ProRes 422?

I'm sure many of you here are anxious to see for yourselves just how good this codec looks. I hope it doesn't just end up becoming the next Pixlet.

Here's the Apple PrpRes 422 Whitepaper (pdf.)

- Justin Barham -

sounds great for the hd folks.

i have always wondered why they dont do more for sd editing tho. it would seem to me that the new codecs need to be aimed at replcing mpeg2 as a dvd format. i have yet to encode a single dvd that played back within 10% of capture quality.

to jump into hd from where i believe the average all in one editor is approximately 7500 bucks. Its like they are pushing hd when the consumer can only play it thru satellite or a deck that cost about 900 dollars.

it would seem to me that they are wasting a lot of time to create hd editing miricles without a standardized hd format.
meanwhile the sd format is being treated as if it is vhs. amazing considering that sd makes up 70% of john q. publics viewing. sd has not been perfected in my eyes yet. Mpeg 2 is where some considerations need to be made. maybe we need a hi-res mpeg2+ codec created.

but it doesn't mean the prores 422 isn't a good idea. i does make me feel better about the type of storage unit i will need nxt year.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I dont have much time to post as I'm up to ears with SuperMeet but seeing ProRess 422 is pretty jaw dropping. It really is quite wonderful.

Mike

Thanks for the reply Mike. Always good to hear from someone who has actually seen it in person.

Have fun at the meet. One of these years I'm going to make it up there.

- Justin Barham -

Jeff

ProRes 422 is not just for HD, you can use it for SD too.

Martin Baker
[www.digital-heaven.co.uk]
Unique plug-ins and tools for Apple Pro Apps

My main question is if this can be used as a "good enough" online format for some HD projects.

For example, if I'm taking in footage from D-5 HD or HD Cam, ProDV HD is a pretty good offline format. Using ProRes 422 would be an improvement it looks like. But will it be enough improved that for some projects I might just want to stay ProRes all the way to tape?

Hrmmm...

- Justin Barham -

ProRes is being touted as an online solution. A really clean yet highly compressed codec that is to deliver high def resolution at SD data rates. What took up 1TB with UC 10-bit took up merely 170GB with ProRes. They tout that with this codec you can edit HD shows with your laptop, utilizing your MBP and the new AJA I/O HD. This codec is to compete with the Avid DNxHD codec, that is compressed HD that has a very low data rate.

Well...in my opinion, it ain't there yet.

They showed a comparison...split screen with 10-bit UC HD, and the ProRes, and at the Apple demo, it was pretty close, but I did see a slight difference. I did notice the compression. And at the Apple booth, the difference was even more noticable. Very big difference in the areas with blue, but I even saw it in the grays. The gamma was lighter, as I expect it would be. But it was VERY noticable. Again, it might be the monitors they were using, but it also might be the codec.

Just to mention, the codec is still BETA, so there might be improvements later on. But, I can easily see this as an offline codec, to use instead of DVCPRO HD.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Thanks for your thoughts and observations Shane. There's nothing like a first hand look.

It seems at the very least ProRes will be a great offline codec, especially for HD. I'm re-reading the White Paper and it seems its' realtime playback performance is far better than even DVCProHD.

I'm also interested in the dedicated ProRes chip AJA mentions as being in the IO HD. Getting a little fantastical here, but I'd love to see something like built into a PCI capture card and used to further power ProRes rendering.



FYI, not sure why I called DVCPro HD "ProDV HD" as I did above. To many windows open at the same time I guess.

- Justin Barham -

<<it would seem to me that they are wasting a lot of time to create hd editing miricles without a standardized hd format.>>

I hear ya. I felt much the same way a couple of years ago. 95% of what I worked on was SD. But now it seems that HD is really starting to gain steam in "the real world."

About 40% of the projects I work with now are HD, and by the end of next year I expect to be working with some form of HD about 75% of the time. The clients that are SD will almost all be inquiring about an HD uprez.

- Justin Barham -

Its interesting to [suddenly] hear people refer to the DVCProHD codec as an OFF-LINE solution. I have been carping on the poor quality of DVCProHD and getting slammed for it. I guess in part because most of the people using it were using it as an ON-LINE solution and they didn't want the dirty little secret out.

Well I have not seen this codec in person yet, but have talked to a few friends who know a thing or two about codecs and they were quite impressed. It will be interesting to see how it compares to the Cineform codec. But I'm sure the ProRes, Cineform and Sheer Video codecs all blow the doors off the DVCProHD codec.

And now that Apple has jumped into this arena maybe we can get some meaningful dialog about compressed workflows for the 95% of the people who can't [or don't want to] afford uncompressed HD.

And now that they've added the ability to color grade we can also start meaningful discussions about a digital intermediate workflow. Before ProRes 422 the answer was always "Why do we need to do that, just convert it to DVCProHD and it just works..." Oops, got lost there??

Anyway, the ProRes codec is worth the price of the upgrade all on its own. [if it works]

ok, bit of wildly biased speculation not altogether fcp focussed coming up so avert your eyes if easily offended ...

I see the Sony XDCAM HD codecs gaining a *lot* of ground against the DVCPRO HD codec, at the mid to lower end of the production marketplace where it currently seems to court much favor.

