Convert to Prores in PC not Mac HELP???
- Thread starter sporty
- Start date
wonderfilm
Member
Pro Res is able to be decoded (playback) on windows but not encoded from what i understand. This won't help you if you want to edit with pro res on a windows machine, because as soon as you add any video filter/color correction/etc to the clip you'll need to render to a different codec. Best bet is to work with another loss less IQ codec.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
For free you can download AVID's DNxHD codec and a program called MPEG Streamclip and you can batch render all of your files to DNxHD which I am finding is working out well for editing/archiving.
For $130 you can buy Cineform Neoscene which IMO is a better choice as it is a more elegent system and a really easy codec to work with.
Both will work though.
For $130 you can buy Cineform Neoscene which IMO is a better choice as it is a more elegent system and a really easy codec to work with.
Both will work though.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
To a degree. The $130 for Cineform Neoscene will ONLY write AVI on the PC. To pass files back and forth to the Mac you need NeoHD, which is $499 each. This is why I use DNxHD, which does the same 10-bit 4:2:2 for free.
johnhafner
Active member
1.
MPEG Streamclip can convert to prores 422. I've only used it on my Mac but it's a free download and it's worth checking to see if it can do it on PC.
BUT if you are editing on PC, you need to choose a different format, as only final cut pro support 422 for editing. I'd recommend Cineform neoscene. Free trial avail and $129 a licence. The benefit to cineform is they have a custom gamma curve developed specifically for the 7d that gives a very cinematic look.
2.
Prores 4:2:2 conversion does chroma interpolation, 7d h.264 is a 4:2:0 format so less color detail is recorded. The benefit will be that color correction will be more accurate and flexible and. Also because the color sampling is interpolated, and then saved with more detail it's possible that colors will be slightly crisper.
The main benefit is 422 and cineform are interframe codec designed for editing. h.264 is an intra-frame compression designed for playback. h.264 does not contain ALL the information about each frame in that actual frame this makes it much smaller in file size for similar video quality. It spreads the data amongst close by frames that share similar images, so when streamed it can look ahead and play fine but when used in an NLE, the transitions will cause stutters in playback because it takes a few frames for enough image info to be read.
Last edited by a moderator:
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
John,
Maybe you can clear something up for me, since you mentioned the cheap version of Cineform again.
Cineform on the Mac writes a .MOV file. Cineform codec in the .mov container is not supported on the PC from what I understand. And the inverse is also true. Cineform on the PC writes in .AVI only, which I understand is not supported on the Mac. If you've made this 2-way workflow work successfully, please tell me how.
The Cineform site does not list cross-platform capability under the features for Neoscene. Only for NeoHD and up, which leads me to believe, as other people have said, that you need to move up to the NeoHD program at $499 per copy, to make this work.
I am also curious what advantage you see in using Cineform over using DNxHD. Especially given the difference in price.
Thanks
Maybe you can clear something up for me, since you mentioned the cheap version of Cineform again.
Cineform on the Mac writes a .MOV file. Cineform codec in the .mov container is not supported on the PC from what I understand. And the inverse is also true. Cineform on the PC writes in .AVI only, which I understand is not supported on the Mac. If you've made this 2-way workflow work successfully, please tell me how.
The Cineform site does not list cross-platform capability under the features for Neoscene. Only for NeoHD and up, which leads me to believe, as other people have said, that you need to move up to the NeoHD program at $499 per copy, to make this work.
I am also curious what advantage you see in using Cineform over using DNxHD. Especially given the difference in price.
Thanks
Jumping in the discussion.
- regarding using MPEG stramclip, can someone post here the exact format to export the native quicktime in the best format readable by PProCS4.
It seems that the settings I use crash my PC and do not export the file fully in the process (sigh).
- If this fail, I'll jump onto the Cineform bandwagon (which seems to be what everyone uses) but if I can avoid using any extra penny on anything, that'd be nice.
- regarding using MPEG stramclip, can someone post here the exact format to export the native quicktime in the best format readable by PProCS4.
It seems that the settings I use crash my PC and do not export the file fully in the process (sigh).
- If this fail, I'll jump onto the Cineform bandwagon (which seems to be what everyone uses) but if I can avoid using any extra penny on anything, that'd be nice.
Yes - same here! I'd also like to know best settings for exporting to a lossless videoformat on the PC (Quicktime is NOT a must).
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Yes, you can READ ProRes on the PC. But you cannot CREATE a ProRes file on the PC
humm i suppose if you had both a mac and a PC as i do, (pc desktop, mac laptop) you could use your Mac to encode ProRes then edit the files on your PC. But you would have to make sure you never needed to take them off the PC (out of PProCS4) to anywhere else or you would loose ProRes as it could not save your video in it when it exported. right?
So seems like ProRes for a PC workflow is only useful if youre doing everything from one computer and wont have to move the video around, even between software.
So seems like ProRes for a PC workflow is only useful if youre doing everything from one computer and wont have to move the video around, even between software.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
This is correct. Which is why Avid's DNxHD is gaining ground quickly for workflows that span the two platforms. It is able to be written and read on both platforms, has the quality of ProRes/ProResHQ, and is free for both platforms. And unlike ProRes, it does not do the infamous gamma shift like ProRes does when bringing files from the Mac over to the PC.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
SheerVideo is a fast, lossless, cross-platform codec. It's not free though, and the output files are huge (2:1 compression). But I doubt that you can find a better lossless solution. Working with lossless files is a headache no matter what. File sizes will always be huge, and the more highly-compressed ones are slower to use.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I talk about it a lot, but honestly, only because it's a TERRIFIC solution. I don't even own an Avid system. But after nearly a year of looking for a smooth way to collaborate with my Mac based friends and going through (MJpegA, PNG, Uncompressed, TIFF images) it was nice to finally find something that just "worked" and that didn't cost anything.
I think it's shrewd by Avid. They wanted to make it a standard, like DPX. And quite frankly, they are doing a terrific job. It's a SMPTE standard now as VC-3 and they are looking to grow it. It has some serious limitations at the moment, like you cannot do 4:4:4 with it, and you can't use it beyond 1080p in terms of resolution. But outside of that, it's nearly ideal.
I think it's shrewd by Avid. They wanted to make it a standard, like DPX. And quite frankly, they are doing a terrific job. It's a SMPTE standard now as VC-3 and they are looking to grow it. It has some serious limitations at the moment, like you cannot do 4:4:4 with it, and you can't use it beyond 1080p in terms of resolution. But outside of that, it's nearly ideal.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I'd argue that Jpeg2000 is just as good. That's what I archive with. Can be 10bit, lossless, it's wavelet so it creates small files (for it's quality), it's multi-platform, and in many cases free.
But you are correct. Working with lossless is a royal pain, and almost NEVER is it required.