FORUMS: list search recent posts

ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)

COW Forums : DSLR Video

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Danny Grizzle
ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)
on Jul 4, 2010 at 3:45:50 am

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

Just wondering what others are using.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)
on Jul 4, 2010 at 4:45:24 am

I have to disagree with Philip on this one - hard drives are cheap - I'd go with ProRES HQ. We've done a ton of testing with DSLR footage to various codecs - on the Mac side ProRES HQ is great - no reason to go lower quality especially if you plan to take into Color or similar for timing/fx.

Lance Bachelder
Southern California



Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)
on Jul 4, 2010 at 6:17:08 pm

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


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)
on Jul 4, 2010 at 9:25:32 pm

Sorry to Gary (he hates DSLR's anyway :) ) but not true in all our tests. It all depends on where the footage is going in your workflow - if you're color timing in FCP and putting your clips on the web then he may be right. But if you're going into a high end color suite with the goal of projecting your images on a big screen you always want the most information possible.

On the fabled HOUSE finale they transcoded all 5D dailies to HDCAM SR before any editing or post took place - overkill? I saw it on a 50 foot screen and I don't think so.

My feeling on DSLR footage is to always "render up" to keep the information intact all the way through post. So on the Mac for instance, transcode and edit in ProRES HQ, then render out of Apple Color to ProRES 444. That way I know I've done my best not to degrade any part of my original files - hopefully anyway.

Lance Bachelder
Southern California



Return to posts index

Rich Rubasch
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)
on Jul 4, 2010 at 11:35:34 pm

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


Return to posts index

Kris Merkel
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT)
on Jul 5, 2010 at 9:37:03 pm

Straight ProRes here as well. Unless I need to pull a matte, I see no advantage in using unnecessary disk space and processing power.

If you have clients that request the (HQ) flavor for film output ect. then you have it available.










Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT) White Paper
on Jul 6, 2010 at 5:22:11 pm

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



Return to posts index

Brent Ross
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT) White Paper
on Aug 18, 2012 at 6:39:43 am

It's a complete waste to transcode dslr footage to prores 4444! h.264 is 8 bit 4:2:0, and prores 4444 is 12 bit 4:4:4!!! It would be like making a 12 year old wear an adult XXL... your not magically adding bit depth or resolution to your footage, just as the 12 year old doesnt grow 4 feet and gain 100lbs when wearing the giant shirt. prores lt will fit snug on dslr footage


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT) White Paper
on Aug 18, 2012 at 8:11:27 am

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



Return to posts index


Brent Ross
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT) White Paper
on Aug 18, 2012 at 4:07:12 pm

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.


Return to posts index

Brent Ross
Re: ProRes 422 vs. ProRes 422 (LT) White Paper
on Aug 18, 2012 at 10:45:55 pm

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.


Return to posts index

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