-
Transcoding to ProRes 422 LT for Optimised Media
-
[Andy Branner] “[David Powell] “I am in the same boat wanting the whole pipeline to go through Prores LT”
Then do it. Set up your project to use LT, import your native footage and cut away! Where’s the problem?
“Sure, you can do it that way, but it’s less elegant. Why not have pop-up list next to the Proxy button allowing selection of the desired codec for Proxy mode. Then you could use ProRes Proxy, and I can use LT. I’m cutting multicam stuff shot at ProRes 4444 and I’d rather cut it in LT rather than 4444 or Proxy. I can do an external convert, but why not be able to take advantage of a smoother self-contained workflow. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Once I’ve got really comfortable with X I will possibly give it a second look. Tried a bit of Motion alongside FCP7 a couple years ago but ended up giving up and dipping back into After Effects (which I wasn’t exactly fluent in but had a basic understanding at least).
-
I don’t need much convincing to try an alternative to After Effects. I hate using it. That’s not a reflection on the quality of the software (it’s a very accomplished/powerful tool) – it’s more a reflection of the fact that my mind simply doesn’t work in the way it wants me to and that leads to constant frustrations. And I’ve been using it for ages. I don’t think it’ll ever “click” into place as it should at this stage.
-
[Andy Branner] “and why didn’t Avid think of that with DNxHD??”
There is alpha channel support in all flavors of DNxHD. It was added quite a while ago.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Adam White] “But I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to ask for a simple transcode option to be added, and why some people seem so dead against it. LT works great. I understand not everyone will want to use it, but for those that it works well for, why deprive them of the option?
Some will probably disagree, but I don’t think I’m being backwards in thinking that this would be a nice option to have. Seems like it would be super simple to implement, too.”
I agree. In a lot of live broadcast situations, LT is perfect. There’s a reason why Apple made it as it fits a 100Mb/sec pipeline very well (it competes with AVC-Intra and XAVC in the 10 bit full raster codec “battle”).
As you have 15 cameras rolling for days at a time, LT is a great candidate for the balance between size and quality.
-
[Andy Branner] “Hey wait… and why didn’t Avid think of that with DNxHD?? Or GoPro?? Or… Hmmmm… makes you think there may of actually been some logical reason…”
Actually, DNxHD and CineForm both support alpha in their lower profiles, too.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Andy Branner] “Sure. Why didn’t THEY think of that?? Hey wait… and why didn’t Avid think of that with DNxHD?? Or GoPro?? Or…
Hmmmm… makes you think there may of actually been some logical reason…”
Avid did. I’m not sure how you would shoot with a GoPro and create an alpha on the fly so there would be no reason for GoPro to think of that, unless they’re going to start building keyers into their cameras.
-
Avid used to have alpha on DV, which is to say, they probably still do.
Media 100 also had alpha channel support on all of their various resolution codecs.
It would be great if we could get alphas on every flavor of ProRes.
Also, for those that have experimented with Mavericks, it appears to ONLY way to playback a file with an alpha is with ProRes 4×4. Everything else AVFoundation tries to convert, and then you lose the alpha.
Welcome to the future! :-P~
Jeremy
-
[Martin Curtis] “Pro Res LT comes in at about 70% of the file size of full 422.”
[Andy Branner] “Wow… a full 20-25%. 15 HOURS of footage per TB is just unacceptable. 17 on the other hand… and hey, at today’s 30-40 bucks per TB, that’s a serious saving, right? :D”
But if we turn this around, ProRes LT allows 44% more footage in the same space. It is a serious savings.
What if you only have 400 GB of storage available for footage? ProRes 422 1920×1080@29.97 will fill that with 6 hours and 12 minutes. ProRes LT 1920×1080@29.97 would give you 8 hours and 55 minutes. That’s almost 3 hours’ difference.
But who has only 400 GB of storage available? Someone using 512 GB of the solid state storage that Apple is pushing in their new computers.
Personally, I don’t care about ProRes LT all that much. I’ve used it exactly once, and that was for delivery. But what if someone wanted to optimize to ProRes HQ or ProRes 4444? Would you argue against the utility of that, too? Some configurability here is a really good feature request.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up