ProRes 422?

Jeez Justin

I thought we were having an intelligent exchange of thoughts here? When did it turn into a hissy fit?

Andy

RE: HDV is for losers

Of course there are problems with some GOP MPEG-2 footage, but we just shot a documentary for Sony Music that is getting a DVD release. We used the Sony HDV cams. The concert part of the film was shot on HDCAM but all of the doc interludes were shot with HDV. And it worked great. And its for a Sony commercial DVD. And Sony loved it. So I think your comments are only partially right.

By the way, getting back on topic, is ProRes an intraframe or Long GOP?

-Christopher S. Johnson

ProRes is an intraframe codec.

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

<<I thought we were having an intelligent exchange of thoughts here? When did it turn into a hissy fit?>>

Sorry you're right.

- Justin Barham -

Maybe we're getting to the meat of the discussion.

HDV and DVCProHD are acquisition formats, they are both crap and both good for different reasons. Most people on this forum have expressed a real dislike for HDV in favor of DVCProHD.

I continue to argue that it shouldn't matter, you should be able to convert any acquisition format to a higher level codec that is better suited for post-production that enables US to decide how our content will be processed, not camera manufacturers.

Apparently Apple agrees with that concept and is offering a potential solution, the ProRes codec.

This is a great thing, not because the ProRes codec actually solves the problem, the quality and usability still remains to be seen, but there are other solutions to this problem available right now that can be used in FCP 5.1.4.

Apple, FCP users and FCP forums are really behind the curve when it comes to discussing and implementing a digital intermediate workflow. Now that Apple has announced the ProRes codec I'm hoping that we can begin to debate and develop a DI workflow without all of the incessant carping about how much better DVCProHD is than HDV, or HDV is only for wedding viedographers [as though they're second class citizens or something].

We should be discussing uncompressed HD versus compressed HD workflows. If you can afford to work with uncompressed HD then you don't need to worry about the ProRes [or any other codec designed for compression].

Anyone interested in that or should we continue discussing the virtues of long gop versus I-frame?

OK how about this:

What are the real MB per second data rates of ProRes and ProRes HQ? Would a simple RAID of two SATA drives be enough for the overhead needed to have lots of fun with these two codecs? If its extremely rare for our own workflow to ever need real uncompressed HD, then what is a good economical "middle road" RAID set up?

-Christopher

Regarding the RAID itself, there's a couple of things to consider, security of the data [RAID Level], capacity and performance.

Using two SATA drives in a RAID0 you could expect to get 3 or 4 streams with the ProRes codec. There's no real backup or security here, if you loose a drive you'll have to re-capture. I genereally use RAID0 for shorter projects or where re-capturing footage would be easy and straight forward.

Here's link to the these types of drives [www.g-technology.com] There are also quite a few RAID5 enclosures with five or more disks [the more spindles the greater the redundancy and higher the performance] in both SATA and fire wire. Although I would not recommend FW at this level. FW is great for portability if your going to sneaker net but SATA is much more reliable with better performance.

This works well if your a single artisan working on a single project. But if your trying to manage several projects concurrently or sharing data between multiple artisans then this is where the concept of managing a separate shared file system for efficiency and managing quality through workflow becomes very important. Fiber channel enables shared file systems and codecs such as the ProRes codec enable us to develop a "look" or "style" that goes beyond what camera manufactured codecs. I'd even argue that although the image quality might be less in a compressed workflow, the efficiency would allow more time to be creative.

So the next level up from simple RAID0 would be products like - [www.facilis2.com] with file system management software like [www.commandsoft.com]

Although I like these products I'm not recommending them, its just a great place to start learning about this type of work flow if your just starting your research.

even better get a

caldigit raid

better than g-tech hands down.

""" 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 """"

In terms of HDV vs DVCPRO HD it is true that they are both "crappy" but it is also true that HDV is considerably more crappy than HDV.

When discussing the merits of different codecs it is important to look at the technical side of the discussion and not the "I shot something on X Codec and someone liked it so it rocks" arguments as it is subjective and pointless..

HDV is supercompressed. Even more so than DV.
It is MPEG2 which makes it very hard to key or grade.
HDV has a data rate of 19MB/Sec.
But most importantly it samples color at 4:2:0, one step down in quality from
DV which is 4:1:1.

DVCPRO is also compressed but less than HDV.
It has a bit rate of up to 100MB/Sec
DVCPRO samples color at 4:2:2 which is a lot better than HDV and Mini DV and this allows
the codec to be used for keying and some grading (Its only 8bit so grading is not that good with DVCPRO HD either)

As a conclusion:
DVCPRO is not great but can be used for some small to medium broadcast productions and low-budget music videos etc.
HDV on the other hand is quite useless and I would not recommend anyone use it for anything that is going on air, unless the quality of the image is unimportant.

