’ve asked a variation of this question before, so thanks to everyone who answered previously, I am still not sure I feel like I can answer this myself.
I am going to need to capture some Beta SP tapes. We are editing a multi format project in prores and i’ve been asked to capture the beta tapes in 422 HQ. I was under the impression that at the very least HQ was overkill, and that prores might be as well, when we could just as easily capture it uncompressed SD. is there an advantage to one of these three options? If so what is the recommended way to address this issue?
and as a secondary broader question, since I keep failing to completely grasp the uses of prores in my particular projects case, does anyone have some recommendations on where I can read up on this and see if I can learn more that way? I hate asking the same question more than once, and I’d love to be able to help myself with some of this stuff.
Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Austin
Austin Reedy
Freelance Post
Austin, TX -
11 Replies
-
Accepted wisdom seems to be only use HQ for aspect ratios greater than 1920×1080 (ie. 2k & up). That said, if there is high-rez media being used in your sequence then it makes sense that all media be the same codec. There are two advantages of ProRes over 8-bit uncompressed. ProRes is a 10-bit codec and it produces a smaller file. There is a whitepaper (I think) about ProRes. Try searching the Apple site (and the Cow) for ProRes.
John
MacPro 8-core 2.8GHz 8 GB RAM OS 10.5.8 QT7.6.4 Kona 3 Dual Cinema 23 ATI Radeon HD 3870, 24″ TV-Logic Monitor, ATTO ExpressSAS R380 RAID Adapter, PDE enclosure with 8-drive 6TB RAID 5
FCS 3 (FCP 7.0.1, Motion 4.0.1, Comp 3.5.1, DVDSP 4.2.2, Color 1.5.1)Pro Tools HD w SYNC IO, Yamaha DM1000, Millennia Media HV-3C, Neumann U87, Schoeps Mk41 mics, Genelec Monitors, PrimaLT ISDN
-
Thanks for the response.
We do have higher res stuff in the project. It basically consists of a bit of HD footage and some 3d animations (also in HD). We’re editing in ProRes to retain a good look from that stuff, and everything else is a myriad of formats and sizes and frame rates that’s totally complicated, but we’re basically just stretching the SD varieties to fit the ProRes sequences.
As to Uncompressed 10 bit SD vs. ProRes:
We’re told (by someone I don’t know, a while ago) that ProRes would stand up to color correction better than uncompressed would, and I’ve recently been told on the apple forums this is false. As for the difference between HQ and normal ProRes, since we have no footage bigger than HD it seems that there is no point in using it. We want this to play on a movie screen however, does that make a difference? My gut tells me no because its more for editing huge formats as opposed to outputting them.
Sorry if this is confusing, I’m learning ProRes as I go and feeling that I’m failing to grasp its purpose.
Thanks for the insights!Austin
Austin Reedy
Freelance Post
Austin, TX -
Hi John,
I do not agree with the theory that the HQ is for 2K up.
IIf Prores HQ overkill for HD, the normal Prores would overkill for SD.
There is not relation at all among the size of the picture and the flavor of Prores.
The data rates you get in SD are completely different that what you get in HD for the same flavor.
Nothing below Uncompress overkill, mostly when your footage may undergo few render processes.
Although people think the opposite, even the 10b Unc stuff is degraded when re-compressed.
So when choosing your Prores, think about what you gonna do with that. If you just go to cut and play, perhaps even Prores Proxy may be good enough.
If you go to cut, de-noise, go to Color (RGB), pass to AE, back to FC, and compress to another format or delivering, don’t risk your quality just save room in your HD. As I see the main advantage of Proress is not the files size, but the RT performance.
Cheers,
rafael -
[Rafael Amador] “I do not agree with the theory that the HQ is for 2K up.
IIf Prores HQ overkill for HD, the normal Prores would overkill for SD.”I’m assuming you’ve read Gary Adcock’s articles on this? There is no “theory” on this. It’s the way ProRes was designed. Gary explains it better than anyone else.
