Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    271
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    What about it?
    A couple posts above to you I asked if it was best to film sit down interviews in a studio in ProRes LT or ProRes 422? LT is much smaller file size and could get me started with the purchase of my new camera and storage I could afford for now right out of the gate


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    8,762
    Default
    I thought you already received your answer a few times starting on the first page...

    "Best" is what's best for you.

    Here's the bottom line:

    - People will not see a difference between LT and 422.
    - 422 has ~150mbps more date thus it's possibly better for post.
    - SSDs are so cheap that the difference between the two is irrelevant for many (talking about saving a "few" minutes).
    - If you have time to transfer footage, it's even more irrelevant.

    If it's just the 5 person project, I'd go for 422 for the peace of mind.

    People who shoot interviews (or long-form speaking) every single day for 8-10 hours straight are the ones going for LT (and some probably in less resolution).


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    8,762
    Default
    Maybe helpful...



    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,814
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by offbeatbryce View Post
    So you are saying it is best to not use RAW for interviews but for concerts? If that's the case wouldn't just ProRes LT be sufficient enough with interviews? I have an upcoming project (assuming COVID does not cause another shutdown) and I will be interviewing about 5 people for about 30-1 hour each
    I think LT is probably fine. I would test the quality difference for yourself between LT and 422 no matter what people tell you on dvxuser. That way you know what you're getting and have peace of mind.

    One last thing to keep in mind is that detail suffers with smaller compression. Prores proxy is noticeably softer than 422 at the same resolution. LT is probably modestly softer than 422. I would test it for yourself.

    If LT is all you can afford right now, then maybe the decision is made by your budget. And that's ok. I think LT will be fine.

    If it were me and I wanted to save data, I would probably shoot H265 at the highest bitrate in-camera and record ProRes proxy (possibly at a lower resolution) in your external recorder. This approach minimizes filesizes while maximizing quality and getting you ready to edit right away. But some people don't like to work with H265 or with proxies.

    Again, I think LT will be fine.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,136
    Default
    You seem to have completely failed to investigate the raw option.

    AFAIK it is a much more efficient codec. Contrary to what most think.

    --

    Story
    Back in the day HD pro res at 220 odd was considered fine and then some started shooting maybe 3:1 Red, coming in at maybe five times that. This broke the reputation of raw (actually the data hike was HD -> 4k). But once one is shooting 4k proRes, modern raw starts to recompete. I know that BMC ursa raw is defo smaller than a baked prores from the same camera - as we were able to swing a Bcam for a job on that argument.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,814
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    You seem to have completely failed to investigate the raw option.

    AFAIK it is a much more efficient codec. Contrary to what most think.

    --

    Story
    Back in the day HD pro res at 220 odd was considered fine and then some started shooting maybe 3:1 Red, coming in at maybe five times that. This broke the reputation of raw (actually the data hike was HD -> 4k). But once one is shooting 4k proRes, modern raw starts to recompete. I know that BMC ursa raw is defo smaller than a baked prores from the same camera - as we were able to swing a Bcam for a job on that argument.
    Touchy, Sam?

    Let's not forget that if he's interested in ProRes LT, then even regular ProRes RAW comes in well above that in Mbps.

    But I agree that if he is amenable to ProRes 422 data rates, then ProRes RAW is worth considering


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,136
    Default
    even regular ProRes RAW comes in well above that (lt) in Mbps.

    If it does it does. It seems noone was suggesting checking it out

    Casual google inspection put raw at 40-100, with 422 at 300+


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,136
    Default
    To my knowledge pro res is basically an old clunker for efficiency. The Xavc does far better. But im also tending not to beleive that as all the 'modern' codecs seem wonky to me.

    Certainly in the BM (ursa) vs FS7 war of yesteryear - shoot for a couple of hundred hours and the winner became very clear


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,814
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    even regular ProRes RAW comes in well above that (lt) in Mbps.

    If it does it does. It seems noone was suggesting checking it out

    Casual google inspection put raw at 40-100, with 422 at 300+
    how casual?

    from apple's prores raw white paper: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/...ProRes_RAW.pdf

    Apple ProRes RAW
    data rates generally fall between those of Apple ProRes 422 and
    Apple ProRes 422 HQ, and Apple ProRes RAW HQ data rates generally
    fall between those of Apple ProRes 422 HQ and Apple ProRes 4444
    I thought that ProRes was designed for editing speed, not efficiency? And it performs admirably for its designated purpose. The only reason we can edit XAVC and other H.264-based codecs is because our graphics cards have hardware acceleration for H.264 decoding, no?

    But that's part of the reason I don't bother with ProRes for capture.

    But I do routinely transcode whatever I'm editing into ProRes Proxy at half-resolution, both so it plays back effortlessly and so I can disconnect from my drives and carry my laptop around the house with small proxy files on-board. I'm editing a few videos right now from 315GB of FS7 footage that comes out to 45GB of proxy files that fit easily on my 500GB internal MBP SSD. It took a few hours to transcode last night. If the raw footage were H.265, I'm sure it would have taken a lot longer and then it would have been nice to have recorded simultaneous proxies.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    271
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    how casual?

    from apple's prores raw white paper: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/...ProRes_RAW.pdf



    I thought that ProRes was designed for editing speed, not efficiency? And it performs admirably for its designated purpose. The only reason we can edit XAVC and other H.264-based codecs is because our graphics cards have hardware acceleration for H.264 decoding, no?

    But that's part of the reason I don't bother with ProRes for capture.

    But I do routinely transcode whatever I'm editing into ProRes Proxy at half-resolution, both so it plays back effortlessly and so I can disconnect from my drives and carry my laptop around the house with small proxy files on-board. I'm editing a few videos right now from 315GB of FS7 footage that comes out to 45GB of proxy files that fit easily on my 500GB internal MBP SSD. It took a few hours to transcode last night. If the raw footage were H.265, I'm sure it would have taken a lot longer and then it would have been nice to have recorded simultaneous proxies.
    The charts I've seen put ProRes Raw at the same as ProRes 422 4k which is about 2 hours of footage is nearly 2 TB. Plus ProRes Raw only shoots on the Atmos Ninja and there is only one SSD in the Atmos. I really don't want to use RAW for interviews or entire Documentary when I 1. Won't have a dual recording of RAW to another source and 2. The studio I'll be renting for my interviews is not cheap to rent. Therefore I would not have time to take the RAW footage and transfer it elsewhere. If I use up all 2TB mid interview or shoot I won't have time to transfer files to computer and clear the drive and shoot again.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •