HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444
by Russell Lasson
on
Jul 25, 2009 at 3:57:13 pm
[Erik Lindahl]"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. "
DATA RATE/COMPRESSION @ 60i 4:4:4 HDCAM SR 440Mb/sec or 4.2:1 compression
ProRes 4444 330Mb/sec or 5.6:1 compression
NOTE: While HDCAM SR is 10-bit and ProRes 4444 is 12-bit, ProRes compression ratios are most likely somewhat incorrect. But since there isn't a common uncompressed 12-bit codec, I'm not sure how to me more accruate.
Bit Depth HDCAM SR 10-bit
ProRes 4444 12-bit
NOTE: HDCAM SR supports LOG which, if used, essentially increases the bit depth to somewhere between 12 to 16-bits in the LIN equivalent.
FRAME SIZE HDCAM SR 1920x1080 or 1280x720
ProRes 4444 Any frame size. Real-Time 2K playback supported in Final Cut Pro.
COST HDCAM SR $100,000 Plus
ProRes 4444 $1000+Hardware
Now I know that this comparison is kind of silly on some levels. HDCAM SR is an industry standard delivery format. ProRes is an editing codec.
If talking about FX/Color work, then HDCAM SR has less compression. ProRes 4444, though more compressed, has 12-bit colors, variable frame sizes (SD through 2K+), supports alpha channels, very manageable data rates, and is a much less expensive workflow.
For broadcast distribution, HDCAM SR is great. Otherwise, if you've finished to ProRes 4444, you'd be better off archiving/mastering at a QT file backed up to LTO or a drive.
I'd love to hear peoples opinions on this, especially if I have any facts wrong! Gary, maybe you can add some more to the conversation.
-Russ
Russell Lasson
Colorist/Digital Cinema Specialist
Color Mill
Salt Lake City, UT
www.colormill.net
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 25, 2009 at 4:15:56 pm
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
------------------------
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Russell Lasson on Jul 25, 2009 at 4:33:37 pm
[Erik Lindahl]"Film > Telecine > ProRes > Output
And hold the same or better quality than the established standard we use today "
Hopefully it is as good as a HDCAM SR DI workflow. But even if it isn't, people are going to see that it can be a much less expensive option and they're going to do it. Independents are just going to eat up ProRes 4444, especially those shooting on digital cinema cameras.
Now if AJA can somehow manage ProRes 4444 support on the Ki Pro over a 3Gbps HDSDI signal, then watch out! That makes it a sub-$4k, 4:4:4 recording option that will play very, very nicely with an edit system that has 1.3+ million users. That could be a very impressive combination. Even if it isn't "technically" as good as the current options.
[Erik Lindahl]"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). "
I'd suggest looking into Gary Adock's article on ProRes:
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 25, 2009 at 8:50:13 pm
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
------------------------
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Arnie Schlissel on Jul 25, 2009 at 9:55:04 pm
[Erik Lindahl]"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"
Not to be cynical, but post houses will embrace whichever format makes the most sense to them economically and logistically. If they can charge a client a few dollars more to use one format over another, they will offer it. If they can save a few dollars or a few minutes by using a specific format, they will.
Post houses that adopted D5 before HDCam SR was available continue to sing its praises over SR. The shops that waited and bought the SR decks poo-poo D5 in favor of SR.
Those shops that adopted DPX will trash talk TIFF. Those that standardized on TIFF will sing it's praises over all other formats.
The same will hold true with all flavors of ProRes. For shops that have an FC centric workflow, ProRes 4444 will be the hottest thing since sliced bread. Shops that are Avid or Autodesk centric will reluctantly agree to accept it.
Arnie
Post production is not an afterthought!
http://www.arniepix.com/
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 26, 2009 at 12:21:52 am
An important thing to differ is however comparing equal codecs or formats vs on-another. DPX vs TIFF hold similar abilities. TIFF vs PSD hold similar abilities. 16-bit TIFF vs 12-bit ProRes, in pure quality, the former will most likely always win. But you end up comparing the container as well and a bunch of other things.
We're an FCP house also and well… we'll see what happens. There aren't really any other options out there at the moment (Premier is as far as I've understood still playing quite a lot of catch up to FCP given it has developed extremely fast).
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
------------------------
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Hector berrebi on Jul 25, 2009 at 8:26:58 pm
hi Russell
this from the new ProRes white paper:
doesn't it suggest ProRes 4444 is 6.7:1?
also, HDCAM SR has an HQ mode with 880 Mbs and 2:1 compression ratio
which ProRes is quite far from...
i don't think ProRes is meant to compete with SR...
but having it available for cheep, from SD to 28k in 4:4:4 and 12 bit color depth with support for alpha channel , in RGB or YCbCr color space is so cool and probably so useful
is there a better work format on the market?
this so much kicks DNxHD in the ass... it used to have in its favor over Prores, the fact that it supports alpha channel and offline sizes.
now it only has the fact its free :)
new ProRes definitely means DNX needs a brush-up
lets hope AjA are working on a new input for the Ki-Pro...
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 25, 2009 at 8:57:31 pm
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
------------------------
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Mark Raudonis on Jul 25, 2009 at 11:57:37 pm
It is the networks or studios who dictate a delivery format, not the post houses. So all of this debate is MOOT! Pro Res may be a fine format for internal workflow, but if it has to go out the door as a deliverable, the studios are going to demand a tape (for archival reasons). Last time I checked, no tape format I know saves to Prores (except LTO as data).
So, don't throw away your HDCAMsr decks yet. You're still going to need them for a good long time.
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 26, 2009 at 12:16:38 am
Delivery is of course a different story all together. I primarily question ProRes as a true high-end post format. Advertising-delivery in Sweden now fully file-based. MPEG2, i-frame only @ 30 Mbit and WAV audio. Our Digibeta use has gone down a ton I can tell you. Sad part here is Compressor can't deliver legal files for this (Episode can however).
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
------------------------
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by gary adcock on Jul 26, 2009 at 5:13:04 pm
[Hector berrebi]"also, HDCAM SR has an HQ mode with 880 Mbs and 2:1 compression ratio
which ProRes is quite far from... "
Ok this is a MOOT POINT People!
Since most of you are looking at the number only and NOT the functionality of the decks that support it.
the 880Mbps capture on SR is almost never sued for single camera capture at that data rate, it is enabled for DUAL STREAM (stereo) recording so both channel are at 440Mbps . Other than the very rare tests it is data overload for virtually all systems.
also how many of you have ever even SEEN an SRW1 or SRW 5800 deck with the correct hardware to handle that compression? EH? Those are the only 2 decks that can be configured to handle that data flow, and the upgrade is some ridiculous amount on top of the +$100K decks.
Get Real.
Per Russell's comment on my ProRes article ( thanks), I am about 1/2 thru updating it to include the 2 new version of ProRes and it will post late august or early September, This has pushed back my testing and comparison of all the current 10bit capture codecs to the fall.
Mike Curtis and I worked together on the Macworld article that just came out (I do the tech stuff)
and does offer minor insights into the codec.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Check out
http://www.aja.com/kiprotour/
Inside look at the IoHD
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Hector berrebi on Jul 26, 2009 at 6:03:33 pm
[gary adcock]"Ok this is a MOOT POINT People!"
gary... this thread started as an informative comparison between ProRes4444 and HDCAM SR, my comment was purely informative, and although it is a rare and specific workflow, it does exist, and is one of the format's published characteristics.
i didn't suggest that it is the common use of SR, i even added "also",
nor did i mention it to rub it in ProRes's face.
i love ProRes and (unlike SR) i use it all the time.
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by gary adcock on Jul 27, 2009 at 12:29:04 pm
[Hector berrebi]"gary... this thread started as an informative comparison between ProRes4444 and HDCAM SR, my comment was purely informative, and although it is a rare and specific workflow, it does exist, and is one of the format's published characteristics.
"
hector,
I have had this discussion with you at NAB, it is back to the same theory vs reality discussion I had with you in Vegas.
What is the point of comparing to something that is NOT an actual workflow but a published specification on a deck that you have never worked on (there maybe 1 or 2 SRW1's that are capable of this type of capture in all of Israel)
My question is why are you comparing ProRes to a HDCAM SR format that is not used in the context you describing ? So what are comparing ProRes too, some obtuse theory?
When you can compare something this is a little closer to what is the accepted reality? I know that you are talking out of school, as you told me you did not have access to this level of gear for your work
As I stated before that your comparing a single camera capture at 880 Mb/ps data stream on SR tape, (NOT recommended by Sony). The 880HQ setting is designed to allow for the highest quality capture with working with Dual Link or Dual Stream sources, ie: 2 channels of video, so the maximum any single channel can capture at is 440Mbps, to a intermediate editing codec like ProRes that allows ALL FCP users to maintain your data's " Original Integrity" at a higher bit depth?
So you are willing to compare to a "lesser compression" on SR tape, but you make no mention of the loss of over 3000 levels of grey? Oh and it records as 10bit video format, but ProRes 4444 is a 12 bit container having 4096 levels of grey.
hector,
its about managing expectations of the people reading your words here, I can quote any number technical theories to back all this up, yet I find it better to keep a real world balance when making claims comparing formats, tools, and ideas.
