HDV v Pro Res Rendering Test

Hi,
All equipment and software is latest editions.
Importing HDV footage to fcp and converting it in capture to Pro Res or Pro Res HQ. On the timeline (each version on its own correctly set up timeline) there is no visible quality difference between formats or versus HDV. Applying a color correcting filter results in greater real time effect to Pro Res than HDV. Render times of 1 minute of footage, HDV renders 30% quicker.
Am I missing out on something here or is the only thing Pro Res has to offer the need for 5 times as much storage space?
Thanks for any answers or discussion.
Andy

It offers better performance when editing. HDV is processor intensive, and can take longer to render, and a lot longer to compress into your final format. And HDV is an 8-bit 4:2:0 codec. While you can't change that going to ProRes, ProRes is 4:2:2 10-bit, and color correcting that gives you better leway with color...you can push things more. just a TAD more, as your color information is already whack.
But if you intend to master back to HDV, do not go to ProRes. To go back to HDV you need to capture as native HDV.
Shane

Similar Messages

Re-encode HDV into Pro res - create HD masters?

A while back i had a big project with averaging 12x 1 hour hdv videos - when exporting as hdv (current seq settings) it went out of sync after 30+mins
setting seq as pro res had no effect, so, i just re-rendered the seq asa dv pal and exported (was intended for sd dvd anyway).
Now what i want to do, is have self contained hd masters of the videos.
Will running all videos in the capture folder for this project in compressor - exporting as 'apple pro res lt' then 'reconnecting media' - render - export self contained.mov work?

Pre-Roll and whatnot. Capturing HDV as ProRes will get you the FULL shot. FCP just detects the break, and makes a new clip. HDV as HDV, there's a second or two missing from the head of a shot. At least in my experience of two years ago. Has that changed? Can you capture now, with the break, and have it keep the full clip?
Shane

HDV or Pro Res?

Hi
I've inherited a project where an assistant editor digitized the HDV footage with the HDV 1080i 60 codec...my timeline is Apple Pro Res 422 - is there any advantage to having him re digitize the HDV footage using Pro Res, or should I not bother? Any quality gain using Pro Res?
Thanks
K

Quality gain...no. Render speed gain, yes, although if you use a ProRes timeline or change your render settings to ProRes you will see that speed as well. Just if you capture as ProRes and edit ProRes, there is no rendering needed. Where if you have a ProRes sequence, you need to render whatever clip you drop into the timeline.
Better color space for color correction. 10-bit 4:2:2 opposed to HDV 8-bit 4:2:0.
Drawback...much more drive space required. And faster drives as the datarate of ProRes is 3 times that of HDV.
But after working with HDV as HDV and as ProRes, I much prefer ProRes.
Shane

HDV to Pro Res 422 HQ, how would you do it?

I am shortly going to short some HDV 1080' and deliver it to the customer after I've edited it, on a hard disc as Pro Res 422 HQ 1920 x 1080.
Last time I simply ingested the HDV in the normal way and exported to Pro Res using "make Quick Time Movie".
Should I have injested the footage from HDV, direct to Pro Res 422 HQ and edited this and then outputed the Pro Res 422 HQ edit master? In other words did I needlessly encode the material twice when I did it before?

Why can't I simply change the "Capture settings" to Pro Res HQ?
Because FCP doesn't do that via firewire. The data rate is too high. It only does ProRes 422 via firewire.
Now you are getting into professional workflows, and for that you need professional hardware.
Why do I need to sling my Macbook Pro in the bin and start all over again, because I presume a capture card wont go in a laptop.
You presume incorrectly. The Matrox MXO2 and MXO2 LE will work on a laptop just fine. I use my MXO2 all the time on mine. BUT...here's the rub. You can't capture 1920x1080 29.97 at ProRes HQ. Well, you can, but not for long durations. Because the encoding of that needs to be handled by the processor, and you need at least a Quad Core to do that, laptops are Dual core. BUT, you can get the AJA IO HD, that works on a laptop too, and has a ProRes encoder built in. Issue is that it is $3400, while the MXO2 LE is $1000 (that encoder adds a lot).
I think it would be best to capture as HDV, then use the Media Manager to Recompress to ProRes HQ. Because they might want full raster ProRes and HDV>ProRes gets you anamorphic ProRes. I believe the Media Manager will make it Full Raster. As will Compressor.
Shane

HDV and Pro Res 422

My current project has a timeline of 1080i HDV footage that was down converted to DV. My question is when we want to up convert which is better.
1. Make the sequence offline and re-capture at Pro Res 422
2. Convert the DV sequence to Pro Res 422
If we go with option 1. will the timecodes match what is in the sequence if I bring it in via Firewire or should it go through a capture card like the KONA 3?
Thanks for any advice you can give me.

For the difference in price I would go with the i7. I am sure you would be just fine with the i5, but you can never have too much computing power. I received my i7 based iMac several days ago and have ]been very happy with it. As I recall the difference in price between the two chips was about $200 so I don't think you will regret spending the extra. Also watch out for the keyboard. If you get the wireless KB it does not have a numeric keypad.

Are there certain system requirements for Pro Res Rendering?

Wondering if there has to be some kind of codec? or possible system capability to render out in Pro Res 4444 @ 29.97fps?
Thoughts?

Huh, that is odd. Doesn't even say you ain't got it ... although at this point I would check on how to check if you're got ProRes installed on your system. A question ... do you have Quicktime as the "Pro" (paid) version or simply the free version?
Neil

HDV and Pro Res

Quick question...
Is the quality of a HDV clip that was captured via firewire as ProRes...better or the same quality....of a clip that was captured as HDV and then media managed Recompressed to ProRes?

No, that's not the same thing. There will be some loss of quality, probably very minor, but that is not the same as media managing the original media or using Compressor to recompress it. HDV has to be conformed for output and that will happen before the material is exported. Why capture using ProRes? So that your compositing uses a higher resolution, higher quality codec, and so that your program does not have to be reconformed for output, and so that any rendering will render quicker. The only reason to stay in HDV is if you need to go back to HDV tape.

PRO RES HDV

I've just posted a topic about 1080i to 720p conversion. I have another questions. CAN SOMEONE PLS EXPLAIN PRO RES. Can I capture HDV footage from a Z1 via Firewire without capture cards/boxes and what benefits if any will this give me? Does PRO RES circumvent the MPEG issue? Can I output the final cut at a higher quality than normal HDV using PRO RES?
Thanks for your help,
Matt (confused?!?!)

With the Blackmagic Intensity Pro you can use HDMI or various analog inputs, including component. The Blackmagic folks told me that component presrves HD content rather than down converting to SD.
The Intensity products (Pro with the analog stuff, or <not>Pro with just HDMI) can convert on the fly to ProRes 422, DVCPRO HD, whatever. You do need an Intel Mac to use with the Intensity cards. Cost for the cards in the US (MSRP) is $395 and $295.
Once you've captured to tape in HDV, you won't get any more resolution or color just because you go to another format which specifies more of either. You're editing may be fast, as will conforming (HDV has to reconstruct itself at all transitions, overlays, etc.).
But I'm editing on a G5 Quad, and the speed was fine with two HDV video tracks cutting back and forth with opacity ramps for transistions. The last project was a two hour play and it took about two hours to conform the whole thing at the end; subsequent small edits conformed quickly. I used compressor to take the HDV reference video export directly to MPEG-2 for DVD and it handled that in about the same speed as my old project using DV standard definitions. Bypass the conversion to DV gave me better edges and far less color banding on strong contrast edges.
If I did it again, all title overlays would be done in ProRes SD (that's my final target anyway) to give me sharper titles; but they were not horrible in HDV using the FCP title effects.
Eddie O

Pro Res Plays Over Firewire?

