ProRes HQ 422 conversion to Windows compatible codec?

Quicktime has included the ProRes decoder since version 7.xx or whatever. No need to install a separate piece. Also, DNxHD isn't going to be any faster on a PC than ProRes. All has to be decoded by Quicktime.
 
PDR said:
you can try converting it to cineform or dnxhd. If you need something lossless, you can try lagarith or huffyuv
Click to expand...
Does Lagarith offer HD or even higher, 2k, 4k etc?

Which does it offer the best quality? 1) Cineform? 2) DNxHD? 3) Lagarith?

Does Lagarith compare with the others in terms of quality?
 
Last edited:
PDR said:
Prores422 is compatible with Windows

You need quicktime installed, and the prores windows decoder
http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Windows

But performance on PC's isn't as good as it is on Macs.
Click to expand...

PerroneFord said:
Quicktime has included the ProRes decoder since version 7.xx or whatever. No need to install a separate piece. Also, DNxHD isn't going to be any faster on a PC than ProRes. All has to be decoded by Quicktime.
Click to expand...
But it isn't possible to edit, grade, etc ProRes natively in Windows, right?
 
Lagarith and UT are not constrained to any specific dimensions. I don't know if either has an upper limit, but I've had no trouble exporting out 4k R3D to Lags or UT files.

Lagarith and UT are lossless codecs. They will look identical to the original.

Both edit fine inside of Premiere Pro. I've been converting my DV clips to Lags files for about a year and a half without issue. (HD, on the other hand, will require more resources. I have not tested those.)
 
Jim Simon said:
Lagarith and UT are not constrained to any specific dimensions. I don't know if either has an upper limit, but I've had no trouble exporting out 4k R3D to Lags or UT files.

Lagarith and UT are lossless codecs. They will look identical to the original.

Both edit fine inside of Premiere Pro.
Click to expand...
Which is the best? Which is the best performer with less resources?
 
Definitely UT. The files were smaller than Lags and had no trouble playing back from a single drive. Converted quicker, too.
 
Jim Simon said:
Definitely UT. The files were smaller than Lags and had no trouble playing back from a single drive. Converted quicker, too.
Click to expand...
Only SD?
Or HD or even 4k R3D, too?

And apart the resources issue, better quality too?
 
Last edited:
I tested 1080p/24 footage with Lags and UT in YUV 422 mode. Lags had trouble playing back and was larger. UT played fine and was smaller.

Both are lossless.

I'll try out some RED and let you know.
 
Jim Simon said:
I tested 1080p/24 footage with Lags and UT in YUV 422 mode. Lags had trouble playing back and was larger. UT played fine and was smaller.

Both are lossless.

I'll try out some RED and let you know.
Click to expand...

Any news on your tests with RED 4K footage?
 
The only RED clip I currently have is 5k. Converting to both Lags and UT saw the file size increase significantly over the original, from about 570 MB for the RED to 1GB for the LAGS and almost 1.2 GB for the UT.

Neither would play as well as the original RED clip from my single hard drive. Both Lags and UT need fast RAIDs at this resolution.

Testing some HD clips, I again saw a marked increase in file size of the UT over Lags. These codecs have been updated since my last posting, clearly things have changed.

Curiously, the Lags 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 files were exactly the same file size, down to the last bit, whereas the UT versions showed a difference in size, something I'd expect for one of them having twice the color information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top