GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

Cary Knoop said:
That is simply not true, whatever codec you use in order to re-encode you need to decode it first, decoding of inter-frame H.264 will not be significantly different than decoding ProRes as long as the the video is rendered sequentially. The slowness comes only when you move the play head to a particular place, then the NLE needs to calculate the current frame if it is not an I-frame.
Click to expand...

If you are finishing in the same ProRes format you shot in, on the shots that have no effects applied, there will be no re-encoding, just copying of bits. H.264 will always have to re-encode. So there can be a lot of time saved.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I will ignore the endless bashing of H.264, with similar bitrates H.264 is just as good as any other codec, and H.264 can encode intra-frame only as well without all those alleged 'bad' motion issues. H.264 can even encode lossless if necessary.


That is simply not true, whatever codec you use in order to re-encode you need to decode it first, decoding of inter-frame H.264 will not be significantly different than decoding ProRes as long as the the video is rendered sequentially. The slowness comes only when you move the play head to a particular place, then the NLE needs to calculate the current frame if it is not an I-frame.
Click to expand...

Dude calm down will you. Nobody is bashing h264. Show me an instance where h264 gets the same bitrate as other formats? I will wait while you look for one. All-I 400mbps coming to the GH5 is not as high as ProRes422 HQ which can use up to 880mbps for 30p. So even when that format comes out the all-I internal still will not have the same data rate.

Decoding of different formats takes a different amount of system resources. The same is even true between similar formats like ProRes and Photojpeg. Some formats decode better than others which leaves more resources left for other tasks. Plus even though a system may playback native h264 in realtime doesn't mean it isn't working harder to decode each of those frames. Finally an NLE will sometimes use a faster form of decoding for playback than it will use for rendering. During playback the main goal is to play the frames as quickly as possible. During rendering quality is the main concern. It only takes seconds to do a quick test to realize ProRes renders faster. Even without any effects I can render a ProRes sequence in half the time as a h264 native sequence.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I will ignore the endless bashing of H.264, with similar bitrates H.264 is just as good as any other codec, and H.264 can encode intra-frame only as well without all those alleged 'bad' motion issues. H.264 can even encode lossless if necessary.


That is simply not true, whatever codec you use in order to re-encode you need to decode it first, decoding of inter-frame H.264 will not be significantly different than decoding ProRes as long as the the video is rendered sequentially. The slowness comes only when you move the play head to a particular place, then the NLE needs to calculate the current frame if it is not an I-frame.
Click to expand...

It's not bashing to educate on the strengths and weaknesses of a particular format. h.264 was designed for one thing, and is being used for another. For its time it was a great, very efficient, delivery codec. Through brute force, it's passable for capture and editing. ProRes was designed for capturing (quality) and editing (decode speed.) ProRes would be a horrible codec for consumer delivery. The right tool for the right job.

I for one am glad that creatively misusing h.264 in this way gets me an affordable, compact camera that can record to SD cards...but I don't kid myself that there aren't trade-offs.
 
Even if my machine can handle the toughest of H264 I still and will always transcode to Prores. Why? The editing process and the export speed. Simple, go out and shoot in H264, get home and ingest and transcode that night. Then in the edit, Prores is ready in the morning. But why if the machine can handle h264? Why waste time transcoding? The export! Thats why! Are you so awesome at video production that client likes every first pass edit? Because I rarely have a client that says, "Looks great, job finished". They always have me trim a second here, a second there. They always have me move a take here or a take there. They always change their mind on music or want some narrative cut out. So, when they make those decisions what do you have to do? You have to make the adjustment and RE-EXPORT. And being that in my experience the Prores material exports nearly twice as fast as editing native h264, is the reason I transcode everything. (Or just acquire in Prores to a recorder). Simple logic.
 
dustylense said:
Even if my machine can handle the toughest of H264 I still and will always transcode to Prores. Why? The editing process and the export speed. Simple, go out and shoot in H264, get home and ingest and transcode that night. Then in the edit, Prores is ready in the morning. But why if the machine can handle h264? Why waste time transcoding? The export! Thats why! Are you so awesome at video production that client likes every first pass edit? Because I rarely have a client that says, "Looks great, job finished". They always have me trim a second here, a second there. They always have me move a take here or a take there. They always change their mind on music or want some narrative cut out. So, when they make those decisions what do you have to do? You have to make the adjustment and RE-EXPORT. And being that in my experience the Prores material exports nearly twice as fast as editing native h264, is the reason I transcode everything. (Or just acquire in Prores to a recorder). Simple logic.
Click to expand...

