How necessary is converting to ProRes

ydgmdlu said:
"ProRes HQ is forcing the data to completely fill out the entire 10bit space that is 4X as levels of gray as 8bit. (256 vs 1024 levels) where as the "plain" version of ProRes allows the 8bit camera file to just float inside the 10bit color space - only adding the extra information to the video file when it is needed, rather than forcing all of those 768 additional levels of gray to be occupied all the time like the PRHQ version does."
Click to expand...

This doesn't really help anything. Its like converting an 8bit image into a 10bit image with a levels expansion. You still only have 8bits of data, just in a 10bit container. You can't get something from nothing.
 
shaocaholica said:
This doesn't really help anything. Its like converting an 8bit image into a 10bit image with a levels expansion. You still only have 8bits of data, just in a 10bit container. You can't get something from nothing.
Click to expand...
I know that, and I agree with you completely. I was just trying to present an explanation for the difference between ProRes standard and ProRes HQ.
 
Do you lose any quality, when converting the h264 to ProRes 422 in Mpeg Streamclip?
 
RGP said:
Do you lose any quality, when converting the h264 to ProRes 422 in Mpeg Streamclip?
Click to expand...


I lost levels in the whites, greys, and blacks when converting to pro-res. I edit in the native 5D h.264 format, export with the animation codec or the photo-jpeg format. Not a fan of any apple codec whether it's the h.264 or the pro-res.
 
shaocaholica said:
This doesn't really help anything. Its like converting an 8bit image into a 10bit image with a levels expansion. You still only have 8bits of data, just in a 10bit container. You can't get something from nothing.
Click to expand...



If the 256 levels of grey per channel are interpolated to 1024 - rather than simply the 256 level remapped - then there might be some qualitative improvement (especially gradient).


???
 
Anthonyb said:
I lost levels in the whites, greys, and blacks when converting to pro-res. I edit in the native 5D h.264 format, export with the animation codec or the photo-jpeg format. Not a fan of any apple codec whether it's the h.264 or the pro-res.
Click to expand...



Same here . . . edit in native 5D H2.64 export as animation for broadcast delivery.
 
Lee Wilson said:
Same here . . . edit in native 5D H2.64 export as animation for broadcast delivery.
Click to expand...

...and this worked fine for you?

I'm using the 1D Mark IV, and I just imported the native footage to FCP and it looked awesome. I'm not to familiar with the HD workflow, but I've heard a lot about the animation codec. Is it always a better decision to use it? Thanks.
 
ROBatGraveShift said:
So what would you suggest?
Click to expand...

I suggest asking the broadcaster what format they want the files in. But I have yet to hear of anyone, broadcast, film, or anything else, specifically ask for the animation codec. DVCPro(HD), HDCam, DVCam, DPX, DNxHD, uncompressed... but never animation.
 
PerroneFord said:
I suggest asking the broadcaster what format they want the files in. But I have yet to hear of anyone, broadcast, film, or anything else, specifically ask for the animation codec. DVCPro(HD), HDCam, DVCam, DPX, DNxHD, uncompressed... but never animation.
Click to expand...

Animation set at 100% and with no key-framing is lossless, never used anything else for the last 15 years . . . for BBC, Hallmark, Discovery, Channel 4, print to film, Nickelodeon (etc etc . . . . ).

But like ROBatGraveShift says, ask whoever you are delivering it to what they want - to make life easy.
 
Lee Wilson said:
Animation set at 100% and with no key-framing is lossless, never used anything else for the last 15 years . . . for BBC, Hallmark, Discovery, Channel 4, print to film, Nickelodeon (etc etc . . . . ).
Click to expand...

I am not saying it won't work. I just find it surprising. Especially for film. Animation codec is basic RLE, in 8-bit. There are just so MANY way's to go lossless, it seems like the animation codec is almost one of last resort. At the VERY least, I'd expect a 10-bit lossless going to film.

Well, at least you know that anyone with quicktime installed can read the files with ease. That's not necessarily true with some of the other choices like EXR, DPX, J2K, etc.
 
For now, I'm talking about personal projects, and for clients who know nothing about compression, all they know is that they want it to look GREAT! In those situations, I feel if it looks great, has a small file size, and can play across different platforms, then it's okay.

Also, is the general consensus that converting to ProRes is pretty much a waste of time? Thoughts
 
PerroneFord said:
I am not saying it won't work. I just find it surprising. Especially for film. Animation codec is basic RLE, in 8-bit. There are just so MANY way's to go lossless, it seems like the animation codec is almost one of last resort. At the VERY least, I'd expect a 10-bit lossless going to film.

Well, at least you know that anyone with quicktime installed can read the files with ease. That's not necessarily true with some of the other choices like EXR, DPX, J2K, etc.
Click to expand...

Firstly - apologies when I said: But like ROBatGraveShift says, ask whoever you are delivering it to what they want - to make life easy. - I, of course meant: But like PerroneFord says, ask whoever you are delivering it to what they want - to make life easy. !!!

Whoops !

Yes, as you say, compatibility is always useful, no one ever (as far as I can remember) has ever said 'can't play/read/decode/watch this footage' with Animation/Q100.

Your point about it being 8 bit also stands, if your material has greater bit depth and is going to something that will register more than 8 bit - then I would go uncompressed 10bit, but the overwhelming majority (if not all) of material flying around exists as 8 bit and forcing an 8 bit signal into a 10 bit space adds no additional information.
 
Last edited:
ROBatGraveShift said:
I feel if it looks great, has a small file size, and can play across different platforms, then it's okay.
Click to expand...

H.264 . . . . or any MPEG4 derivative.

Personally I even avoid H.264 and deliver all (non master/broadcast) movies as MPEG4 in a Quicktime wrapper as it is absolutely universally compatible - it plays on my mum's phone, uploads to YouTube and Vimeo, plays on PCs and Macs and the screens of advertising creatives and seems to suffer little of the gamma shift issues H.264 suffers.

Not as compact and efficient as H.264 but works out as more colour/saturation/contrast accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top