Using Apple Pro Res 422?

It goe on...because of SAS problems (fiber channel...dropped frames etc) a technician has said to work using apple pro res codecs. They are compressed with no picture quality loss. I've used uncompressed 8/10 bit happily and feel this should be fine. It seems because this SAS is straining and has set up issues that using pro res is a quick fix solution. I don't know. Enlightenment greatly apprieciated. Cheers.

SAN (Storage Area Network) or SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) . or is it a SAN using SAS ?

whatever, it seems your technician is suggesting you edit with lower data rate video streams in order to lower the strain on the improperly set up storage system you have there. until you can address the root of the problem then its a reasonable compromise. the quality of ProRes is very good.

Are you dealing with SD or HD, Phil?

We're just talking about ProRes on this other thread. I too am curious about the codec too, as I like the quality/data rate in the few times that I have used it, and was just wondering if there are any other issues that might crop up (rendering issues, etc). So far, there doesn't seem to be any sufficient reason why not to.

[www.lafcpug.org]



www.strypesinpost.com

We are using SD (uncompressed 8 bit/10 bit) - I too am curious and our friend Andy is correct - it is a matter of lower data rate streams to relieve the strain. I'm still not convinced though happy to test pro res but test until proven in broadcast senario.

If you are actually trying to cut with media stored remotely over ethernet as you suggest in one of your other threads, it's not going to matter what codec you use.

There are a number of problems that have come up. Stacking clips and multicam being one of them. Dropping frames etc. We are concerned about using HD when the need arises. This system is having problems and pro res (compressed aparently) is not good enough for broadcast (aparently) ....

I'm not sure where you got the idea that ProRes isn't good enough for broadcast. Both ProRes and the high-bit-rate DNxHD codecs are absolutely production quality. Heck, features have been shot on 10-bit HD and finished in both ProRes and DNxHD.

"Uncompressed" video is kind of a confusing subject anyway. In standard-definition world, D-5 is really uncompressed, but Digital Betacam isn't. It's 90 Mbps. And uncompressed HD is even rarer. HDCAM is not only compressed, it's also only 1440x1080. Even HDCAM SR HQ is only 880 Mbps.

It's not a question of whether compressed formats are inherently unsuitable. It's a question of whether a specific compressed format is suitable for your purposes. A whole lot of people (including me, if that's worth anything) find ProRes to be absolutely perfect for their purposes. Don't knock it until you've tried it, and so on.

Who told you ProeRes is not good enough for broadcast?

We edit broadcast shows in ProRes not problem. We don't, however delver the show in ProRes, we deliver in whatever spec the broadcaster will accept. In our case DVCProHD and HDCam.

We output to the appropriate deck via a BlackMajic card and the braodcaster never knows what intermediate codec we use for post production.

Absolutely. ProRes and DNxHD codecs are perfectly acceptable delivery codecs for mastering.


Jeff Harrell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that ProRes
> isn't good enough for broadcast. Both ProRes and
> the high-bit-rate DNxHD codecs are absolutely
> production quality. Heck, features have been shot
> on 10-bit HD and finished in both ProRes and
> DNxHD.
>
> "Uncompressed" video is kind of a confusing
> subject anyway. In standard-definition world, D-5
> is really uncompressed, but Digital Betacam isn't.
> It's 90 Mbps. And uncompressed HD is even rarer.
> HDCAM is not only compressed, it's also only
> 1440x1080. Even HDCAM SR HQ is only 880 Mbps.
>
> It's not a question of whether compressed formats
> are inherently unsuitable. It's a question of
> whether a specific compressed format is suitable
> for your purposes. A whole lot of people
> (including me, if that's worth anything) find
> ProRes to be absolutely perfect for their
> purposes. Don't knock it until you've tried it,
> and so on.

>If you are actually trying to cut with media stored remotely over ethernet as you suggest
>in one of your other threads, it's not going to matter what codec you use.

I agree on this one. SD isn't that high on bandwidth. If you're having that much issues with dropped frames on SD, then HD would probably be unworkable.

ProRes actually looked good. I'm fairly new to the codec, but I did run some differential mattes and compared skyline shots between uncompressed and prores from a digital beta source and it looked pretty darn close. For it being broadcast quality, I think it's a better choice than even dv50 which is 8 bits (if DV50 is considered broadcast, ProRes would be more up to the task). Looking at the white papers, it seems like a pretty tough codec as well.

But I'm more concerned about the issues if there are any (or if they are simply isolated cases which have more to do with project/fcp issues than codec related). The idea of the VBR does unsettle me a little- it's about whether will it work consistently as it's fairly new for an editing codec. Otherwise, from the looks of it, ProRes seems the way to go.



www.strypesinpost.com