Advantages of ProRes?

Hi,
I am an amature videographer. I produce videos for local ballet companies. I usually shoot ballet performances using three Sony HDR-HC3 video cameras (two are borrowed). I produce 50 - 100 DVDs of each performance for the studio to sell.
These cameras shoot in HD but I import the media as SD to be edited and turned into the final DVD. I would like to output the ballets in HD someday but right now it doesn't seem practical or worthwhile.
Would it be worthwhile to use the ProRes codec to import my media for editing it in FCS then convert it to SD for DVD production? Some time in the future could I reproduce these ballets and output them in HD?
I have read the Apple website info about ProRes. Is there a good reference? I have read through all the FCS manuals but not much is said about ProRes.
Long-winded, I know.
Thanks in advance for any insight.
Brock Fisher

The bottom line of ProRes is that it keeps your HD footage looking HD, while utilizing SD files sizes. It was really created for people like you.

Similar Messages

  • Is this ProRes theory a myth or is it true?

    I shoot AVCHD footage from an FS700 and edit and heavily grade natively in Premiere Pro CS6.
    I was told that if I convert my footage to ProRes and THEN edit and grade, the colours and details will hold up better than doing so with native AVCHD and will ultimately result in better looking footage.
    Here is a quote from the forum to justify that. Please can someone confirm if this is true?
    AVCHD is a very compressed and lossy format. Original footage shot in AVCHD will mostly look good, but the trouble begins when you start recompressing the footage. Recompression happens whenever you convert the footage to another format, or whenever you use the footage in an editing environment and you have to render your video.
    When you edit AVCHD natively every time you add an effect, title or whatsoever you will lose quality and this will get worse the more generations you make from your original footage. That's why effects, titles etc. are always rendered to ProRes 422 (or higher) in FCP10. Because ProRes withstands multiple re-encoding much better than AVCHD.
    When you first convert your AVCHD to ProRes you will get a first generation loss. But the advantage of ProRes is that it is a transparent format, i.e. once your video is in the ProRes format it will not further degrade even after multiple re-encoding. ProRes LT runs at 82 Mbps but that does not mean anything. The LT codec is much more lossy than ProRes 422 and 422 HQ, which means once again that it will not withstand multiple generations. That's why the best workflow is to convert any lossy format to a transparent format such as ProRes 422 and up. You will always lose a tiny bit of sharpness during the first conversion, but from there on you will be safe even when you use the ProRes footage in complex projects with multiple filter stacks.

    A myth.
    When editing with FCP, there was a natural tendency to convert a lot of source material to ProRes 422, simply because you had no choice. Now you have the choice after moving to PR.
    The choice is quite simple, either edit in the native format your material was shot in, or convert to ProRes 422. The advise is to
    Not convert to ProRes.
    Using native format has the following advantages: No transcoding, no rendering, no data change, no recompression, no degradation and no damage. But converting to ProRes 422 has singnificant disadvantages, it takes twice as long, it uses nearly three times the disk space and shows no visible improvement. For example, ingesting a 16 GB card with MXF material on a certain machine takes around 6 minutes in native format but takes around 12 minutes when transcoded to ProRes 422, the storage requirements go from 16 GB to around 43 GB without any visible difference.
    Additionally, ProRes can not be exported from a PC and has problems with gamma shifts.
    The post you quoted has a serious flaw in it. It assumes multiple exports and imports, creating generation losses. That is a very strange workflow. One would normally edit and once finished, export once. That gives the same generation loss as converting to ProRes to start with. Only with ProRes you will suffer another generation loss when exporting from that.

  • Is anyone using Pegasus with iMovie?

