-
Re-management of Prores HQ to Prores 422
Hello,
I wonder if anybody might be able to offer an answer to this intriguing conundrum …
I just taken delivery of a 500gb hard-drive containing 389gb of Prores HQ footage (just under five hours). I have been asked to duplicate this for a client (who shared the cost of digitisation) but they helpfully provided me only with a 320gb drive. Solution? Re-manage the HQ to non-HQ, which should be just fine anyway.
So: I custom created a re-compression template with exactly the same presets as the original HQ files, and selected Prores 422. The green bars on the media management dialogue box duly indicated a projected output of 258gb: more or less what I expected. The strange thing is however – 10hrs later – the resulting files total only 189gb, with a data rate of around 97mbps (~11mb/sec), which compares to 185mbps (~22mb/s) for the original HQ; whereas, I think, the target data rate for my presets with Prores 422 should be around 122mbps (Source: Apple Prores 422 White Paper, April ’07). There appears to be no technical issues with output and every minute of footage is accounted for.
The presets are: 1920x1080i (top field first) @ 25fps; audio 24-bit 48khz.
Michael
Macbook Pro 15″, 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3, Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT; OS X 10.5.8, Final Cut Pro 6.0.6
-
2 Replies
-
[Michael Pye] “I just taken delivery of a 500gb hard-drive containing 389gb of Prores HQ footage (just under five hours). I have been asked to duplicate this for a client (who shared the cost of digitisation) but they helpfully provided me only with a 320gb drive. Solution? Re-manage the HQ to non-HQ, which should be just fine anyway. “
Huh?!? That’s not a solution. They’ve asked for a copy of the original files. You’re giving them different files. Tell them to give you a bigger drive. Or buy them a bigger drive & bill them. Either way, it’s less work and faster than transcoding & then copying the new files.
Arnie
Post production is not an afterthought!
https://www.arniepix.com/ -
Thank you, Arnie. I accept your point entirely, but the corporation in question are tight / stubborn and have specifically requested that I do a transcode rather than my simply acquiring a new drive. While I agree with you that this is beyond absurd, I would value any light you (or anyone else) might be able to shed on the topic of why the transcode has produced a smaller output than anticipated.
Macbook Pro 15″, 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3, Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT; OS X 10.5.8, Final Cut Pro 6.0.6
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up