Is Raw the same as 4:4:4

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, Apple released a codec update this year, that addressed XQ in quicktime based programs like Premiere. However, it's still incompatible with windows and linux machines.

 

So yes, on a 100% updated Mac OS machine, running the absolute latest software, it does work in the newest version of Premiere, Final Cut X and DaVinci. However, what you can do with it is very limited. In fact, on my bay, I can't even open XQ in quicktime, I can only use it in an editor of some kind, as if it needs something the editor does the player doesn't. This is one of the clues of how different XQ is to standard 4444. I playback standard Pro Res 4444 without any issues in Quicktime player, all day, any day.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I don't know when the osx support was updated but at least last year it already worked when we did a movie in XQ, I was able to play back from Finder directly, Resolve worked correctly, etc. no problems at all.

I think it was with Mavericks or Yosemite, nothing extra codecs installed.

 

I can actually use the 3.2k proresxq with FCP7 with nothing extra installed, no problem at all.

 

one thing to consider is that it is much faster to work with prores formats than with RAW. backing up is faster, you will get offlines faster, you can playback with basic laptops, making dailies may be 5 times faster...

debayering+processing RAW is also software dependent so you may get slightly different looks from different programs. For example, you will get different results from Redcode depending on whether you use Resolve, RedCine, After Effects, Premiere or FCPX for processing. so, the problem with RAW is that there is too many possibilities to screw it up with untested workflows and it may be a complete nightmare sometimes if one is dependent on certain adjustments which can't be accessed with other programs. it is quite common to post in RGB for this reason if there is lots of variables involved, even if the project is shot in RAW and it is supported by all the post tools.

VFX work complicates this much further and usually needs RGB intermediates anyway, it's not usually a good idea to work directly with RAW files there unless absolutely necessary because it makes matching the shots much more difficult and slows down the process

[Tyler Purcell]

Can you take a snapshot of the get info tab from your quicktime player. I would also love to see it working in FCP7.

 

Nobody I know can get XQ to work in FCP7 and even my contacts at Apple say it's impossible. So what you have there is absolute magic.

 

Maybe there is some odd old/new plugin combo that's making it work? Very strange. I would love to figure it out because I have clients who still use FCP7 and they'd love to playback XQ natively, but currently can't.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Can you take a snapshot of the get info tab from your quicktime player. I would also love to see it working in FCP7.

 

Nobody I know can get XQ to work in FCP7 and even my contacts at Apple say it's impossible. So what you have there is absolute magic.

 

Maybe there is some odd old/new plugin combo that's making it work? Very strange. I would love to figure it out because I have clients who still use FCP7 and they'd love to playback XQ natively, but currently can't.

 

maybe they meant that it is difficult to use it at native resolution? it plays back fine in 1920x1080 timeline though a 32bit program is maybe not ideal for this type of material.

I can't publish any footage because it isn't mine but editing seems to work normally as long as your raid array is fast enough

[Aapo Lettinen]

I think there is maybe some plugin problem with your Mac, I have used the XQ with at least 5 different out of the box mac setups and they all worked fine without anything extra

[Aapo Lettinen]

I also use the old FCP7 in El Capitan together with FCPX, that is also one of the things some people think is impossible ^_^

(fcp7 installed first, then move it to new separate folder in Applications, the folder is named something other than "FCP", for example: "FCP7" . then install FCPX. sometimes the programs mix each other's icons but otherwise no problem :lol: )

[Stuart Brereton]

From reading some discussions over at LiftGammaGain, it seems that ProRes 4444 and XQ are the same except for the bandwidth. The difference is that XQ was written for Quicktime X which hasn't been updated for Windows yet. There was also some talk over there about changing the FourCC code to allow XQ to play on Windows machines running QT7

[Bruce Greene]

Actually, XQ will work on Windows with a change to the file meta data. So, it's not the codec per se.

 

Also, I've played XQ on my MacBook in the QT player without issue. It did not work on my Windows workstation :) but I have since learned that it can be done by changing the file metadata. In my case, I used rhe Adobe media encoder to make it non XQ and it looked and worked fine in the movie

Edited July 8, 2016 by Bruce Greene

[David Hessel]

There was also a 3rd party codec that worked too just not with Resolve as it doesn't support 3rd party codecs. That is what used to get Nuke support.

[David Hessel]

http://www.miraizon.com/index.html

 

This was it but it has been discontinued.

[Dr John R Mangiardi]

Couple of new questions for all. So it seems that there is more data contained in a 16 bit RAW signal than in 16 bit 4:4:4 uncompressed signal. 

 

Questions:

1) If one were interested to use visible light to capture what we CAN'T see, which of the 2 contains more data points?

2) Would it be possible to use the information in the data set captured that we can't see, and reformat it so that we CAN see it?

Kind of like what LANSAT 8 does with weather imaging that can reformat the combined RGB and multiple infrared (near-infrared, short wave,  thermal infrared) channels and "see" through clouds, identify rock types in mountains, population centers and so on? Or what snakes, eagles or some deep-sea lifeforms "see" with enhanced visible light range capabilities.

John R Mangiardi MD

[Dr John R Mangiardi]

Couple of new questions for all. So it seems that there is more data contained in a 16 bit RAW signal than in 16 bit 4:4:4 uncompressed signal. 

 

Questions:

1) If one were interested to use visible light to capture what we CAN'T see, which of the 2 contains more data points?

2) Would it be possible to use the information in the data set captured that we can't see, and reformat it so that we CAN see it?

Kind of like what LANSAT 8 does with weather imaging that can reformat the combined RGB and multiple infrared (near-infrared, short wave,  thermal infrared) channels and "see" through clouds, identify rock types in mountains, population centers and so on? Or what snakes, eagles or some deep-sea lifeforms "see" with enhanced visible light range capabilities.

John R Mangiardi MD

[David Hessel]

First of all the amount of data for 16 bit is 65535 values per channel regardless of whether it is raw or not. Technicallly 16 bit 4:4:4 has more data since it has 3 channels per pixel (RGB) where raw only has 1, making it 3x smaller. I order to grade raw footage it would be debayered into 16 bit 4:4:4 making it identical to uncompressed with everything else being equal.

1.) As stated above they contain the same number of data points.

2.) In a way yes, that is what you do when you grade footage. If your footage has a high dynamic range and you are displaying in on a with dynamic range you can grade the footage to try and fit all the dynamic range in.

Camera sensors are designed to only capture what is in the visible spectrum. There really isn't anything in the image that you can't see like the LANSAT system you describe above. I believe the only spectrum most digital cameras can capture a little bit of that we cannot see is infra red.

Edited April 25, 2019 by David Hessel

[Dr John R Mangiardi]

Thanks David. So there is more data in 16bit 4:4:4 than in RAW.

The second question is about the visible spectrum, using LANSAT as an example of how one uses more information to combine "layers" of visual data to see what we can't normally see. See the example attached to bring out information with modification of a visual image by manipulating an 8 bit black and white image. The second image is a 8 bit color HD image manipulated to show better the edges of a tumor, or the vascularity of a tissue.

[Dr John R Mangiardi]

Continuing....

It seems to me that if we utilize the largest dataset available, we could extrapolate more than what we can see and reformat it so that we can, as in the image attached.