    I purchased Pegasus when I got my new macbook Pro, latest version purchased a few months ago. Pegasus seems fast and promising. Decided to get all my iMovie stuff and organize it onto Pegasus.
    I had been using a Powermac G5 previously. Was using final cut express. Needless to say, big loss on that note. I like the speed of the new MBP + thunderbolt, but not sure I'm going to try the new FCP X yet. Seems to be too much anger over the program and I am still adjusting to a whole new way of thinking. Moving from a big desktop to a laptop is quite a move. The primary issue is storage. 750gb drive isn't much.
    I use Aperture 3 also and have referenced my files. That freed up enough space for me to have about 300gb free on the MBP drive.
    Here's where I'm headed for the moment with this question. As I'm consolidating and trying to understand a whole new approach to organizing and using movie files between Ap3, old iPhoto stuff, and iMovie stuff, seems that iMovie is the best overall organizer to view files on the Pegasus, internal drive (very few though), and between various programs.
    #1 - If I were to purchase FCP X, does it organize and show all files between iMovie, iPhoto, and Aperture 3?
    #2 - I found multiple duplicate files for the moment. Sorting through them, rejecting them, sending them to the trash. It does seems to delete them when on the hard drive and I see an increase in free space. When the files are on the Pegasus, it does seem to delete them (checked via finder), but the space increase isn't seen. For example, I got rid of one project that was about 10gb of events. No change seen on Pegasus. ??
    Anyone else using a MBP for video editing that has Pegasus/TB and uses various programs (Ap3, iPhoto, iMovie)?  I'm just now really addressing this issue of trying to understand the best overall approach to organize and manage video files.
    Aperture 3 solved all my photo problems, looking for something as straightforward for video purposes. Advice?
    Thanks.

    #1 - If I were to purchase FCP X, does it organize and show all files between iMovie, iPhoto, and Aperture 3?
    iMovie will let you organize your movies, and it will give you access to the existing organization of your photos in iPhoto and Aperture. If you have video clips stored in iPhoto or Aperture, you will have access to them, too. In general, you can organize in the App that owns them. For example you can create a photo Album in Aperture. You can see it in iMovie.
    Final Cut Pro X is the same, but it can also let you import your iMovie Events and Projects. When it does this, it is non-destructive to the Events and Projects in iMovie. But, interestingly, it does not take up any more space on your Pegasus. The iMovie Events will be imported by a Hard Link (same as the way Time Machine works), so you can have both a FCP Event and an iMovie Event accessing the same clips, without taking up double space.
    Having said that, going forward, you would want to import your events into FCPX to take advantage of ProRes 422, which is a superior intermediate codec than Apple Intermediate Codec, which is used in iMovie.
    #2 - I found multiple duplicate files for the moment. Sorting through them, rejecting them, sending them to the trash. It does seems to delete them when on the hard drive and I see an increase in free space. When the files are on the Pegasus, it does seem to delete them (checked via finder), but the space increase isn't seen. For example, I got rid of one project that was about 10gb of events. No change seen on Pegasus. ??
    If the space is not freed up after you delete the clips, chances are you can free up the space by emptying your Trash. The trash keeps up with files like these in case you change your mind.

  • What codec to use?

    Hey,
    I was wondering what codec to use. I've brought my video into a sequence with the Apple Pro Res 422 HQ codec. My Sequence is set at Apple Pro Res 422 HQ as well. I'm using a macbook pro 2GHZ/ 2GB of Ram with a 128MB PCI Express graphics card. I was wondering what should I import this video as and what should my sequence settings be so that I can edit it easily without it bogging down the computer so much.

    You should be using whatever your source footage codec is, or ProRes if your footage is HD and you want the advantages of ProRes.

  • HDV 25p Final Cut Workflow Question

    Hello,
    After reading a lot of material I'm trying to come to some conclusion about which workflow to use, to balance between: the lower spec system I've got, getting fine graphic elements, being able to take the project through Color, and to end with an HD(V) master project file.
    It would be great if others with experience with these issues could comment on the workflow I'm proposing.
    I'm running an iMac with the latest Final Cut Studio programs and one 500GB firewire drive for video and render files.
    Workflow:
    1 - Camera aquisition is with Canon's HV20 - HDV 25p
    2 - Capture over firewire to a 25p HDV sequence
    3 - Edit in HDV (with the Render Codec as ProRes 422 - in User Preferences)
    4 - Add any Motion files, Titles, LiveType or whatever else needs to go in the timeline
    5 - When complete, duplicate the sequence and change the settings in the new sequence to ProRes 422
    6 - Render Timeline as full ProRes 422
    7 - Export to Color, render Color files out and place in a new ProRes 422 timeline
    8 - Export self-contained Quicktime with current settings as the Master
    Comments please. I'm no expert, but I'm trying to settle on a decent workflow.
    If I'm right, this should make one conversion from HDV to ProRes 422 before going through Color (while also taking advantage of ProRes for the rendering of all the Motion graphics and Title clips). Then one further render coming out of Color.
    It seems pretty clean and not to extanious for my system, although I'm still working on the theory.
    Any workflow experts, please advise!
    Thanks,
    Matt
    Yoga Maya Films - http://www.yogamayafilms.com
    The Film Producer's Podcast - http://www.yogamayafilms.com/podcast

