ProRes 422 vs ProRes 422 (HQ)

Im just starting a new project with footage from the Panasonic AF100. The footage was shot in 1080 24p. The final output of the film will be to DVD and BluRay. When importing is it worth importing with ProRes 422 (HQ)? the file sizes are huge and I can't seem to see any difference in the image quality when importing with the standard ProRes 422 codec.

Please share your knowledge.....

If you want to see the difference (which in this case will be minor) do one clip in both 422 and one of 422 HQ and overlay them. Apply a "difference" composite mode (in FCP) or layer mode (in AE/Photoshop) and where you see black is where the picture is the same and where you see picture detail (usually fine edges) is where the encoding differs.

In practice photographic or low data-rate acquired footage doesn't benefit a great deal from 422 HQ however any fine edged high contrast and chroma graphics will.

If you had recorded directly from the AF100 via HDMI/HD-SDI to the AJA KiPro or Atomos Ninja/Samurai then you may have seen more detail captured if using 422 HQ but when transcoding from AVCHD you've thrown away a load of picture data anyway.

Try the difference technique and make your decision on storage size vs quality.

In my opinion if you can handle ProRes HQ with no issues then stick with it - retaining as much of the original picture as possible no matter how minor is always something I strive for.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Next to the difference mode, nest that and gamma up the nest. Or you will be staring very hard at your monitor.

I'm with Ben. Stick to HQ if you can afford it, and go onto ProRes or ProRes LT if storage us an issue.



www.strypesinpost.com

I'm in the other camp. I think that ProRes is fine for anything from broadcast TV down. For me, I think that if storage is not an issue and you want the technically best possible, then go for HQ, but if you want to keep the file sizes reasonable and still have a great product, go normal ProRes.

As Ben says, take a look for yourself and decide on what is more important in your case.

Actually, this is from Apple's White Paper

"Users may select either the ProRes 422 or ProRes 422 HQ quality setting. Both settings feature HD quality that is indistinguishable from the original, even after many generations of reencoding. Normal ProRes 422 provides excellent preservation of either 8-bit or 10-bit source quality at an economical bit rate. ProRes 422 HQ offers even greater headroom to preserve the quality of even the most demanding, complex material with no visible artifacts."


So, in my mind, unless you're viewing your material overlayed on another version of itself with a difference mode applied and the gamma ramped up, it's gonna look almost the same, but use less space.

Yeah...ProRes is the way to go. There is no visual difference. HQ just eats HD space. I actually transcode tp HQ from regular ProRes if a client simply refuses ProRes files and they don't even know the difference (and these are US Nationally broadcasted spots).

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Since the source footage is only 8 bit, HQ won't help you much. Like they said, do a test, but if you're not seeing a mission-critical difference and not going into a VFX pipeline (keying, roto, compositing etc.) and/or a heavy grade (Color, Resolve), I'd go with ProRes.

Thank all of you guys for your input! Ive done some tests and in all honesty I cant really tell a difference in quality. Technically I understand HQ is better, but ultimately no viewer will ever know the difference, so Im going to save storage and roll with standard ProRes.
Thanks again!

>Since the source footage is only 8 bit, HQ won't help you much.

It's a matter of preserving resolution. ProRes preserves 10 bits of data, but the difference is marginal. If space is killing you, don't kill yourself, just use ProRes or ProRes LT.



www.strypesinpost.com