I dropped a Sony EX-1 1080i clip onto a timeline, setup in FCP Easy Setup for DV-NTSC Firewire Basic. I changed the rendering to Pro res and rendered the timeline as usual. Looks great and plays fine over firewire to my Sony DVCAM deck.
It seems counter-intuitive that a Pro res rendered project would play over firewire. Could someone in-the-know explain how this works.
Thanks!
Kevin Jones
2.5GHz Quad-core PowerPC G5
Final Cut Studio 2

I think you may be referring to the Render Control setting in user preferences. If you look at that setting, changing it to ProRes only works if the sequence is HDV, XDCamHD, or EX. You are working in a DV sequence so that setting is ignored.
Just because you have EX footage, doesn't mean it'll render in ProRes no matter what sequence you're working in. For it to render ProRes, you have to first be working in an EX sequence then apply some kind of effect or motion that requires rendering, and then when you render it'll render in ProRes.
The reason for this I believe (because I don't really work in those formats) has to do with the fact that HDV, XDCamHD, and EX are long GOP formats. Therefore any rendering probably takes longer in the native format than in ProRes. They probably include that setting to speed up the workflow for those using intraframe codecs.
If you place an HD clip in a DV sequence and render you end up with a DV clip. You've been seeing no difference from before because nothing has changed for you.
As for taking advantage of HD well, mastering to DV will at minimum, lose you half of your color information or as much as 75 percent. That can't be helped since DV is 4:1:1 color sub-sampling, and HD is 4:2:0 (HDV) and up. However, if you master to DVD, you can keep 4:2:0 which is still better than DV. Obviously the screen resolution can't be helped until you are mastering to HD.
Andy

New sequence from clip does not apply the Pro Res Compressor...

I wanted to test Premiere to see if it could handle Pro Res videos (which after some initial research, I read that it can). So to see for myself, I imported a Pro Res 422 video, right clicked the clip and selected "New Sequence From Clip"... But it does not seem to apply the Pro Res 422 compressor...
The video is originally HDV and I converted in Compressor to 422...
I know it may be pointless to convert HDV to Pro Res (not to mention that the HD clips weights 45 MB and the converted 205 MB, although in FCP the pro res is less taxing on the system as opposed to HDV, not sure if the same applies with Premiere)... But I will be receiving from pro res files soon, and I want to make sure they work properly in Premiere.
Thanks

Being a recent FCP devotee I will see if I can interpret what this person expected.
By dropping a Prores 422 clip on the Make Sequence button, I will hazard a guess that he expected to see a Prores 422 sequence created. In the FCP workflow that is the desire sequnce to play that clip in. What he is seeing in the second image (the sequence settings) is an AVCHD 1080 anamorphic sequence. And hes not sure why its not Prores.
Im sure once he reads the links Todd provided he will understand he is not in Appleland anymore and that there is a different workflow with PrP.
How did I do? ;-)

Apple Pro Res on Quad Core G5

Hi,
Does anyone know if it's possible to capture Pro Res & Pro Res HQ on the quad core version of the G5 Mac using a Kona 3 card. I've heard that the quad core model is of a high enough spec to be able to do this although apple suggests that only an Intel Mac can handle Pro Res.
Thanks,
Keith.

Hi, Pro res 422 Is already there in FCP 6 though the HDV to Pro Res capture preset does not appear until 6.0.2. I use this regularly on a PPC G5. Go here for full details.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/capture_hdv_prores_fwbalis.html
This should answer your question if I understand you correctly

Capture apple pro res

Hi,
I'm importing from a sony HDR_FX1E
and want to log and capture using apple proress 422 HQ.
but my files come up as data file which i cannot open in quicktime
My project opens perfectly in final cut pro.
my AUDIO/VISUAL SETTINGS
SEQUENCE PRESET: APPLE PRORES 1440 X 1080 25P 48KZ
CAPTURE PRESET: HDV- APLLE PRO RES 422HQ
DEVICE CONTROL PRESET: SONY HDV 1080I50 FIREWIRE
DOES APPLE PRORES USUALLY SAVE FILES AS DATA FILES NORMALLY?
THANKS

It's a known problem and has been discussed in the Final Cut Pro forum a couple of times.
Adding .mov to the files will make them work properly.
If you have lots of files, consider building an Automator workflow like this:
Change the source and destination folders to suit the location that your files currently reside in and where the renamed copies should end up. You can safely leave out the Copy Files section if disk space is a concern.

Pro Res v HDV v SD comparison test

Just incase anyone is interested, I have just completed a comparison test for checking the processing times for converting HDV footage into SD (ready for authoring). Having read up on the forum,the options of keeping things in native HDV , converting to 422 or downconverting to SD at the start, I thought I would try a like for like test and see how it came out, both from a processing time and quality viewpoint. (this is only my test, so please don't hammer me if you don't agree, I am only trying to share this basic test.
Exactly 1 minute of footage was filmed on Sony Z1 as HDV
The footage contained a mixture of static, and slow pan shots, to make it a bit challenging.
Option 1 - Capture and edit using Pro Res 422
Option 2 - Capture and edit using native HDV
Option 3 - Down convert from HDV to SD via the camera, edit in SD anamorphic (don't groan just yet)
All clips had the exact same transitions and filters applied
These were 2 x cross dissolves, 1x 3way colour corrected clip, 1 x speed modification clip.
All processed on a new MBP 2.53 with all settings left as default (hopefully a fair representation for many)
The process was to export a self contained QT file, import into compressor (best quality), timed until the MPEG2 and AC3 file icons popped up as complete and ready for import into DVDSP.
The time results were as follows:
Option 1 (Pro Res422) - time taken to exp to QT = 131sec, Compressor encode time=371sec
Total time 502 secs i.e 8m 22s with the QT file size being 731mb
Option 2 (native HDV) - time taken to exp to QT = 197sec, Compressor encode time = 400 sec
Total time 597 secs i.e 9m 47s with the Qt file size being 192mb
Option 3 (DC to SD 1st)- time taken to exp to QT = 22 sec, Compressor encode time = 94 sec
Total time 116 secs i.e 1m 56s with the QT file size being 219mb (strange as i thought it would be less than the HDV version, but there we go)
All 3 options were then imported into DVDSP and the same settings chosen for burning a SD DVD and the 3 dvds then displayed on a 42"plasma (pioneer) and 42"LCD (sony bravia).DVD players Sony upscaling DVD connected via HDMI and Sony Std DVD non upscaling DVD player.
6 people(1 x BBC camera man, 1 X editor and 1 x program manager, 3 x general public ) were then persuaded to view DVDs and pick what they thought was the best. None had any knowledge as to which was which.
Results surprised me, in so much that most struggled to spot the difference!
1 picked the Pro Res (stating they thought it was a little sharper)
1 picked the native HDV, giving a similar reason
4 said that they would be happy with either and couldn't see any concernable difference to pick one over another.
Ok so maybe not a scientific test, and I am sure some will say oh but...if you had done this, or that, then the results would have been different, but hey I only did the test to see in a real world, what the differences are. Certainly the processing times varied hugely from 1m56s to 9m47s for the same 1 minute piece of film. Likewise the QT file sizes from 192mb (hdv) to 731mb (422).
So if storage or time are really critical, I hope it may be useful to anyone with little HDV experience (like me) to make a decision. At least in this case, most people cannot tell the difference for it to be that important.
I would like to hear if anybody else has had too much time on their hands to carry out similar tests and come up with the same or different results?
This is after all only a tiny piece of the jigsaw.
Cheers
Stu

It offers better performance when editing. HDV is processor intensive, and can take longer to render, and a lot longer to compress into your final format. And HDV is an 8-bit 4:2:0 codec. While you can't change that going to ProRes, ProRes is 4:2:2 10-bit, and color correcting that gives you better leway with color...you can push things more. just a TAD more, as your color information is already whack.
But if you intend to master back to HDV, do not go to ProRes. To go back to HDV you need to capture as native HDV.
Shane

HDV 1080' VS Pro Res question.

Can anybody explain, why when I compare footage from a Sony Z1 encoded in HDV and played on the timeline against footage shot on a Panasonic SD700 in its 50p mode and encoded in any Pro Res but particularly in Pro Res HQ, the Sony is outclassed spectactularly by the SD700. In the backgound the detail is superb and makes the Sony look like "mush".Yet the Panasonic is a mere £700.
The reason I ask is because I have been yelled at on many occasions as to the superiority of HDV over AVCHD. But my own eyes tell me otherwise (in this case)
It would appear that the SD/TM 700 compares favourably with XD Cam EX1 which is £4000 (When it shouldn't!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lMByIVeMA0
Presumably I am imagining all this!??