    No one?
    The main part I'm wondering about is:
    HDV timeline, but render settings to ProRes and then moving the whole thing to render out as a ProRes file (possibly going through Color at that point - and if so, coming back to a ProRes timeline and doing a self-contained Quicktime export).
    I basically said it all in the first post. If someone's tried it, or has a better work flow for HDV it would be great to hear.
    Matt

  • Any advantage in working in ProRes 422 start to finish

    Since it's possible to capture ProRes 422 via firewire now is there any advantage to working with it from start to finish? The workflow now has been capture and work in HDV and render to a ProRes Timeline when finished.
    I'd Like to hear some opinions on this subject. I know ProRess captured files are much larger than HDV captures so that's a consideration.
    Also Does ProRes run any smoother in FCP2 than HDV?

    I'm sure there are others, but two things come to mind right away:
    Since ProRes422 is 10-bit, it makes working in Color much more liberating.
    As best I can tell, rendering in in FCP is much quicker (even at the highest quality settings) with ProRes422 on a Mac Pro since it's a much more multi-thread friendly codec than HDV.

  • ProRes vs HDV, actual advantages?

    We have been capturing and editing in HDV. Alot of heavy compositing, motion work, etc. We have been setting the render control to ProRes while working within an HDV timeline.
    I have seen a lot of people who capture ProRes right off the bat, and do all their work in ProRes. There are claims that you get better effect handling and editing efficiency by staying in ProRes.
    Have there actually been any tests out there that prove I should work entirely in ProRes? rather than just render my HDV timeline as ProRes?
    There are so many opinions out there that it is hard to decide what I should do. I have done tests with ProRes vs HDV and I am not noticing drastic differences in working with the two. Yet, when I read on the boards, there are tons of people saying ProRes yields better effects and render times.
    I understand the technical issues as to why ProRes is the better format for post-production (long gop, i-frames, etc etc)....but I'm just not actually seeing much of a difference while working between the two formats!
    Can anybody convince me with some facts as to why I should work in ProRes as opposed to a ProRes rendered HDV timeline?

    I switched totally from HDV to ProRes last year, including even switching to AVCHD cameras (I had a Sony V1U, and now have two Panasonic HMC-150s).
    The advantages for me were huge. When shooting HDV on tape, I almost never had a complete one hour MiniDV tape without at least 1 or 2 dropouts. Shooting AVCHD to SDHC cards, I've completed hundreds of hours of footage and never had a single frame dropped.
    I log and transfer to FCP using Pro Res right from the start. No waiting for 'Conforming HDV'. I can put my footage on a timeline and start editing right away; much faster and smoother throughout the whole process.
    The only disadvantage I can see to ProRes are larger files, but as mentioned above, storage is cheap these days.
    I'm not suggesting you should go as far as switching your entire acquisition format (cameras, etc.), but I would at least try capturing your HDV footage as ProRes for one short project, and see if you notice any differences in speed and/or smoother workflow while editing and rendering, etc.

  • FCPX Project Render Settings - Can you edit in h.264 and Transcode/render only used clips on timeline to Prores during render?

    I have a question on the PROJECT RENDER settings in FCP X. It’s seems to me that one could theoretically import and edit entirely with original h.264 video files without needing to Transcode to ProRes422. Once you’re done with your edit and want to get the added benefits of COLOR GRADING in ProRes422 color space, it seems that FCPX will automatically render your edit in ProRes422 according to these preferences. In that case, a color grade could be applied to the whole edit, and be automatically transcoded/rendered into ProRes 422 during the render process. After rendering, what would show up on the viewer and what would EXPORT would be the rendered Prores files and not the original h.264 files. This saves a lot of time and space of transcoding ALL your media, and in theory should enable you to edit NATIVE video formats like h.264, with automatic benefits of ProRes during render.  I'm assuming the render may take longer because FCPX is having to convert h.264 video files to ProRes422 while rendering. This may be one drawback. But will you your color grade actually use the 4:2:0 color space of the h.264 native media, or will it utilize 4:2:2 color space, since the render files are set to render to ProRes422 ? Can anyone please confirm that this theory is correct and optimal for certain work flows?? Thanks!

