DV NTSC / ProRes (HQ) (LT) (Proxy) (422) NTSC anamorphic

I'm polishing and tweaking a 90 minute docu all done in DV NTSC (I was not involved in the original setup and format).

I want to switch the whole project to ProRes.

Most of the original material is from stills / graphics of all different resolutions, some very high, some low. And now they are adding HD from a Canon DSLR (T2i) ...

They don't have the resources or the time to go full HD ... render times will be too long. They are happy with an SD export.

Which of the ProRes codecs will give me the best end results, without causing inordinate render times during the tweaking and adjusting process (does HQ take longer to render than 422 or LT)? I'm not so concerned about drive space, only 'time'. There is an imperative to just get-it-done.

Plus I have to be able to copy and drop everything already completed on DV NTSC timelines straight into a ProRes timeline without having to do any adjusting to the keyframes.

All ears...

Ben

Use DV50, rather than ProRes. The renders are faster, the data rate is lighter, and you get better RT performance with it.

And if the source is DV, the quality of those formats will not increase by any means. Only stills and graphics will see any benefit.

Going to HQ is overkill for anything less than a 10-bit codec. It is meant for HIGH END formats....not even Canon DSLR warrants HQ. And the render times will kill you. DV50 is the way to go.


www.shanerosseditor.com

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

Quote
Shane Ross
Use DV50, rather than ProRes. The renders are faster, the data rate is lighter, and you get better RT performance with it.

Good point, Shane.

Have you done much testing, comparing DVCPro50 and ProRes 422 for NTSC? I am curious about this. Apple's ProRes White Paper (July 2009 edition) mentions that the target data rate for ProRes 422 at 720x480/720x486 (60i or 30p) is 42 Mb/s, suggesting a 16% savings. Are you saying that, in practice, DVCPro50 works better overall?


-Dave

1 hour of DV50 is 26.9GB (7.2MB/s)
1 hour of ProRes NTSC is 22.2GB (5.9MB/s)

According to the AJA Data Rate Calculator.

I have tested ProRes NTSC and DV50, and have gotten faster render times with DV50 (nearly double the render speed), better RT performance (green render bars instead of orange or the dreaded RED), and editing is snappier.

Yes, it is the difference between 720x480 (DV50 is still that) and 720x486...and some networks might want that 486 output. If they want that, I do ProRes. If not, I do DV50. It hasn't come up all that often though. If they want an SD output from me, typically it is from an HD master...so tape or digital file downconverted.


www.shanerosseditor.com

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

Shane,

Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I really appreciate it!


-Dave

Hi Shane,


I just did some tests. You are absolutely right (and were never doubted) when you say the DV50 renders much faster. It does.

I did the same clip in DV50, Pro Res422, ProRes HQ. The two ProRes versions took about a third to half longer to render.

But. The ProRes end result looks considerably better than the DV50 ... at least on this system with these monitors (Apple Cinema display). It's an obvious bit better, not a subtle 'I-wonder-if-I'm-seeing-this-right' better. All three were the exact same clip made up of two stills animated to move together (Mars & its moon Phobos). The two ProRes versions are more or less indistinguishable.

You want FASTER or HIGHER QUALITY? Dude...ProRes. Said before in your other thread. So did Tom. You are wasting your time testing. Nuff said.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Disagree with Joe on this one. Test, test, test. The concrete evidence is especially useful since you're dealing with clients. That way they don't say later, "Why did you use ProRes? The DV50 version looked better." Hell, I've had a producer pick an FCP frame-rate conversion as opposed to a Compressor one. Sometimes you can't argue tastes, and you can't argue with the boss on every single thing. You show them the evidence, you let them make their own bed.


www.derekmok.com

I didn't say DON'T TEST, Derek...OP already said ProRes looked better than DV50 and he wants better looking footage so why continue testing? Getting back to my post...you want BETTER QUALITY or FASTER RENDERS? If I can get BETTER QUALITY, I will take that every time and since you had gotten a few agreeing opinions in previous posts, I just thing testing is OVERKILL (not to mention wasting time). Clients have nothing to do with this unless you are sending the results of these tests to them for approval.

Everyone wants better / cheaper / faster. Can't have them all. SOOOoooo... whatever you do = have fun!

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I've probably worked on three hundred films. And am still continually amazed by 'perception'. I remember once screening raw footage, three hours or so, to a group including an executive producer who had his name on scores of films ... who had been a terrific artist and animator before he became an 'executive'. At the end of the screening of the 'raw' footage he was asked by the producer what he thought. The ex-animator/now-exec-producer said in a demur almost apologetic tone: "It's quite lovely. A bit long though, isn't it?"

Perception.

I think I'm going to go with the ProRes 422 on this one. It just looked better than the DV50. I just won't tell the clients that the renders are longer. I don't think they will ask anyhow.

And there is one thing I have learned. If things get edgy with the client/producer as one heads for the wire ... I always push for a certain level of quality, even it if puts me in the dog house. A year later that client/producer never remembers I was brawling at the end ... if the final product is still getting good critiques and doing business. Whereas a client/producer NEVER remembers that I was a nice and accommodating guy if the final product sucks and dies and is trashed by the critics.

I once made two films for the same producer simultaneously. The producer got real anxious and angry at me (for seemingly being stubborn and 'slow'); she grabbed the second nicely cut but not finished 2nd film and stuck it in the hands of two other directors working in tandem. They were soooo nice and accommodating. She didn't talk to me for many months afterwards she was so angry. The films were released. And then she called and invited me over for dinner. All was well. That was years ago ... and they are still making money with the film I finished; and she has let me know in subtle ways that the other film died, did no business, and was actually somewhat of an embarrassment for her.

I like going for the 'long term'. That lady and I will be working again together shortly ... and I look forward to it.

Thanks mucho for your help guys, wonderful...

Ben

The ProRes conversion of the DV masters looks better than the DV50 ones? I find that hard to believe. No information was added...you are just making the files DV50. The GRAPHICS and TEXT...yeah, they'll look better. As will the files you convert from the T2i.

But IN the past, the amount of "how much better" they looked didn't outweigh the need for speed. On that one project that I did in SD last year. I rarely go there.

ProRes for quality.


www.shanerosseditor.com

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

Quote

I think I'm going to go with the ProRes 422 on this one. It just looked better than the DV50.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Shane, no, no, no ... !!

There were no DV masters. There were a whole long sling of stills, graphics, images of all qualities ... but no DV NTSC. They had built their film on a DV NTSC timeline (but had no actual DV footage).

You are absolutely right of course, one can't uprez the DV by switching to ProRes. But when I realised that everything they had on the timeline was a still or a graphic (some quite high rez) I figured it would be great just to take it a step up. I was trying to encourage them to do everything in HD before they started, but they are not techno whizzes, they are scholars and scientists, and HD just sounded too complicated (no matter what I said).

So we'll split the difference. I'm in the studio now, in person, and nothing has to be translated over the phone, so they are more comfortable about moving into the 'unfamiliar'.

All is well, and all the best to you...

Ben

AH. This is what I get for reading too many forums...


www.shanerosseditor.com

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

And I'm glad you are ... coz it's guys like me, who don't read enough, who need guys like you, who do.

Onward cher Dr. Ross, and upward ....