If you’re working on 1080 or smaller, go with ProRes.
If you’re going larger than 1080, go with HQ.
We have been using ProRes several years now, NEVER HQ as we have issues with HQ with 720 and 1080 material so we avoid it. No Theory, just facts.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” now in Post.
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital. -
Here’s Gary’s article.
https://provideocoalition.com/index.php/apple/story/prores_a_closer_look/
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” now in Post.
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital. -
Yes Walter, but I do not agree with the conclusions of Gary. First because I don’t know the process to arrive there. There is no “method”.
Nowhere, out of the suggestion of Gary, you can find any reference to this 2K-HQ theory. Non in the Apple papers, neither in any AJA (masters of Prores) document.
Until no long ago the most popular resource about codecs used to be the web site of Marco Solorio (https://www.onerivermedia.com). He fallowed a “method”.
The compression tests that he made, I think, there are quite scientific, and can be repeated for anybody.
Subjective visual quality comparative tests, must be done with many warranties and in very controlled environment.
A modern and complex codec as Prores (Different compression levels, VBR, Hardware dependent) needs even a more tight method to be tested.
I’m also working with Proress since was released, and I have never had any issue, while capturing with the ioHD or converting in software.
If we go to the “good enough’, OK, I accept that Proress is good enough. But to accept that “more compression” is better, I need a better explanation.
I’ve been suffering the miseries of compressed formats (DV, DVCPro50, XDCAM), and for me to try to put 10b 422 (Prores SD is 5MB/s) in a “package” 65% bigger than the poor DV (8b,420, 3’6 MB/s) is a warranty of further compression, unless somebody demonstrate the opposite. That simply goes against the rules of the Physic.
Cheers,
rafael -
Correct me if i’m wrong, but we’re working in FCP 6.0.6 and i think proxy and lt and the variations were developed for fcp 7 right? in any case, the other reason we’re wanting to convert stuff to prores is simply to reduce render time and create a little more fluidity when we’re editing. with so many formats as we have, any chance we have to standardize things in the most remote way is something we like. if we get compressed sample files from a source we’ll often just compress them to prores to save on render time, even though they’re larger files than the originals we’ve received.
however, once we start getting some more source material (like the beta sp we just received) is it worth our while to capture it prores as opposed to uncompressed? will this have any effect on how easily we finish the movie? what i mean by that is if we have beta sp tape captured prores will we be able to apply something to it to take it back to its highest resolution? or does that only work if we capture uncompressed, then apply the prores codec through compressor? does that make sense?
Austin Reedy
Freelance Post
Austin, TX -
[Austin Reedy] “in any case, the other reason we’re wanting to convert stuff to prores is simply to reduce render time and create a little more fluidity when we’re editing. with so many formats as we have, any chance we have to standardize things in the most remote way is something we like.”
That’s the best way to work and the primary reason why we have AJA Kona 3 boards in all of our edit suites. We convert everything to one format during ingest. In our case everything is captured to ProRes.
[Austin Reedy] “is it worth our while to capture it prores as opposed to uncompressed?”
Yep, not reason not to. Keep it all in one format all the way through.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” now in Post.
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital. -
Yes, that’s the impression i get from a lot of people. unfortunately at this point in the project we’ve got too much stuff to go back and standardize everything (i just started a month ago, its been a work in progress for 3+ years). so since most of the stuff ISNT ProRes I’m just trying to make everything we get from this point on the standard, so at least that stuff is easier to work with. Too much time to go back and convert everything, so it’ll just be a situation we have to deal with when we lock later.
thanks for all the answers!
Austin Reedy
Freelance Post
Austin, TX -
[Austin Reedy] “Too much time to go back and convert everything, so it’ll just be a situation we have to deal with when we lock later.
“Those are the famous last words of many an editor Austin.
Imagine if John Paul Jones had said, “I have not yet begun to fight, and so I’m going wait until everything is sorted out.”
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
A forum host of Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro, Business & Marketing, Indie Film & Documentary, and Film History & Appreciations forums.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up