I transcode to Pro-res in some situations, but my big question for people who do it religiously is:

How you manage hard drive space?

How long you keep footage on file? Do you use the prores for the working project and then ditch right after that and keep original h264 files for archive in case the client needs to revisit?

Or, do you keep prores and ditch the originals?

The speed in export is nearly twice as fast, but the size difference is huge.

I do a fair amount of multicam classical concert stuff. For a multicam edit in premiere, transcoding to prores is a must, especially with at least some of the cams in 4k. However, for the typical promo video, I'm always on the fence.
 
bashing on h264... hehe... h264 is awesome. It's opened doors never dreamed of before. I'm sure we all remember being amazed at the quality of it years back and what could be streamed.

ProRes is industry standard in my experience and everyone wants their final files delivered in ProRes. The funny thing I've noticed is most people don't really understand what this means or realize they gave me h.264 files to begin with yet insist on ProRes export. Still valuable for future renders but you can tell how many people don't understand it's not reeallllyy ProRes if it was captured hyper compressed to begin with.

Then again, it generally doesn't matter. H.264 is pretty much always good enough, but when you need the cleanest footage in tough image scenarios, ProRes is invaluable.

Actually, what I am most looking forward to is 400mbps H.265 IPB becoming a standard option for internal recording. I find that increased processing power to decode is actually generally an easier/lower cost and better workflow. When you consider the workflow of ProRes it really can be expensive: external recorded with SSD media, lots of computer storage space + redudnant backup space + possible 3rd copy for offsite location depending on your perogative. Its a lot of media.

For my personal situation, I'd rather upgrade my processor than have an endless stack of HDDs and SSDs especially when juggling multiple large projects. The processor is actually cheaper, and takes up much less space and adds less workflow time management and hassle.

I do think when we hit h.265 400mbps IPB with a toggle-able Intra-frame option + 200/400 option, the OMB crowd will reaalllyyy have it made. But who knows, camera manufactures may jump straight to internal ProRes, so we'll see.
 
In FCP X, the proxy feature is great for 4k h.264 files. It transcodes to Prores proxy format which doesn't increase the file size too much, creating a decent looking file that is always linked to the master. You can toggle back and forth between them in your timeline. It's great for previewing effects as I can stack dozens of filters in proxy mode and see them in real time. You can export in proxy mode quickly for showing clients, then toggle to original for exporting your final.
 
Steve Ogden said:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply & lesson. I live in the Windows world so I presume (hope) the ProRes comments are mostly applicable to DnX (HQ or HQX for UHD). Either way the argument is compelling for the Atomos.
Click to expand...

Sorry it takes a long time to say all the different formats all the time but yes I mean whatever Atomos format works best for your workflow. ProRes and DnX are more or less the same thing depending on the platform you use. Just be aware that there are multiple levels of each format and the lower ones can have some macro blocking and other artifacts. ProRes LT for example can get a bit ugly in detail areas. Use the highest data rate version of your format of choice and you will be good. Normal ProRes will save you some space but in my humble opinion the space savings is just not worth the quality sacrifice. Space is cheap, quality is forever.
 
Batutta said:
In FCP X, the proxy feature is great for 4k h.264 files. It transcodes to Prores proxy format which doesn't increase the file size too much, creating a decent looking file that is always linked to the master. You can toggle back and forth between them in your timeline. It's great for previewing effects as I can stack dozens of filters in proxy mode and see them in real time. You can export in proxy mode quickly for showing clients, then toggle to original for exporting your final.
Click to expand...