    Thanks Wild. That's what I thought - in that the render files would be converted to ProRes422 codec. So do you or anyone else think that there is an advantage to having the 4:2:0 original file be processed in a 4:2:2 color space?
    Yes there is an advantage, any effects and grading will look better than in a 4:2:0 space.
    Most professionals online seem to think so. Also - will rendering of heavy effects and color grading take longer using this method because it's having to convert h.264 media to ProRes during render?
    Yes, it will definitely take longer.
    Can anyone verify from a technical standpoint whether editing and color grading in this workflow will see the same benefits as having transcoded the h.264 media to ProRes in the first place?
    Same benefits from a final product view point, you lose on rendering time though and if you have lots of effects things will seem slow as it will have render everytime from the h264 file rather than a Pro Res file for every change you make. This may be fine on a higher end mac but I'm sure just pummels an older lower end mac as to being almost useless.

  • Prorez 422 vs DVCPro HD for capture

    I am producing a television show and need to decide on a capture codec. Does it make a difference in capturing between Prorez 422 or DVCPro HD? I will be doing a lot of keying and intense colors as the show is for children. Also some CGI for backgrounds. I know you can convert the codec but is there an advantage in capturing in one or the other. I am shooting with Panasonic HVX200 output from the uncompressed HD component out.
    Thanks,
    David Perry

    I like ProRes. It is nice, but you may find certain 10bit rendering errors with FCP that don't show up in 8bit CODECs. Alpha channels from still graphics seem to be the worse problems. Also some of the transparency modes don't really work right in 10bit. This isn't really the fault of the ProRes CODEC, but appears to be a problem with FCP 6 and all 10 color spaces.
    If you don't plan many transparent graphics, ProRES is awesome and I would recommend you use if if you have an uncompressed feed coming from the camera.
    I would only recommend ProRes if you have AJA Kona hardware. Only the top Kona cards seem to support it fully. My LHe card supports it but most io devices don't.
    The color space of the ProRes is very very nice. I've pushed a scene from a Varicam (captured via SDI into the Kona) by about 3 stops recently and was able to recover it without anybody knowing. It was slightly more grainy, but still very usable. DVCPro would not have taken this kind of abuse.

  • More CS 5 - ProRes 4444 Alpha channel nonsense

    Hi:
    Quicktimes I render out of After Effects CS 5 using the ProRes 4444 codec are tagged as having an alpha channel even though my settings in the Output Module are RGB and Trillions of Colors.  NOT RGB + Alpha and Trillions of Colors+.  It doesn't matter whether my project is 8 bit or 16 bit.
    When I bring such movies back into AE it shows them as having an alpha channel (Trillions of Colors+).  If I do a Get Info in QT player it shows Millions of Colors+, and FCP shows them as having an alpha, too.
    I just upgraded to Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (figured it was safe after two years) and in the process switched full time to CS 5 (I only used it in the past to open other's projects).  I never had these issues with CS4.  I have not installed any AJA codecs into this new OS (clean install over wiped HD).
    This appears to be the opposite of the problem most have been having, which is AE won't generate an alpha in ProRes 4444 without moving codecs and other nonsense.
    The reason this is a problem is because when I bring these Quicktimes with faux alphas into FCP for editing I can't export a reference movie.  FCP rewrites the whole timeline.
    Haven't these CS 5/ProRes 4444 codec/Alpha channel issues been going on for over a year?  Do I have to buy CS 5.5 to get this to work correctly?
    Thanks.
    Shawn Marshall
    Marshall Arts Motion Graphics

