-
ProRes 442 HQ vs. HDV
I know, I know. I have read Tim Wilson’s Part 1 and 2 articles. So I know my answer already… (I think).
I am capturing off my Canon XHA1. Using the camera as my deck.
I am on a:
Machine Name: Power Mac G5 Quad
Machine Model: PowerMac11,2
CPU Type: PowerPC G5 (1.1)
Number Of CPUs: 4
CPU Speed: 2.5 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU):1 MB
Memory: 8 GBOk, so I am capturing using the 442 ProRes Codec and it looks better then the HDV native codec (just way better). I also plan to do a lot of color correcting to try to get to a blue toned cinematic look. So based on Tim Wilson’s article I should proceed with the ProRes codec.
I am correct in capturing with ProRes 442HQ? The mac seems to be handling it fine? No issues.
Please I’m a bit of newbie, other then disk space I see no negatives in the ProRes 442 codec?
-
4 Replies
-
[Charles Khaikin] “I am correct in capturing with ProRes 442HQ?”
I think HQ is overkill. ProRes non-HQ files are two-thirds the size and seem perceptibly identical to me.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
A forum host of Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro, Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.
-
Thanks for the quick response.
So whats the difference between HQ and non-HQ? Is it something a deck would pickup but fire wire capture can’t?
Also, why are there packets of people so against Apple ProRes 442?
Algorithmically its the way to go. More flexible, smarter and just yummy in general. I presume?
Am I wrong?
Thanks Dave. I will wait for your response.
-
[Charles Khaikin] “So whats the difference between HQ and non-HQ?”
Two-thirds higher bitrate.
[Charles Khaikin] “Is it something a deck would pickup but fire wire capture can’t?”
Nope, its an imperceptable or nearly imperceptable bump in quality at a fairly hefty expense in terms of hard drive space. If your stuff is so immaculate, your monitoring so precise, your eyes so good, that you can see real difference, then go HQ.
[Charles Khaikin] “Also, why are there packets of people so against Apple ProRes 442?”
I don’t know. I’ve read some thngs on the Color Forum, but then I’ve read an equal number of posts disputing those posts. Nothing is perfect, ans as they say (whoever they are), “your mileage may vary.”
[Charles Khaikin] “Algorithmically its the way to go. More flexible, smarter and just yummy in general. I presume? Am I wrong?”
I simply prefer cutting ProRes to HDV because iFrame video is my preference and it makes me happy because there’s no nearly as much computing going on under the hood during simple cutting. But, HDV is certainly not a deal breaker either.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
A forum host of Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro, Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.
-
[David Roth Weiss ]
I don’t know. I’ve read some thngs on the Color Forum, but then I’ve read an equal number of posts disputing those posts. Nothing is perfect, ans as they say (whoever they are), “your mileage may vary.”
——
I thought you should use Apple ProRes442 if your going to be doing a lot of color correction (‘Color’ or not)…
Regardless I have ten fresh miniDv HD tapes ready for importing and you just answered my last question. Thanks so much Dave. Seriously, really great feedback. I’ll go non-HQ too, just tested it.
Time to start editing. I will show you my finished work.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up