Pro Res

M

Mac

Well-known member
Now that the dust has settled and many have been working with these files for a while, I thought I'd ask if anyones' seeing a significant difference between the three Pro Res choices.

I did a series of tests over the last few days with HQ, std and LT and can't see any difference at all in the footage on my 42" monitor. LT file size is about half standard pro Rez, and a quarter the size of HQ for identical clips.

However, has anyone experienced a quality shift downstream with LT?
 
Apple ProRes is a very interesting compression algorithm that is frame-independent and full raster with variable bit rate. Each frame is individually encoded at the bit rate up to the upper limit specified. The actual bit rate may be much lower and depends on the footage. So it is possible that the ProRes LT at 100Mbps looks close to (if not exactly like) ProRes HQ at 220 Mbps. A particular capture might not carry enough information to require more actual bit rate. This is to say that there may be no discernable difference in a specific footage encoded at different ProRes settings.
 
If you're going to be stepping on the footage, creating different generations (e.g. edit -> VFX-> colour correct), then you'll want to step up to Pro Res HQ, otherwise LT should be fine.
 
Thanks for the responses... On their site Panasonic recommends plain ol' 422, so that's why I did the test. I shot a lot of material with trees and oak moths flying through leaves and then stacked a bunch of filters on - 3-way color corrector and several Tiffen color and diffusion filters - just to see if it changes anything, and I'm not seeing it.

The LT holds up equally to std 422, but being naturally paranoid, I will use 422 or HQ for things like commercials. For a long documentary (which is my primary function), it looks like I can get away with LT to save space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top