    PR422HQ is way overkill for 99% of the video and film producers in the world. It's there for a specific elite of the entertainment biz, those who work in 4k on 64bit systems, I guess, that' ain't me! It's one of those "if you have to ask, you can't use it" sort of things. Anyone who uses the advanced features of the ProRes family knows why. That's the theory. In my practical experience over on the FCP forum at Apple, 99% of those using ProResHQ believe they are improving their original footage.
    Apple ProRes 4444 
    The Apple ProRes 4444 codec offers the utmost possible quality for 4:4:4 sources and for workflows involving alpha channels. It includes the following features:
    Full-resolution, mastering-quality 4:4:4:4 RGBA color (an online-quality codec for editing and finishing 4:4:4 material, such as that originating from Sony HDCAM SR or digital cinema cameras such as RED ONE, Thomson Viper FilmStream, and Panavision Genesis cameras). The R, G, and B channels are lightly compressed, with an emphasis on being perceptually indistinguishable from the original material.
    Lossless alpha channel with real-time playback
    High-quality solution for storing and exchanging motion graphics and composites
    For 4:4:4 sources, a data rate that is roughly 50 percent higher than the data rate of Apple ProRes 422 (HQ)
    Direct encoding of, and decoding to, RGB pixel formats
    Support for any resolution, including SD, HD, 2K, 4K, and other resolutions
    A Gamma Correction setting in the codec’s advanced compression settings pane, which allows you to disable the 1.8 to 2.2 gamma adjustment that can occur if RGB material at 2.2 gamma is misinterpreted as 1.8. This setting is also available with the Apple ProRes 422 codec.
    Apple ProRes 422 (HQ)
    The Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec offers the utmost possible quality for 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 sources (without an alpha channel) and provides the following:
    Target data rate of approximately 220 Mbps (1920 x 1080 at 60i)
    Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422
    Apple ProRes 422
    The Apple ProRes 422 codec provides the following:
    Target data rate of approximately 145 Mbps (1920 x 1080 at 60i)
    Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422 (LT)
    Apple ProRes 422 (LT)
    The Apple ProRes 422 (LT) codec provides the following:
    Roughly 70 percent of the data rate of Apple ProRes 422 (thus, smaller file sizes than Apple ProRes 422)
    Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422 (Proxy)
    Apple ProRes 422 (Proxy)
    The Apple ProRes 422 (Proxy) codec is intended for use in offline workflows and provides the following:
    Roughly 30 percent of the data rate of Apple ProRes 422
    High-quality offline editing at the original frame size, frame rate, and aspect ratio
    High-quality edit proxy for Final Cut Server
    The Apple ProRes family of codecs provides these advantages:
    Quality indistinguishable from that of the most pristine sources: Maintains superb quality even after multiple encoding/decoding generations.
    Mastering-quality 4:4:4:4 RGBA: Provides a lossless alpha channel with real-time playback (Apple ProRes 4444 only). Mastering-quality 4:4:4 Y′CBCRcolor and 4:2:2 Y′CBCR color are also available.
    The quality of uncompressed HD at data and storage rates lower than those of uncompressed SD: Provides real-time editing performance comparable to or better than that of any other HD codecs in Final Cut Pro.
    Apple ProRes encoding at any frame size—SD, HD, 2K, 4K, or other: Apple ProRes codecs can also be encoded into nonstandard frame sizes, but nonstandard frame sizes are not supported for real-time playback in Final Cut Pro.
    Variable bit rate (VBR) encoding: “Smart” encoding analyzes the image. Efficiency is increased because excess bits are not wasted on simple frames.
    10-bit sample depth: Preserves subtle gradients of 10-bit sources (sunsets, graphics, and the like) with no visible banding artifacts. When you import a file using an Apple ProRes codec, you don’t have to first determine whether the file is an 8-bit or 10-bit file. Apple ProRes codecs always preserve the bit depth of your original source files.
    I-frame–only (intraframe) encoding: Ensures consistent quality in every frame, with no artifacts from complex motion, and speeds up editing.
    Fast encoding and decoding: Delivers high-quality, real-time playback and faster rendering times.
    Equipment affordability: Because of low bit rates, you can edit more streams with more real-time effects on slower drives, or have more users accessing the same media over shared storage devices.
    Workflow options for any video format that does not have native Final Cut Pro support: The Apple ProRes format provides an effective workflow for projects involving multiple acquisition formats when you want to standardize on a single codec.
    Better rendering for native editing: Can be used to render long-GOP MPEG-2 formats (such as HDV and XDCAM HD) to speed up editing and avoid MPEG-2 reencoding artifacts before output.