I often do this on longer projects. FCPX has one of the best proxy systems I have ever seen in a NLE. You gain all the speed benefits of ProRes and can go back to native for rendering with a flip of a switch. The change is instant. Proxy also cuts well on the most pathetic Mac computer like a Mac Book Air. Not optimal but if you need to slap together a rough cut in the field from a 5400 RPM portable drive proxy is worth its weight in gold. I can cut a 4k project with proxy on my 2011 17" MBP like butter. Proxy may not be visually perfect but I feel it beats the pants off the crude 1/4 or 1/8 res of Adobe Premiere. Especially when sending out through a Blackmagic device to a monitor in a hotel or for client review.
 
ozmorphasis said:
I transcode to Pro-res in some situations, but my big question for people who do it religiously is:

How you manage hard drive space?

How long you keep footage on file? Do you use the prores for the working project and then ditch right after that and keep original h264 files for archive in case the client needs to revisit?

Or, do you keep prores and ditch the originals?

The speed in export is nearly twice as fast, but the size difference is huge.

I do a fair amount of multicam classical concert stuff. For a multicam edit in premiere, transcoding to prores is a must, especially with at least some of the cams in 4k. However, for the typical promo video, I'm always on the fence.
Click to expand...

Ill just answer the top question.

"How do you manage hard drive space"?
I make client pay twice what hard drives cost. It's called markup.

But in reality. In FCPX if you want to free up space, you just delete the prores. And it's really simple.

For any Multicam work, I use proxy.
 
Adobe Premiere has a great proxy system now too. My 4K files in proxy DNxHD are a 10th of the size of the originals and run very smooth. And with the click of a button I can bounce back and forth.
 
jj4vr said:
Adobe Premiere has a great proxy system now too. My 4K files in proxy DNxHD are a 10th of the size of the originals and run very smooth. And with the click of a button I can bounce back and forth.
Click to expand...

I need to just check out Premiere's proxy workflow. I had forgotten that they added that and never experimented. Thanks for the reminder.
 
ProRes can't be an industry standard until Apple open it up to encode on Windows PCs.

As long as it remains Mac only it's never going to be useful to 90% of the world as a proxy or main format.

Sorry for the rant, but ProRes frustrates me no end as a Windows user. Even the decode option is out of date on Windows because Apple don't keep it updated on our platform. Then clients want ProRes as deliverables.

You want to call it a standard? Then open it up as a standard.

Until then I'll keep using other formats.
 
visceralpsyche said:
ProRes can't be an industry standard until Apple open it up to encode on Windows PCs.

As long as it remains Mac only it's never going to be useful to 90% of the world as a proxy or main format.

Sorry for the rant, but ProRes frustrates me no end as a Windows user. Even the decode option is out of date on Windows because Apple don't keep it updated on our platform. Then clients want ProRes as deliverables.

You want to call it a standard? Then open it up as a standard.

Until then I'll keep using other formats.
Click to expand...
I think it is also it is really sad that many people in the creative industries do not give their support to open standards and keep praising proprietary and protective Apple products to the sky.
I suppose I must be surprised that ProRes is not proclaimed to be a cure against the common cold as well.
 
Is it wrong if a client requests ProRes to just encode it as DNxHD to a .mov wrapper? Isn't it for all intents and purposes all the same?
 
filmguy123 said:
Is it wrong if a client requests ProRes to just encode it as DNxHD to a .mov wrapper? Isn't it for all intents and purposes all the same?
Click to expand...

Yeah it's wrong if that isn't what they wanted. If you can't deliver, ask if they'll take DNxHD. I'm sure a lot of my clients would. But trying to pull a fast one on them is an easy way to piss off a client. I've had files kicked back to me from QC for all sorts of nitpicky stuff.
 
Bern Caughey said:
Like it, or not, ProRes is the Industry Standard, & Hollywood looks like an Apple Store.
Click to expand...
...which explains a lot about the creativity (or lack thereof) permeating Hollywood these days ;)

Sorry for dragging this thread off-topic folks! Let's get back to discussing the GH5 now.

v1.1 of the firmware comes out Monday.

The latest Adobe Premiere 2017.1 sh!ts the bed with 10bit GH5 files.

That sort of thing!

Cheers,

Paul :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top