FORUMS: list search recent posts

10 bit codecs

COW Forums : Compression Techniques

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Kim Rowley
10 bit codecs
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:50:09 am

I would like to start a digital archive of all my finished projects and have the ability to be able to store the finished files on LTO tape. My question: My edited sequences are done using the 10 bit uncompressed codec. I would like to keep an archive copy but outputting in this codec creates huge files. What are other 10 bit options? My projects are not HD and are PAL SD 4:3. Is ProRes 422 my best choice? Or would the ProRes 422(HQ) be better? Or maybe something entirely different? Thanks!

Dual 3 GHz Dual Core Intel, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon X1900, Xserve RAID, AJA IO, 2 20" Cinema Display, FCP Studio 2 (6.0.6), OS X10.4.11


Return to posts index

Mark Spano
Re: 10 bit codecs
on Oct 14, 2010 at 2:23:39 pm

For SD masters, I would think original recipe ProRes 422 would be just fine. It is a 10-bit codec and a high enough bit rate to be virtually lossless. I would have no reservations archiving to ProRes 422.



Return to posts index

Kim Rowley
Re: 10 bit codecs
on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:47:11 pm

Thanks Mark. I appreciate your advice. I did a test using both codecs and there is no difference to the naked eye observing on an SDI monitor. The only thing that makes me think HQ would be a better choice is a phrase I read in the Apple ProRes White paper defining 422 (HQ). ... "virtually lossless characteristic through many generations of decoding and re-encoding." The archive we are building is one that we hope will last for decades.... and longer! I wonder if the 422 is as robust?

Dual 3 GHz Dual Core Intel, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon X1900, Xserve RAID, AJA IO, 2 20" Cinema Display, FCP Studio 2 (6.0.6), OS X10.4.11


Return to posts index


Mark Spano
Re: 10 bit codecs
on Oct 15, 2010 at 10:12:34 pm

I think both are valid, and would be perfect for archiving. I just think HQ might be gaining only the space it takes up and not any higher quality. This thread here has a lot of information comparing ProRes codecs, and in the work that Gary Adcock has done in testing, he's come to the conclusion that ProRes HQ should really only need to be used for material that originates higher than HD resolution or material that will be subject to many manipulations (such as VFX or color correction work). I would test both in the SD world and make the comparisons yourself. I think (like me) that you will not be able to see a difference between them...



Return to posts index

Kim Rowley
Re: 10 bit codecs
on Oct 16, 2010 at 4:58:39 pm

Thanks again Mark. Actually the file sizes aren't that different (maybe 1 GB more) but I'll do a search in the forum as you suggest. I'm new here as I usually "hang out" on the FCP forum :)
Cheers

Dual 3 GHz Dual Core Intel, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon X1900, Xserve RAID, AJA IO, 2 20" Cinema Display, FCP Studio 2 (6.0.6), OS X10.4.11


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]