  • Horizontal jagged lines in ProRes conversion from MPEG-2

    I converted an MPEG-2 from a DVD into a ProRes 422 Quick time through MPEG Streamclip in order to edit excerpts in FCP 7.  When imported in FCP it shows horizontal broken layers when I stop playing it, and full image when it runs.  The specs of the MPEG-2 were 1920x1080, 25 fps, PAL.  The ProRes is compressed to 720x405, 25 fps, pixel Aspect Square, Alpha None/Ignore, Field: Upper, Audio 48kH-16bit.  In MPEG Streamclip: "Interlaced scaling" was selected. Is that correct or should I have selected "Deinterlace video"?  Is that the culprit for the horizontal disaligned layers when the video stops running? 
    If this is not the cause, does anybody know a solution please?  Many thank yous in advance.

    this is correct, do not worry. on stop, you only see one field. on run, you see both fields.
    if you work with deinterlaced material, even on stop there will be no jagged lines. advantage. but you then have reduced your motion resolution to half (because both fields are identical now). disadvantage. so, what you want really depends on what you need your master for. usually, TV uses interlaced material.

  • Need advice about H.264 and Apple ProRes 422.

    When exporting a "master file" I can encode the video as H.264 or Apple ProRes 422 (etc). The H.264 is more compressed but still in 1080p? Does this mean that I do not have to compress the file with "Compressor"? What is the advantage of using ProRes and what is the advantage of using H.264? I want of course the files to be as small as possible but still at the best quality. Any advice?
    Thanks.

    ProRes is an editing format. If you are archiving a finished project, you can create an extremely high quality "print" with H.264. ProRes 422 will use approximately three times as much memory. ProRes 422(HQ) roughly four times and ProRes 4444 up to 10 times (compared to the size of the file FCPX will export as H.264). 
    FCPX exports (shares) H.264 in highest quality (over 45Mbits/sec [if needed] for 1080p), you have no options to adjust for smaller files (or lesser quality from FCPX.)
    To get "as small as possible," you'll need to learn more about compressing video. As a comparison (to FCPX), YouTube limits a maximum bandwidth of 8Mbps (used to be 5Mbps -- I *still* compress to 5Mbps before uploading.) Even compressed this highly, H.264 provides excellent results. [Compressing in ProRes is going from 4444 down to 422 Proxy (not to be confused with proxy media used in FCPX which is 1/4 resolution, i.e. 960x540 for 1080, ProRes 422.) You cannot compress each of the different ProRes flavors individually.]
    You'll need other software to compress further than FCPX.  I use Quicktime 7 Pro. Compressor is another way to go (Compressor will let you set "compression markers" so you can vary the bitrates through various sections of your work).  The way to figure out your compression level is to find a section (less than a minute) with the highest motion high contrast (and/or changing gradients) and export at different bitrates. Watch for "jpeg artifacts" (blocking) and once you've gotten past that, that's the bitrate you should compress to. (I've had some clips that required at least 20Mbps.) It just takes a little practice to get a feel for it.

  • More Info about ProRes

    Hi, I am still trying to learn enough about this topic to feel good about it, so for any of you who've helped me on on this I appreciate it, and I'm still working on it, so bear with me...
    So, the time has come to do some capturing. I have some Beta SP tapes that I'm going to capture. I've been asked to capture them ProRes 422, which is the codec we're editing in. I'm trying to find out more just because I want to make sure this is the most efficient way to do this.
    The white paper says HD files that compare in size to uncompressed SD. I realize this is a reference to how ProRes treats HD material, so what is its effect on SD? Are there pros and cons to capturing the Beta stuff in Apple ProRes vs. capturing uncompressed SD? My biggest questions are:
    1: Between these three things (ProRes 422, ProRes 422 HQ, and Uncompressed 10 bit SD) what are my end file sizes going to be? Is there a storage benefit to any of these, and if so what's the best option?
    2. Is there a better choice? I've heard a lot of people tell me that ProRes is unnecessary for SD stuff, but again, I don't know enough to say otherwise and I've been asked to do it this way, but I've also been asked to find out the advantages to one versus the other here first before we actually rent a deck and start capturing.
    3. Just in general, since I'm obviously floundering on getting a good grasp on the use of ProRes for my particular project, anyone who maybe knows of a good place for me to read up/listen up on ProRes and its uses, especially in regards to SD, I'd greatly appreciate any advice.
    Sorry to keep asking what seems like the same question worded differently, but this time I'm trying to produce a clear comparison so the big guy can make a decision. Thanks a lot!
    Austin

