ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)

Philip Bloom recommends ProRes 422 (LT) for DSLR footage.

Just wondering what others are using.

The COW's Gary Adcock (http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/camera-and-lens-roundup)

Says that for anything less than 2K RED footage, ProRes HQ is simply overkill; it does nothing to enhance image quality, and it just creates larger file sizes.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

I read a good portion of the white paper on the entire line of Apple ProRes codecs. When I always assumed that ProResHQ was ONLY for 2K and higher, it turns out that ProRes HQ simply allows for more generations than straight ProRes. I think the threshold was around 5 passes and the straight ProRes started to show degradation and the ProRes HQ was a perfect match to the original.

I sort of liken it to Uncompressed. When you absolutely have to have no generation loss you used uncompressed, and there is a time and place for it.

We are sticking with straight ProRes here, unless a client requires otherwise.

ProResLT is below straight ProRes, correct?

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production and Post
Owner/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com

Here's the link for the ProRES white paper from Apple. Everyone should read and decide for themselves what is best for them. We use HQ because it is considered an acceptable codec for mastering here in Hollywood. We also render to 4444 out of Color to preserve all the work we just did in the 32bit float environment.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper_July_2009...

Lance Bachelder
Southern California

Really lame analogy and mostly untrue. While you're not adding resolution you are changing the bit depth of your file - this can make a positive difference when the transcode is happening in a program like 5DtoRGB or even better, using Dark Energy plug-in for After Effects to create an ultra clean master. A DSLR file that has been run through Dark Energy and exported using a high-end codec like Cineform or DNxHD 444 will give you radically better results especially when it comes time to color time your show - not convinced? Watch the Blu-ray of Act of Valor which is about 80% DSLR footge, was "cleaned up" using dark Energy and looks beautiful.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California

I agree that converting the 8bit per channel to 12 bits per channel will give you more colour correcting latitude as you will be working in a larger colourspace (your not cleaning anything up, you can't recover lost data). Of coarse working in a larger colour space lets you more accurately colour your footage so it was as though it was captured on a 10 or 12 bit camera.

However, for me, if it is captured 8bit, and will be displayed on the web or tv which is 8 bit. Having a 12 bit 444 workflow is a waste (of course im assuming that your not trying to salvage individual channels for chroma keying). I totally understand why the movie you mentioned was mastered in 12 bit. It does make a huge difference when viewing on a higher bit display, like a cinema projector.

My analogy was geared toward regular people not making cinema destined product. I actually only use prores codec to get rid of the interframe compression of h.264 when I'm working on a mac without cuda acceleration.

Also, Dark Energy plugin is just a restoration program that gets rid of noise, dust, and compression artifacts.Very handy, but the thread is not about that.