Erik Lindahl
Forum Replies Created
-
HDCAM SR has an HQ mode with 880 Mbs and 2:1 compression ratio
I believe I stated the same thing in another thread. I’ve even had discussions with post houses regarding going HDCAM SR 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 and they’ve suggested 4:2:2 since it has less compression artifacts given lower color resolution.I still hold a level of “uncertainty” regarding the whole use of ProRes for high-end finishing, given it very much has hits home for a lot of post-production. I could have loved to see a lossless 4:2:2:4 and 4:4:4:4 codec with similar aspects as ProRes (but of course with larger filesizes).
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
Post-houses might embrace this format given it proves to be on-par with HDCAM SR it might serve very well as a transport codec. My concerns remain if it’s good enough for a finishing codec or not.
What ever the case there is still going to be a cost and time-gap before it really takes any serious leap. If a device like the AJA KI where to embrace the 4:4:4 ProRes codec things could perhaps change, quite rapid…
Looking at the real high-end, the two major telecine-facilities here in Stockholm either go from film to dpx files, then grade or go from film and directly grade to HDCAM SR. If we today require QuickTime files these always come from the HDCAM SR source. A film to ProRes transfer might be simlar to HDCAM SR but the end user where to get a Film > HDCAM SR > ProRes > ??? transfer you have passed through two different compressed codecs.
So yeah, the question remains – good enough for transport and / or production.
Looking at working with digital formats such as RED again I’m not sure either. Given this is an extremely compressed format finishing in another compressed format feels so-so. Visually lossless isn’t a lossless format, after 2-3 generation ugly issues can show them selves on post-heavy shots (given then you perhaps should avoid RED in the first place).
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
It would be interesting to compare ProRes 4444 as both a TRANSPORT codec and a PRODUCTION codec. If it compares well to HDCAM SR as a transport codec that would be awesome. My fear it will not hold up to uncompressed formats in production. It has to width-stand 2-3 generation and still hold for perfect keying and color correction. The 12-bit of the format speaks in it favour but it’s still a compressed format that will deteriorate between generations.
So, in the future, my question really is when working with film can we go:
Film > Telecine > ProRes > Output
And hold the same or better quality than the established standard we use today
Film > Telecine > HDCAMSR > Uncompressed > Output
If the first workflow DOESN’T hold it would be interesting to see if / how just using ProRes as the transport codec would, i.e:
Film > Telecine > ProRes > Uncompressed > Output
The few projects I’ve done with ProRes before have been riddled with compression artifacts. This can of course be due to the original recording media (AVCIntra on one project was pure hell to color correct and key).
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
Yes… The timeline / keyframe features are extremely buggy and out-dated. The “base” is there but it all needs to be reworked quite a bit.
Look at After Effects how a keyframing and curves UI should be done. Speaking of curves, where is our curve filters color correction filter? The color correction tools in FCP are nice but they could use some major improvement and round-tripping to Color isn’t the answer to every project.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
8-bit codecs beat 10-bit codecs in a lot of situations so that statement doesn’t always hold water. Higher bit-depth isn’t always better quality esp. comparing uncompressed vs compressed format. And given I’m not that good at compression technologies, but adding 2-bits of color data be color channel will eat bandwidth. Any lossy format has it’s drawback how ever good it may be.
Formats aside, looking at FCP’s internal rendering engine it’s 32-bpp but far to many times I’m forced to go down to 8-bit rendering due to rendering bugs in higher bit-depths. Then you can claim “Final Cut isn’t a compositor” but it is very efficient doing some composition jobbs in the editor if possible.
But i hope I’m wrong and the new ProRes 4444 codec actually is a viable online format. It worries me what Apple wrote aboute rendering to PAL though, might render the codec useless for Europe.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
…and yet another reason why I get irritated why Apple doesn’t solve a proper speed change engine in FCP…
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
I’ve had 2-3 hour “sessions” with Apple Reps regarding bugs with the media manager. It can bug out severely esp. with sequences that use speed effects. I’ve learnt what works and doesn’t in general but that’s not something one should have to do. Sometimes it’s user error but in regards of the MM, I’d say it’s a large part produkt failure and limitations.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
That’s just the codec, which proves it is modern and thought through which is very good.
Question is how effective FCP will be at handling this (I’ve never seen FCP use more than 3 of my 8 cores here at home). For instance you can’t send an FCP sequence for compression via a compressor cluster apparently due to the fact FCP can’t open multiple instances of it self.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
If ProRes 4444 beats HDCAM SR in it’s compression-level I stand corrected. Previously I’ve had very poor experience with ProRes. But if this is true and telecine’s actually start using this it’s truly a nice feature.
On source of worry (and it made be giggle a bit cause sadly it’s pretty “Appleish”):
Source:
https://support.apple.com/kb/TS2861?viewlocale=en_USSymptoms
Rendering PAL material to ProRes 4444 in Color introduces a gamma shift in the resulting video file.Resolution
Avoid rendering PAL material to ProRes 4444 in Color as it can cause unexpected results.—
Apple has in the past been a bit “slow” on PAL-support which can cause serious issues in Europe.
Regarding ProRes vs HDCAM SR – If I’m not misstaken, HDCAM SR is 440 or 880 Mbit 10-bit where ProRes 4444 is 330 mbit 12-bit. Given ProRes is a new:er codec I guess it could beat HDCAM but you’re at a higher bit-depth and much lower bitrate.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
———————— -
Well the thing is FCP is starting to feel a bit “works for most” in a lot of aspects. It feels very “patched”. It doesn’t feel like a full OSX “citizen”, more like a cross-breed of the old and the new. I guess i was hoping that after 2 years+ in the cooking pan big things would actually change but evidently they haven’t. And this I think can scare people a bit – so in 2 more years we get what, an option of 7 ProRes codecs where one works on a our iPhone?
Yes, FCS3 brings new stuff to the table but I was hoping for far more and the areas I find frustrating at the moment haven’t been looked into at all. Some areas of FCP are shocking at the moment. Odd rendering bugs with complex sequences, the speed feature is a joke and audio filters are way below par for instance. All are areas Apple SHOULD excel in with Shake, Motion, Logic and Sound Track Pro in their back-pocket.
And something like a UI that works is important for the over-all experience and efficiency when working. I don’t understand why this hasn’t been unified across the Studio Applications (Color I get won’t be very “Apple-friendly” for quite some time since it is a coloring-suite). FCP is quite buggy in it’s appearance and function at the moment actually.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
————————