If you have done work with an SRW deck at 880Mbps, I take all of this back, I have worked in that format and all of the incumbent problems that ensued from working at the very limit of the technology. I can tell you from personal experience that all the theory in the world did not make the footage record, playback or archive any better than it would have at 440Mbps, It just used up the tape twice as fast.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Check out
http://www.aja.com/kiprotour/
Inside look at the IoHD
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by walter biscardi on Jul 27, 2009 at 1:30:15 pm
[gary adcock]" I can tell you from personal experience that all the theory in the world did not make the footage record, playback or archive any better than it would have at 440Mbps, It just used up the tape twice as fast. "
Well put. Theory doesn't mean anything in the real world. If all the theories that the engineers put forth actually worked in reality, we'd all be a lot happier in our work!
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 27, 2009 at 2:18:50 pm
Very solid replies Gary!
My first question is how well ProRes 4444 will perform in current established post-chains we deal with here when we scan film. We've used one of two workflows:
a) Film > Telecine > HDCAM SR > Uncompressed 10-bit 1080i50 in FCP
b) Film > Telecine > HDCAM SR > Digibeta > Uncompressed 10-bit PAL FCP
The Telecine we in general deal with state they scan ALL their work to HDCAM SR. I can't testify if this is the general 440 Mbit 4:2:2 setting or something else however.
Now, if we where to ask for ProRes 4444 from the telecine I'm quite sure their workflow would be:
Film > Telecine > HDCAM SR > ProRes 4444
Wouldn't this just introduce double compression transport stage? If a device linke the AJA KI Pro where to replace the HDCAM deck I think a small "revolution" might be in place IF ProRes 4444 holds it's ground.
All the above is talking about ProRes 4444 a transport codec. This will also always be file-based with it's pros and cons. My second and main question is, since it's what I deal with a lot more on a day-to-day basis, it's ability to work as a finishing format compared to Uncompressed or Animation across generations and in heavy post-works flows.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
------------------------
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by gary adcock on Jul 27, 2009 at 3:14:24 pm
[Erik Lindahl]"a) Film > Telecine > HDCAM SR > Uncompressed 10-bit 1080i50 in FCP
b) Film > Telecine > HDCAM SR > Digibeta > Uncompressed 10-bit PAL FCP
"
OK Erik.,
both of these signals are Single Link 4:2:2 HDSDI signals.
You will gain nothing by converting to 4444 on capture except headaches- That being said- make sure that all the GRAPHICS are delivered in PR 4444 to maintain the alpha channel playback, but there is nothing to gain unless you are planning on capturing direct from the telecine as DUAL LINK and capturing as PR4444.
[Erik Lindahl]"My second and main question is, since it's what I deal with a lot more on a day-to-day basis, it's ability to work as a finishing format compared to Uncompressed or Animation across generations and in heavy post-works flows. "
your workflow now is Uncompressed 4:2:2- why not try the current versions of PRHQ first? It is completely replaced Uncompressed on my systems, with ZERO client complaints or conditions.
As for Testing -- I am still about 2 weeks out from publishing that data, but my initial testing is not showing any loss or degradation with ProRes 4444 as compared to a pristine HDCamSR 4:4:4 master.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Check out
http://www.aja.com/kiprotour/
Inside look at the IoHD
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 27, 2009 at 4:12:47 pm
Well one issue we have today is a lot of post-intense jobbs we do look worse in the end going down the Uncompressed 4:2:2 10-bit road than using Animation RGB (4:4:4 of course) even when our final output is Digibeta or 4:2:2 MPEG2 files (30 mbit i-frame). I think this is due to Apples 4:2:2 codec having no chroma filtering hence keeping 4:4:4 through our post-work-flow and letting either Episode or our Kona 3 card do the down-sampling to 4:2:2. The end-result is better.
Moving to ProRes the 444 codec would be the interesting thing there.
1. Color resolution
2. Choice of working in RGB
Moving to and from applications like After Effects a RGB codec is by far the preferred as rendering times and issues accrue with Uncompressed-non-RGB media. But perhaps the ProRes 4:2:2 HQ codec offers the same choices now?
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
------------------------
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Hector berrebi on Jul 27, 2009 at 5:40:04 pm
Dear gary
i don't think i have to state again my appreciation for your knowledge and experience...
and i'm definitely not trying to start a discussion with you on things you know 100 times better than me
i do however feel like clarifying, and on that occasion ask a question
[gary adcock]"My question is why are you comparing ProRes to a HDCAM SR format that is not used in the context you describing ? So what are comparing ProRes too, some obtuse theory?"
i didn't compare...
i did add to an existing discussion a piece of info i know of from publications and theory.