On another note:
The movie "Once upon a time in Mexico" was shot entirely on varicam.
Varicam has a bigger chip that the HVX202 but it uses the same codec: DVCPRO HD.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Johan, it is entirely legitimate to report a successful production for a client who loves the outcome -- in this case, Sony Music. The technical stats you describe are well known to all but recent students. In fact, the final render pass of the HDV and HDCAM material we had was done in DVCPRO-HD, so your preaching to the choir.

Nobody in this thread was saying that HDV was perfect or better than DVCPRO-HD. I was simply negating the earlier comment that HDV has no place in professional environments. That's just false, both in theory and practice (at least in the documentary community in Los Angeles and Austin). You may think it SHOULDNT be, but it is.

Also, I explicitly said that I was aware of the limitations of the format.

-Christopher S. Johnson

Also, the point of this thread, which I was trying to get back to was the significance of the ProRes codec, not the virtues of HDV or DVCProHD.

The use of HQ intermediate ProRes (4:2:2) , Sheer Video (4:4:4) and Cineform (4:4:4) codecs greatly expands the usability of both HDV and DVCProHD.

And if you want to look at the technical side, DVCProHD is 1280x1080 8bits with a fixed bit rate DCT compression. Although HDV is an m2t stream @ 19Mb's, at least its 1440x1080. You can never get back resolution that you didn't capture, however, when HDV is encoded to any of these intermediate codecs the results are surprisingly good.

I don't quite understand why there's so much debate about Panasonic versus Sony versus Canon cameras on an FCP user forum. If I were a DP maybe I'd care more, but I'm an editor and I'm looking for tools that enable me to create the highest quality look I can as efficiently as possible. I realize that compromises need to be made because of budgetary constraints and having the ability to work with compressed HD using a "Post-Production" codec rather than a "camera" codec just seems the right way to go.

You are right, that is the REAL topic here. I got caught in an ancient forum discussion there for a minute. This IS about the new way to edit those HDV and DVCPRO-HD media we get in our edit suites. Tanscode to one of the new modern HD compressed codecs and move on... I am thankful they are here.

As most of you know, I have been touting the benefits of the SheerVideo codec that we use in our tapeless animation workflow for some time now. We are currently in production on our 3rd feature length animation project and a series for ABC Family all produced, edited and delivered entirely in lossless SheerVideo 10b 4:2:2 1920X1080p. We have 6 HD FCP systems editing simultaneously in this format from one Terrablock SAN.
The one drawback to this codec is that Apple has not enabled it for RT. Therefore I was really excited to hear about and see the ProRes codec at NAB. I must say that I was impressed and was full ready to run it through the mill back at the lab to see if we could use it as a replacement for SheerVideo.

It was then that I learned that Apple will not be making the codec available outside of FCP.

"Say what!!!?"

That's right. Apple has no plans to make the codec available unless you have FCP installed on your MAC.

"So what?" says you?

Well, I have a building full of animators, compositors and VFX artists, as well as studios full of animators in Korea, Japan, China, India, Russia and Ireland to name a few, who all use Windows boxes to run Flash, After Effects, US Animation, Maya, etc, and can render to and read from SheerVideo using QT for Windows. None of them will be able to render to or read ProRez. Yes I could transcode, but the point of a modern tapeless workflow, is to remove as many steps from the process and be as efficient as possible.

It seems to me that making ProRez available to anyone who needs to receive from or deliver footage to FCP, would only serve to sell more FCP systems.

It's a shame that Apple has decided to get into the codec race with this great product, only to shoot themselves in the foot as they leave the starting blocks. I hope that they re-think this.

Robert Weaver
Director of Post Production
Starz Media - Film Roman

Robert I would like to hear more about your experience with the Sheer Video Codec.

Apple is an odd company [please don't slam me for saying so, no flaming intended] but the idea that one company will provide the entire post solution is a bit naive, and from their actions, this is the concussion that I have reached.

They won't enable RT for third party codec developers and won't allow other application developers to use the ProRes codec. I guess it could be argued that its just really early on and they will eventually license it to others, but they have already done so with Aja, so they already have the capability.

Developing an intermediate codec is the first step to working in a digital intermediate environment, DI's by their very nature MUST be open or there's little benefit to it. I'm guessing FCP Server is the next link in the DI chain for Apple.

I don't think Apple will enable RT for 3rd party codecs anytime soon. However they claim you can now place any format on a timeline without having to render, so is RT enabled there?

