FORUMS: list search recent posts

Editing Codecs -- H.264 vs. ProRes LT

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Daniel Clark
Editing Codecs -- H.264 vs. ProRes LT
on Jun 10, 2012 at 1:35:25 am

My DP/Director shot a documentary film on the Canon 50D, and I'm going to edit it.

The camera shoots on an H.264 codec, and we have about 4.5 TB of data.

Because I'm an editor, I want to convert to ProRes (LT). From what I've read and experienced, there's no real added value of going to ProRes or ProRes HQ.

Here's the issue:

Someone told the DP/Director that ProRes (LT) is actually a LOWER resolution than the H.264 codec.

IS THIS TRUE? If so, what should I use to edit? I refuse by all means to edit in H.264 but this is becoming an increasingly complex issue.

Thanks for your help!


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Editing Codecs -- H.264 vs. ProRes LT
on Jun 10, 2012 at 1:40:59 am

[Daniel Clark] "Someone told the DP/Director that ProRes (LT) is actually a LOWER resolution than the H.264 codec."

Those people are horribly misinformed. ProRes LT is 10-bit 422. H.264 is 8-bit 4:2:0.

[Daniel Clark] "IS THIS TRUE?"

No.

[Daniel Clark] " If so, what should I use to edit?"

ProRes 422. If they think that LT is lower res, then suggest ProRes 422. That's what I use. HQ is too much, takes up more room with zero benefit. But if the client wants it, and you have the space...do it. Client comfort goes a long way. Be accomodating. Suggest ProRes 422.

[Daniel Clark] "I refuse by all means to edit in H.264 but this is becoming an increasingly complex issue."

If they want to use FCP, H.264 MUST be avoided. There are so many issues with it...unpredictable ones...that it need to be avoided. If they INSIST on editing the H.264 native, then you need to use Adobe Premiere Pro. If they insist on FCP...then you go ProRes. You cannot edit H.264 native in FCP. If they want to google all the issues with it, they can.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Alan Okey
Re: Editing Codecs -- H.264 vs. ProRes LT
on Jun 10, 2012 at 1:46:08 am

Utter nonsense. ProRes LT is a 10-bit full-raster HD codec that is of equal "resolution" and quality to that of the camera's implementation of the h.264 codec, which is itself only 8-bit and a much lower data rate than ProRes LT. Regardless, you cannot reliably edit h.264 footage in FCP 7 or earlier, so you really don't have much of a choice.


Return to posts index


David Eaks
Re: Editing Codecs -- H.264 vs. ProRes LT
on Jun 10, 2012 at 12:16:18 pm

FWIW here's a description of a Prores 422 vs Prores LT test I did.

During setup for a video shoot I recorded two clips to my AJA KiPro in 1080. The angle was one of my Sony NX5s on a locked down mid shot of the stage, with crew waking around and putting up the set. First clip was Prores 422, second was Prores LT. When I got back, I placed the 422 clip in a FCP 7 timeline then layed the LT clip on top of it. Then I key framed several crop movements from left to right and back on the LT clip to reveal the 422 beneath it. Exported self-contained current settings and placed the clip in the AJA folder of the KiPro drive for playback. Viewing the playback on my 65" TV via HDMI, watching closely as the crop line moved across the screen. The crop line was only visible in the parts of the image that had changed from one clip to the other, as in a person was standing there in one clip but not the other clip. The crop line completely disappeared in the parts of the image that had remained the same, as in set pieces that were not moved between clips. Holding my hands in front of my face to only see the areas that remained static between clips, I was unable to make out any change as the "invisible" crop line went back and fourth.

Same results with external monitoring timeline playback via Matrox MXO2 to an HDMI tv. Also same results with a Prores LT timeline and the 422 clip on top revealing the LT clip.

From this very simple test I determined that Prores LT is good enough for me and my workflow. No perceptable visual difference, smaller file size. YMMV.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Editing Codecs -- H.264 vs. ProRes LT
on Jun 10, 2012 at 2:48:37 pm

Yes, but not.
If you just intend to cut and perhaps apply some effects in FC, ProresLt may be OK.
If you intend a more intensive workflow and your footage must undergo few generations you might see the difference.
Compression is compression, wether your eyes can tell it or not and the only reason for compression is reducing band with.
If you use the best applications/plugins that you can afford, do the same with the codecs and always use the less compressed you can afford.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

toddbunner
Re: Editing Codecs -- H.264 vs. ProRes LT
on Jun 27, 2012 at 5:53:18 am

Shane Ross's response hit it right on the nose. I will add, most DSLR bitrates are ~50Mbps, and ProRes (LT) is ~99Mbps, which is double the data/bit-rate, and with 422 color space, whoever informed your DP is incorrect! Doubling the bitrate and at least preserving the lossy image resolution at ProRes (LT) is the smarter choice to edit in to avoid all of those nasty 'Out of Memory Errors' typically associated with working with H.264 footage in Final Cut 7. I'm Not familiar with Final Cut X.



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]