FS7: is there any benefit to pro res HQ over xavc

[ryaninoz]

I have the xdca extension unit so I finally upgraded my firmware to get the pro res codec but after using xavc i I am wondering if its worth it ( unless a client specifically asks for pro res ) are there quality benefits over xavc by using pro res HQ?

 

[bengiles]

I'm using both at the mo - some legacy PRHQ and everything I've shot since Feb on XAVC Intra (caveat: everything at HD res.)

Anecdotally, I'd say they're visually indistinguishable and both can be pushed around in post without falling apart.

However, I'm finding XAVC Intra much more taxing on my NLE system.

Where I've saved on an XDCA, I'm probably going to have to spend the same or more on a new iMac 5K to cope with the post overhead.

 

[allenfacemire]

I have the xdca extension unit so I finally upgraded my firmware to get the pro res codec but after using xavc i I am wondering if its worth it ( unless a client specifically asks for pro res ) are there quality benefits over xavc by using pro res HQ?

Nobody seems to have answered the question other than on the surface both XAVC and Pro Res look the same.
I would concur. And I will also agree that XAVC seems to be s bit of a computer hog. I will also note that ProRes readily opens in QuickTime while you need hoops in order to just view XAVC on older MacBooks.
That said, I thought the XAVC codec, which is Sony's answer to ProRes, was supposed to have s better compression scheme making it more efficient in less space.
Those of us who are doing projects using mixed codecs are faced with interesting dilemmas; ie, mixing footage from FS7 and A7s. Unless you are willing to cable up the S7a to an Odyssey to record ProRes, (which in interview world is fine, not so much in run and gun world), you're kind of have to use XAVC, if for no other reason than to make life a bit easier for your editor.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Note that the XAVC in the A7s is a different variant than the ones available in the FS7, F5 and F55. So technically you are still mixing formats.

I would say that there are still situations where one can see the difference between various forms of XAVC and ProRes. Particularly in shadow detail of complex moving subjects. It is an easy test to perform and I would suggest shooting both formats simultaneously to compare. In particular I suggest looking for macro blocking and increased apparent noise.

 

[cuervo]

IMHO, there are 3 viable, current technology codecs worthy of consideration. XAVC-I, Prores and DNxHR. As noted, the XAVC codec is computationally intensive. ProRes is a variable bit rate codec while DNxHR is a fixed bitrate codec. The real advantage of either DNxHR or prores is the ability to import directly into the NLE of your choice to use as a DI, saving time on the transcoding and generational loss, which is minor. The single option that really makes a codec stand out, IMHO, is the ability to record compressed RGB, available from ProRes 444.

 

[ChristopherA]

Note that the XAVC in the A7s is a different variant than the ones available in the FS7, F5 and F55. So technically you are still mixing formats.

I would say that there are still situations where one can see the difference between various forms of XAVC and ProRes. Particularly in shadow detail of complex moving subjects. It is an easy test to perform and I would suggest shooting both formats simultaneously to compare. In particular I suggest looking for macro blocking and increased apparent noise.

I will note that there is a difference between shooting internal ProRes HQ using the XDCA back and recording on the internal cards and shooting RAW to ProRes HQ on an Odyssey 7Q.

My tests with the O7Q Prores show that there is more noise than XAVC-I, but also more detail. This is not the case with internal Prores. XAVC-I and internal Prores files appear identical, with the Prores file being larger.