Chuck Spaulding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robert I would like to hear more about your
> experience with the Sheer Video Codec.

Do a search and you'll find my posts. I will be posting more info later as Andreas, the developer, has made many improvements since I last posted.

> Apple is an odd company but the idea that one
> company will provide the entire post solution is a
> bit naive, and from their actions, this is the
> concussion that I have reached.
>
I think it's more a matter of Apple losing sight of the big industry picture when they are developing these kinds of tools. Making these things FCP exclusive, makes FCP less desierable, not more, in the real world of production. (IMHO)

> They won't enable RT for third party codec
> developers and won't allow other application
> developers to use the ProRes codec. I guess it
> could be argued that its just really early on and
> they will eventually license it to others, but
> they have already done so with Aja, so they
> already have the capability.

I don't think it's so much won't, as haven't. FCP at it's core is not fully wired into QT, so there are still things that need to be hard coded to make RT work with a codec. It's not just a matter of enabling all 3rd party codecs. Given enough users, I think they would put forth the effort.

All I want is for ProRez to be available in Apple's own QT for Mac and Windows. No need to license it to 3rd party developers to make it useable outside FCP. I would even pay extra, or they could make it an add on to QT Pro.

> Developing an intermediate codec is the first step
> to working in a digital intermediate environment,
> DI's by their very nature MUST be open or there's
> little benefit to it. I'm guessing FCP Server is
> the next link in the DI chain for Apple.

Actually with Glue Tools DPX - QT transcoder, and the "new" Color app, and the ability for cards like Kona and Blackmagic to load 3d LUTs, FCP is a complete DI solution now. I plan on doing some filmout tests next month using DPX, SheerVideo and ProRez.

> I don't think Apple will enable RT for 3rd party
> codecs anytime soon. However they claim you can
> now place any format on a timeline without having
> to render, so is RT enabled there?

Any RT enabled format is my understanding. And I was told at NAB that you will have to render prior to final output under some circumstances. Things like 3:2 cadence might not be accurate in real time in a mixed format Sequence.

All this being said, the folks at Apple seemed to be very receptive to my input about ProRez so I hope things will change in the near future. Sources tell me that the code for ProRez showed up only days prior to NAB. I'm sure they had their hands full just getting it all working in time for the show.

Robert Weaver
Director of Post Production
Starz Media - Film Roman

<<It was then that I learned that Apple will not be making the codec available outside of FCP.>>

That sucks.

Maybe as a workaround Final Cut Server would bring the ProRes 422 codec to Windows machines?

Just a hopeful guess.

- Justin Barham -

I highly doubt it. Final Cut Server is very much based around the idea of using low res proxies on Windows rather than the full res clips. That way the lack of DVCPROHD, HDV, DV50 etc QT codecs on Windows ceases to become a problem.

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

Why on Earth would ProRes not be available as any other codec in QuickTime, and thus available to any QT capable application? Where does this information come from that this is the only codec in the world that requires an install of Final Cut Pro?

Why couldn't one copy the codec plugin to another QT folder on another machine?

- Christopher S. Johnson

<<I highly doubt it. Final Cut Server is very much based around the idea of using low res proxies on Windows rather than the full res clips. That way the lack of DVCPROHD, HDV, DV50 etc QT codecs on Windows ceases to become a problem.>>

Yeah that sucks.


<<Why on Earth would ProRes not be available as any other codec in QuickTime, and thus available to any QT capable application? Where does this information come from that this is the only codec in the world that requires an install of Final Cut Pro?

Why couldn't one copy the codec plugin to another QT folder on another machine? >>

That makes sense for Macs, but not for people working in mixed OS environments.

- Justin Barham -

Forgive my ignorance: If I use After Effects and QuickTime Pro on a PC, dont I have access to any QT codec I put in the QT plugin folder? I really don't know.

- Christopher S. Johnson

Yes that's correct.

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

Not if the codec does not exist for windows. Try dropping the DVCPROHD codec in there and se if it works.

Robert Weaver
Director of Post Production
Starz Media - Film Roman

Got it guys. Thanks. So it is NOT limited to machines that have FCP 6 installed but it is Mac only, like QT-DVCPRO-HD.

Looks like Uncompressed HD codecs from AJA or Blackmagic, for cross platform work then, huh?

- Christopher S. Johnson

No, if you want to edit compressed you can use Sheer Video or Cineform on both platforms. The only draw back is you'll have to render any effects or transitions, which I might add that on a Mac Pro isn't that bad. I use "option P" quite often and it appears that it often plays back faster than real time, which isn't really what you want either.