As this info is found virtually anywhere you read on SR decks or format specs, usually with no warning, explanation or footnote to state that it is extremely uncommon practice, how should i treat it?
should a practice be ignored just because its uncommon?
even in the confines of a theoretical discussion?
i will remember to add how rare and complex it is as of now...
[gary adcock]"(there maybe 1 or 2 SRW1's that are capable of this type of capture in all of Israel)"
:)
there are maybe 1 or 2 SRW1's AT ALL in Israel, and most probably none capable of this type of capture
looking forwards to read your ProRes 4444 article.
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by gary adcock on Jul 29, 2009 at 10:18:59 pm
[Hector berrebi]"i did add to an existing discussion a piece of info i know of from publications and theory.
As this info is found virtually anywhere you read on SR decks or format specs, usually with no warning, explanation or footnote to state that it is extremely uncommon practice, how should i treat it?
"
Sorry hector, I did not see it that way,
The issue I have discussing the reality and the theory without at least a working knowledge of the process confuses everyone.
If you were going to discuss theory, why not state that? Or include other workflows that are just as esoteric so that the readers understand that you are discussing it as hypothetical. When comparing 880 Mbps to ProRes4444 why not also discuss the Phillips D6 that is still the only truly uncompressed capture on tape or the Panasonic's D5 deck can actually have less compression than HDCamSR at 880Mbps?
Since I know of NO way to actually compare the 880 Mbps HDCamSR Data stream to A ProRes 4444 file can do (I checked with about everyone that could possibly answer that question in the US and Japan)
My Point is that since there is absolutely no way to be able to judge your 2 selections against each other why use that as the point of comparison?
Thats why Apple chose to compare the new codec's to Uncompressed 10bit.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Check out
http://www.aja.com/kiprotour/
Inside look at the IoHD
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/adcock_gary/AJAIOHD.php
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Russell Lasson on Jul 27, 2009 at 2:32:35 pm
Maybe I can bring some focus on why I even thought to compare the two.
1. HDCAM SR is considered a standard for archiving high-end projects. But the availability of decks in smaller markets is very low. So for independents who still want to master at a high quality, they've had to back up DPX files. Now I would consider backing up ProRes 4444 files just as good of a backup. It's also easier to restore and make dubs of if you don't have a HDCAM SR. It's really just a great option for mastering on a budget. For around $3k, someone can buy an LTO-4 drive and backup whatever they want. They can also restore it when ever they want too instead of having to send an HDCAM SR tape out to another facility to get a dub on a $100K+ deck.
2. HDCAM SR has been used in the "poor man's digital intermediate" in the industry and has proven to be an acceptable workflow. A properly configured ProRes 4444 workflow could create a digital intermediate option that would literally allow the files to be mastered on a single desktop systems using Final Cut Studio. They could do all the editing, effects, titles, and color correction on a single computer without sacrificing any technical quality. This could easily save some money.
NOTE: They still might end up with a crappy looking film depending on who is doing the editing, effects, titles, and color correction! It might be a crappy film regardless depending on the writing, directing and acting! But FCS doesn't help with that much!
Someone mentioned this conversation being a moot point because studios and networks determine delivery requirements. Of course. Don't expect them to come out and say that they're really happy about Apple's new Final Cut Studio and will now accept non-quality controlled ProRes 4444 files for broadcast. That's just silly.
But the other two workflows that I've mentioned I believe are viable for some independents that have a good technical head on their shoulders.
-Russ
Russell Lasson
Colorist/Digital Cinema Specialist
Color Mill
Salt Lake City, UT
www.colormill.net
Re: HDCAM SR vs ProRes 4444 by Erik Lindahl on Jul 27, 2009 at 4:23:29 pm
I very much think ProRes 4444 will find it's way into different areas for sure, especially if it holds similar compression levels as HDCAM SR which is accepted as a high-end intermediate format. Given it holds similar quality as HDCAM SR, it will however still take some time until we really can utilize it as say a HDCAM SR replacement.
It's defiantly not a MOOT point to discuss this however rarely do you capture, edit, master and deliver in the same format. Our general high-end workflow today for TV-adds are:
[Recording] 35 mm film > [Transport] HDCAM SR > [Edit] Uncompressed QuickTime > [Output] MPEG2
We then keep a Digibeta and AIT-4 tape master (AIT-tape holds the Uncompressed QT files).
The future could very well mean you erase HDCAM SR and Uncompressed QuickTime IF ProRes 444 holds good enough quality. With a tool like the KI Pro, interesting things CAN happen in the future.
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
------------------------
