Marie Davignon Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 (edited) Hi, I shot a film in super16mm and we're finishing it in HD. We opted for the Apple Pro Res 422 codec. Does anyone have any info that I should know about this codec? Is it looking far more different than QuickTime Uncompress HD 10 bit (which is to heavy to edit on a normal computer)? Thanks for your advices and concerns! Edited December 17, 2008 by Marie Davignon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted December 17, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 17, 2008 Hi, I shot a film in super16mm and we're finishing it in HD. We opted for the Apple Pro Res 422 codec. Does anyone have any info that I should know about this codec? Is it looking far more different than QuickTime Uncompress HD 10 bit (which is to heavy to edit on a normal computer)? Thanks for your advices and concerns! Your choices may be determined by the final target format. If you are planning a film out, you'll want to transfer to uncompressed HD. Otherwise, the ProRes format may be well suited as an online format. If your budget allows for it, your best option would be to transfer your masters to uncompressed HD, then rendering to ProRes proxy files for editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ghast Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Dont do it. Thats all i have to say. You've been warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hepburn Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Dont do it. Thats all i have to say. You've been warned. Not a lot of detail as to why David. Any chance you could expound a bit? Thanks, Tom Edited March 23, 2009 by Tom Hepburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timHealy Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Aren't there two versions of ProRes? ProRes 422 and ProRes 422 HQ? Best Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Martinez Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I would go uncompressed. ProRess 422 go up to 145Mbps and HQ reach 220Mbps according to Apple. the format can work 4:2:2 / 10-bit. But remember that introduces some compression algorithm that must sacrifice some info to reduce file size. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Neugeboren Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Hi, I shot a film in super16mm and we're finishing it in HD. We opted for the Apple Pro Res 422 codec. Does anyone have any info that I should know about this codec? Is it looking far more different than QuickTime Uncompress HD 10 bit (which is to heavy to edit on a normal computer)? Thanks for your advices and concerns! Since you mentioned computer strain in Uncompressed HD 10 bit, if you don't have a super-powerful computer to work with, you're probably going to want to go with an offline workflow. Probably the best way to go about this is to do your assembly edit off ProRes 422 proxies of your uncompressed footage, creating an EDL. Then go back online (final cut will automatically take you through bringing in your online, uncompressed media) and perform your final edit. This will save you a lot of processing power during the assembly. There's a chapter about the whole offline/online process in the final cut pro user manual. (Chapter 5, page 57) Edited March 24, 2009 by Ross Neugeboren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Dont do it. Thats all i have to say. You've been warned. Please explain. Were you using ProRes HQ?... on what system?.... what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Turestedt Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Since I wen't with prores 422 there is nothing else for me! It kicks ass... Thats all I can say. Never had any problems with it. Picture is awesome. I'll post from film to prores 422 on some tests soon. The lab (stockholm post production), said that they do this quite often. Of course 2k or uncompressed HD is a bit better... But on the other hand, I can't imagine that something shoot on s16 cut prores 422 then recorded on for example cinevator or more expensive arriprint still wouldn't look great! This process but with HDcamSR looks very good on the big screen, even if many would say the only way is 2k scan. I'm impressed by prores. But keep in mind that still I haven't recorded or printed back to film for the big screen, so I can't answer how it looks in cinema from prores.. And when it comes to efficency prores is so good codec! Never got any bad renders! I even cut things on my intel macbook white with 1,2gb ram without any lag or slow workflow! Imagine doing that on a pc! When it comes to the technical details I cant say I know much... Other than that prores is full raster! Meaning that there is no HD 1440x1080 upres. It's full 1920x1080 pixel to pixel as I understood it. Only bad thing I saw was when I ran 1280x720 with red text from AE. The text looked a little bit like it had deinterlaced artefacts. But then again, red color is always a warningbell, and should used with precation. I use prores today mainly for shooting commercials, shot HD. And next up is film! I'm looking forward for the tests, shoot either s16 or 35 2perf... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Yep.. I just finished rebuilding and upgrading my Edit Suite with the new MacPro and am going tapeless! 35mm & S16mm to HDCam (for master transfer archive) then to a G-Raid in ProResHQ. I'll receive all Film footage on the G-Raid. Really looking forward to the next Project we do! I am banking this will improve the quality of the Images we deliver... Unfortunately, some simply leave a negative message and don't back it up with a more detailed (useful) description of any issue(s)... oh well :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 35mm & S16mm to HDCam (for master transfer archive) then to a G-Raid in ProResHQ. I'll receive all Film footage on the G-Raid. You'd be better off TKing to HDCam SR, otherwise your Pro Res 4:2:2 files are coming from a 3:1:1 source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Yes indeed.. I left the SR off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Neary Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Hi- I just had a short 35mm project transferred to SR, and the lab gave me both an uncompressed QT along with a proresHQ file. Comparing both side by side, the prores looked to me to be just the slightest bit grainier, and a tiny bit more saturated, but the differences were negligible. I didn't have to do any greenscreen or major CC with the footage so I don't know how well the two would stack up under those conditions, but I assume the uncompressed would handle it better. The dire "You've been warned" bit above is complete BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Stuart, Just spoke with my (LA) Transfer House and they said that both HDCam and D-5 are 4:2:2... They said HDCam SR is (slightly) better.. ever so slightly.. but you can stay in 4:2:2 with either HDCam or D-5 as well... maybe you were thinking 4:4:4??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Neary Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Hi- Did Sony change their specs or something? HDcam has always been 3:1:1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Hi- Did Sony change their specs or something? HDcam has always been 3:1:1. hmmmm, yes I see that Patrick on wikpedia.. I will call them again.. it is a BIG Transfer House and I was speaking with a guy in Data Management... gets Tape to Hard Drive. Either way I will use the SR Tape but I wonder what they were thinking.....??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted April 5, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 5, 2009 HDCam SR can be 4:2:2 or 4:4:4... perhaps they just used HDCam to refer to HDCam SR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Hi Adrian, We were real specific.. they said HDCam, D-5 and HDCamSR are all 4:2:2. Gonna call them Monday morning.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted April 5, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 5, 2009 Hmm.. Odd.. maybe they were just a bit bleary eyed! Let us know what they say. How are things in FLA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted April 5, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 5, 2009 Hi- I just had a short 35mm project transferred to SR, and the lab gave me both an uncompressed QT along with a proresHQ file. Comparing both side by side, the prores looked to me to be just the slightest bit grainier, and a tiny bit more saturated, but the differences were negligible. Unless you were using a high-end RGB 4:4:4 broadcast monitor, you were probably viewing the transfers in 4:2:2. The differences would be more apparent when viewing a 35mm film out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted April 7, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 7, 2009 Hi Adrian, We were real specific.. they said HDCam, D-5 and HDCamSR are all 4:2:2. Gonna call them Monday morning.. Not all SR machines are set up for 4:4:4. this could be what they meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andres Pardo aka Gral Treegan Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi!! is kind of late for this reply but here i go i just finish a documentary post, all was done in apple pro res HQ HD. is kinda cool if youre ending in tape HD or SD what is the case od this documentary. comparing with uncompressed is good but not for film out. apple pro res is an intermediate codec, not a high end one. even uncompressed is not as good for film out. bests! GT B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now