    There's a few aspects to this - and such several "correct" answers.
    First, what exactly will you be doing? Are you just editing or will there be vfx/color grading etc? If it is the latter, and you're in SD, I'd personally go with uncompressed 10-bit. The files will be large, but it will be worth it if you do a lot of processing.
    ProRes files will be much smaller, and still look very good, but may not hold up as well to heavy processing.
    Not sure what you mean with #2... what other codec(s) are you looking at. Saying it is "unnecessary for SD" is an interesting comment - depends on what you want to do with the footage.
    Some info about ProRes (and uncompressed) bitrates:
    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/04/18/acloser_look_at_apples_new_prores_422_videoformat.html
    http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/finalcutpro/apple-prores.html
    http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2009/08/11/apple-final-cut-prores-lowers-bitrat e/
    http://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/professionalformatsandworkflows/in dex.html#chapter=10%26section=1%26tasks=true

  • How Do I Take Advantage of 128GB Memory?

    So I'm trying to test 128GB of memory in my system to see if there are appreciable advantages in having setup.
    The specs:
    Intel Xeon e5-2697 (12 cores)
    128GB of DDR3 1333mhz
    2x Titan Black
    1x Quadro K4000
    OS: ~200GB SSD
    Data: WD VelociRaptor 1TB / Network @ 10gigabit / 20GB RAMDISK (Testing between them right now)
    So far I've been able to find render speed improvements in After Effects easily enough (allocating more memory per core for multiprocessing/scheduling processors). The bottleneck seems to be in processing/memory there and the source/scratch/destination drives don't seem to matter. I had expected as much.
    In Premiere Pro, right now I'm trying to use the 20GB RAMDISK as the scratch/source/destination drive in different combinations along with the WD VelociRaptor. The footage consists of several clips from a Blackmagic Cinema Camera, 1080p, ProRes 422 with a bitrate of up to 222mbps.
    Rendering with x.264, h.264, and MPEG2 yields results that indicate the VelociRaptor and RAMDISK perform equally, despite the extreme speeds of the RAMDISK.
    Am I doing something wrong? Is there a better way to use the extra memory (instead of a RAMDISK)?
    (I will be trying 4k RAW and 4K ProRes soon and hopefully that might introduce different performance results.)
    Thanks.

    If you purchased a Mac after Jun 6 you are entitled to a free upgrade to Lion.  You will find information about that program at Lion - Get up to date. If you did not purchase a Mac after June 6th you will need to first be on Snow Leopard 10.6.6 or later and purchase Lion using the Mac App Store for $29.99.

  • Capturing as DV/DVCPRO Or Apple Prores HQ

    Ok, so I have a hundreds of BETACAM SP tapes that need to be digitized (this is for work). I found a post-production house that can do it at a good price, the man I spoke with there told me the following:
    "Our system captures to Quicktime DV/DVCPRO - NTSC, 720 x 480, with 48k 16bit Stereo Audio .
    The files will be approximately 15GIG for (1) one hour of material."
    Now I spoke with my boss and he wants the footage to be captured to Apple Prores HQ instead (I assume he means Apple Prores HQ 422 NTSC). Is there a major advantage to doing so? If it takes up more hard drive space, that shouldn't be a big problem (unless we're talking WAY more hd space), but our main concern is quality. Is there a big difference in terms of quality between DV/DVCPRO NTSC at 720x480 and Apple Prores HQ at 720x480?
    The footage will be used online (probably exported as h264 once edited) but down the line it could be used for broadcast as well.
    Thanks
    Message was edited by: PMPM85
    Message was edited by: PMPM85

    http://tinyurl.com/3tutl6s
    There's also other space calculators that are free http://www.aja.com/products/software/

Maybe you are looking for