trabant wrote:
You said,"Pardon my bluntness (and no offence intended), but transcoding footage into anything of higher quality than ProRes 422 (not HQ) is a pure waste of disc space."
Sorry to be blunt as well,butluckily I always try things out for myself and not listen to the mantras of those who lecture from on high,but who have not actually performed the task themselves.
I will assume you misunderstood my original statement and are not acting out of defensiveness or petulance. Did you also notice that I used smileys in my post (which you did not)? You need to chill out. And, no one is preaching from on high, either. Do you really think that most people post here just to see their own words and not to earnestly help out others?
And, if you want to challenge or discuss my stated comments, there is a more appropriate way to do it rather than ad hominem attacks. Enough said. You should have simply mentioned that you disagree based on your testing (and elaborate on exactly how you've done that testing) and ask me to clarify my statements further. Pretty easy...
On top of all of this, your "attack" on my comments is just wrong. Even what you quote from me doesn't say anything about ProRes 422 (LT). Additionally, my comment was a pretty general statement, already mentioned by others in the thread.
Also, part of comparing the "before and after" codec/format must include the tool used to do the transcoding. Different tools produce different results.
And, yes, testing is good and should be done for every project before actual work begins.
Firstly, disc space is not an issue any more as hard discs are so cheap. Secondly THERE IS a noticeable difference in the background detail between Pro res LT and Pro Res hQ when transcoding from 50p AVCHD material. I know, because I've done it and I can see it.
Space still can be an issue. If you are working on a documentary, for example, with hundreds of hours of footage, disk storage usually is an issue for most people. Choosing between the various versions of ProRes can be an important consideration. Deciding whether or not to use an offline-online workflow may include consideration of a chosen codec.
And, when you are discussing a technical issue, you need to be as clear as possible. Simply, saying that transcoding from 50p AVCHD material to some version of ProRe is not enough. What was the bit rate ("quality setting") of the footage? Under what circumstances was the footage acquired? What tool did you use to do the transcoding? What settings were used? How did you evaluate the quality of the results? You didn't mention any of this info, yet you didn't bother to ask me (or others).
Perhaps you didn't really read my post well-enough to get the gist of what I was saying. Or, maybe I could have explained things more clearly. My comment was about not wasting disk space by transcoding a "low quality" acquisition format like HDV or AVCHD into anything more than what is needed to preserve the original contents of the acquisition media (as much as possible, or to an acceptable level).
Later on in my comments, where I give more specific examples of my own workflows, I never mention using the LT version of ProRes 422.
As far as testing goes, one method I personally use is to compare before and after versions of media via a "difference compositing" and viewing the results on video scopes. A more quantitative approach is to import the two versions into a mathematical analysis application and do statistical analysis on the actual pixel values (and compare the two versions).
Sorry if my first statement came across as unclear. You could have asked for clarification. My statements in my previous post were clearly about HDV footage (I didn't mention AVCHD, at all)...
Dave

CS 5.5 renders apple pro res poorly compared to CS5.0

Hi hi,
This is my first time posting here.
I'm experiencing a loss in the quality of text in my rendered video after migrating from cs5.0 to cs5.5, and I would like to know if there is any way cs5.5 could give a better render, or if I should switch back to cs5.0 for the time being.
The video that I'm rendering consists of two videos: a video of a power point presentation, and a video of the speaker/presenter pip'ed over the power point video. The text on the power point slide is poor quality when exported from cs5.5 compared to the same video rendered in cs5.0 with the same settings.
All of my source video is apple pro res LT codec, and was captured on a AJA Ki pro device. My sequences are setup as progressive to match the source.
I'm exporting as MPEG2-DVD
Export settings:
Again, I've rendered the same project in both cs5.5 and cs5.0 each with the same export settings; however, the cs5.5 rendered video has blurry text (exspecially on the charactors such as the 'e') on the power point slides where the cs5.0 looks fine.
system notes:
I have the latest quicktime version installed.
Working on window 7 systems.
Comparison (Note: This is actually a pretty good case for cs5.5. Other slides in previous renders were much worse, but you can still see the difference here.):
CS 5.5
CS 5.0
Thanks,
Ted

Seems 5.5 is not applying MaxQuality sharpening.
Is this a direct export from Premiere or did you send it to AME?
I have found a sligt difference when doing this.

HDV v Pro Res Rendering Test

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for