What to use ProRes or ProRes HQ

[Tom Wolsky]

HQ is for film resolution frame sizes. You don’t need it.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Author: “Final Cut Pro 5 Editing Essentials” and “Final Cut Express 4 Editing Workshop”

[Jeremy Garchow]

ProRes is just fine, no reason for HQ.

[Anthony Derose]

Thanks. My only concern is as it travels through generations (coloring, etc) wont the basic prores ose quality? Thats why I was thinking hq would preserve it better.

http://www.anthonyderose.com

[Jeremy Garchow]

ProRes is outstanding at multi-generational work.

Stick with ProRes. The damage has already been done in the h264 movies.

[Gary Adcock]

Why are you re-encoding?
The final output should be the only place your are doing a re-encoding of the majority of the content. Just copying the files does not cause any issue only processing the file over and over again to new versions will cause damage, and my tests show you have at least 10 generations before you will be able to consistently find even the smallest errors.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

[Anthony Derose]

Thanks, I’m just taking h264 through mpeg stream clip to create pro res files for the editor. I knew there was very little difference look wise between hq and standard but just wanted to double check.

thanks

http://www.anthonyderose.com

[Dennis Couzin]

It’s no so simple. Not all H.264 has been smushed to the point where ProRes and ProRes HQ transcodes are indistinguishable. It depends on the bit rate of the H.264. If it is 1080 30p and exceeds 30 Mb/s then definitely go with HQ.

Don’t be tricked by direct comparison with the ProRes data rate 147 Mb/s (for 1080 30p). ProRes uses no interframe compression. A codec like H.264 uses interframe compression and gains a compression factor of between 5 and 10 for this. That is, intraframe, ProRes at 147 Mb/s is comparable to H.264 at somewhere between 15 and 30 Mb/s. Intraframe, ProRes HQ at 220 Mb/s (for 1080 30p) is comparable to H.264 at somewhere between 22 and 44 Mb/s. It is desirable to transcode to a codec that uses less intraframe compression than the original.

[Jeremy Garchow]

Dennis, can you explain more as I’m not following you? ProRes is not CBR. I follow your math logic, but that’s not all of the picture. You skipped the 8bit RGB to 10bit YUV conversion and whether or not ProRes or HQ is equal in that regard. It’s not all about the datarate but Gary, I am sure, will chime in on that.

[Gary Adcock]

[Dennis Couzin] “Not all H.264 has been smushed to the point where ProRes and ProRes HQ transcodes are indistinguishable”

That would not be the experience of a number of people on this forum, file compression itself, has little to do with the image compression/ decompression cycle. We are discussing the internal compression from a canon 5D camera, which has been compressed about as much as is possible, then using an intermediate codec to achieve smooth playback and editing in Post.

Anthony,
using the standard vs HQ flavors of ProRes allow you smaller files and less cpu power to handle the playback, so the Standard version of ProRes will allow better playback, more RT effects and easier load on your computer and both codecs are full raster 10bit, iframe @4:2:2 without any additional compromise in your quality.

Using the HQ codec only offers advantages if you are planning on doing heavy effects or corrections within the ProRes codec or the FCS3 suite, and if you are you should be working in the lossless 4444 version, You gain nothing going to HQ if the compositing is being done outside of the FCP/ Color workflow, nothing at all.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

Members

[Phil Incorvia]

[gary adcock] “Using the HQ codec only offers advantages if you are planning on doing heavy effects or corrections within the ProRes codec or the FCS3 suite, and if you are you should be working in the lossless 4444 version, You gain nothing going to HQ if the compositing is being done outside of the FCP/ Color workflow, nothing at all. “

Hey Gary. I’ve read several times that it often makes sense to stay with regular ProRes and had that experience with all the HD footage I’ve worked with. Your statement above suggests that there is some advantage if the footage will be experiencing ‘heavy’ manipulation. Could you give some examples of what ‘heavy’ has meant in your experience? In other words, what post production work/workflow seems to trip the need to move into the 4444 version to keep highest quality?

Thanks!
Phil

Setup:
2×2.8GHz Octocore
16GB RAM
ATI Radeon 4870 graphics card

FCS 3 – all up to date
OS 10.6.2