ProRes or DPX?

[Paul Jay]

I doubt it. What kind of storage do you have now?

[Josh Petok]

It would be for 4 internal soft raided disks. During a Resolve presentation, I vaguely remember something about it being built specifically for DPX. Codecs like ProRes seem to be more processor intensive to decode.

Josh Petok
JoshPetok.com

[Charlie Edison]

I wouldn’t bother coverting anything from prorez to dpx for better performance, its not worth the conversion time, but if someone is supplying you with elements or anything additional and they have dpx then grab them.
2 reasons, better uncompressed 10bit rgb and yes less processing.
Resolve has to decode anything other than dpx before it does anything else like color correction and resizing.
But as I said, the extra step of converting to dpx from any other source file format is not worth the time.

[Kevin Cannon]

I’ve run into more glitches in the final renders when the source material is ProRes than I have when DPX is the source. Specifically, ProRes 4444 and 422 titles sequences on my last project would render with occasional all-green frames, but when the clips were converted to DPX and then rendered, the green frames were gone.

That said, most of the time it works as advertised.

If you anticipate a lot of dustbusting, the dirt tool doesn’t work on quicktime sources…

prehistoricdigital.com
hardworkingpixels.com

[Darin Wooldridge]

I see a huge difference on my 08 mac.

NOTE: The comments above are strictly mine, and may not necessarily
represent those of my employers.

Darin Wooldridge
Colorist / Technical Strategist
818-653-3918-cell
dwooldridge@mac.com
check me out at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Davinci-Resolve-Colorist/117363011609028?ref=….

[Margus Voll]

08 is not so fast compared to 10 i bet ?

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu

[Vladimir Kucherov]

Wellp, ProRes will tax your CPU, and DPX will tax your storage. So go with whichever is stronger on your setup, and if they’re both strong, go with whatever leaves you with less converting!