Sony's 35 Mb/s 4:2:0 codec already blows the doors off of DVCPROHD as far as quality is concerned ... when the 50 Mb/s 4:2:2 codec arrives I'd expect it to turn even more heads, as will the solid state (XxpressCard) Sony XDCAM EX camera, with which Sony seems to be squarely targetting the HVX200 crowd.

i am not seeing many hd jobs. i may have worked in hd 2x in 5 years. i know that hd will catch on. its just a matter of creating a affordable hd player for the consumer.

i really feel like because of hd even the dvd itself is being re-examined as a final format. i would not even be suprised to see some sort of 100g chip based delivery the size of a lighter.

it seems i read something about prores being a burn codec that is accepted by dvdsp4. i hope they do move pass swf and flv for online compatibility. i think that there are a lot of problems with flash video.

hey justin
are you saying that i can encode strait to prores and loose nothing? would this be considered an upres or would the codec keep it at the highest quality sd?

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

XDCAM is an MPEG2 based GOP codec.

Maybe good for ENG. Not good for anything else.

- Justin Barham -

<<i am not seeing many hd jobs. i may have worked in hd 2x in 5 years.>>

You will. Commercials want to be HD. Indie films want to be HD. More and more broadcast shows need to be HD.

The HD DVD format war is a problem. But for broadcast or projection, HD is here now.

- Justin Barham -

One doesnt shoot and edit in HD just for NOW, but for the viable life of the program you are creating. Have you seen a non-anamorphic letterbox SD program on an HDTV? It will never make you a dime in the future.

-Christopher S. Johnson

christopher

there are plenty of programs on hdtv that are not hd. you can use the shane ross technic to upres sd and get nearly hd. a lot of programs are done that way.
as far as the money, you will make plenty over the next 2 years because normally a sd job that a client decides he/she wants in hd nearly doubles in price. a 30sec commercial spot can be done for about 1800 (in sd) but that same project in hd could be as much as 4000. from a client budget point of view, if they can be reassured that the sd work is going to be crisp they would much prefer the sd price.
getting stuff to hdtv maybe your goal but there are a ton of jobs that will still be shot in sd. there are training videos, indy films, commercials also. sd is strong in local markets and more accessible to the general public.
someday soon all businesses will know that value of video as a marketing tool but right now we are still convincing that local restaraunts, car dealerships, and construction companies of why they need video period.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I am sure that as of right now, we are both right. I'm speaking of broadcast documentary for cable, which could be available for re-purposing and re-runs in the future.

I watch some of the best upscaling in the nation on PBS every week. I watch Nova and Frontline on Off The Air ATSC HD signal to a Sony CRT HDTV. It is quite obvious when shots in the doc go from HD to SD and back again. The SD looks like it was very nice anamorphic Digi-Beta. Its....OK. But just OK. Its soft and mushy but not artifacty, which is passable.

But a whole show done like that? It would be a much harder sell in the future on Discovery or HBO.

So my main point is, with the under $10,000 cameras available, why not shoot HD and have an HD master even if its going to be seen only SD for the next year or two? Again, this is about doc series.

-Christopher

yeah for broadcast on the bigs you will need hd. i use dvx100b's and at present i get no complaints but i am not doing docs. i am doing local commercials and corporate projects.

i will eventually upgrade to the hvx as i am a panasoniholic.

A man who was obviously doing well in business once told me, " there is no need to spend money on an upgrade or expansion unless your current business is absolutely demanding it." at current i dont have the demand for hd and probly wont see that for at least a year.

its great that they have over come the storage issues tho. by the time i get ready to upgrade all of those little bothersome issues with current hd formats will be worked out.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I think your model is realistic. And I love the DVX-100B. I editing footage from that cam as we speak.

-Christopher S. Johnson

Shane wrote-
[Just to mention, the codec is still BETA, so there might be improvements later on. But, I can easily see this as an offline codec, to use instead of DVCPRO HD.]

Also, there's two flavors, and I wonder which beta you were assessing. There's a "high quality" flavor as well. Any word on that?

- Loren
Today's FCP 4 / 5 keytip:
Preview unrendered effects with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com

"Sony's 35 Mb/s 4:2:0 codec already blows the doors off of DVCPROHD as far as quality is concerned"

How do you figure?
It has considerably less color information and is much more compressed so how can it be better?

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Hi Justin

Interesting response. What, in your opinion, makes it good for ENG? And if it is good for ENG, why then would it not be any good for anything else? You seem very convinced

Andy

That's pretty much what XDCAM was designed for AFAIK. Quick ingestion with low data rates. Network capable.

Why shoot GOP if you have a choice? MPEG2 is a delivery codec.

- Justin Barham -

Loren, I've been working full days, so no time to ask and dig deep. But I get to tomorrow.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

what is ENG?

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Electronic News Gathering.

- Justin Barham -

he he. don't worry J. there will be "new" bothersome issues by then ;-)

Why shoot GOP if you have a choice?
I do understand your argument, but I wonder, do you shoot based on codec or image quality? In prnciple, why not shoot GOP "if" it produces superior images?

MPEG2 is a delivery codec.
Cerrtainly MPEG2 was originally conceived as a delivery codec. But with brains and budgets far bigger than ours behind it, it seems to be makng leaps and bounds as a production frmat too.

Factor in FCP's Open Format Timelines, not to mention the kind of computing power thats becoming available ...?

<<he he. don't worry J. there will be "new" bothersome issues by then ;-)>>

Whatever you say dude.

- Justin Barham -

<<Cerrtainly MPEG2 was originally conceived as a delivery codec. But with brains and budgets far bigger than ours behind it, it seems to be makng leaps and bounds as a production frmat too.>>

Well then you keep shooting in silly GOP formats. Not as if even Apple is addressing this with ProRes.

To sum up: MPEG2/GOP formats are only to be shot by news people, High School students, and wedding videographers. Because as a capture format, it's meant to be quick and dirty. And if you've ever had to look at it, "dirty" definitely comes to mind.

But if you dig it, then great.

- Justin Barham -