Is ProRes as good as Cineform?

I have 720p HDV material shot on green screen and wondering wether ProRes or Cineform would be best for compositing. My cameraman has shown me the material perfectly composited in Cinefomr using Premiere CS3 on WinVista. When I try it in FCP and After Effects in ProRes I never get rid of the fringing around the hair of the person in the shot.
So ProRes and Cineform both claim to use 10bit 4:2:2 but has anyone had much experience using both codecs?
Kevin

My cameraman has shown me the material perfectly composited in Cinefomr (sic)
As mentioned...it all depends on the SOURCE material. HDCAM SR, FILM, Digibeta...high end shooting formats are easier to key...there is more information there. Stuff like DV, HDV...even XDCAM...are highly compressed formats and getting a clean key isn't as easy. It can be done, but there is a tad more work involved.
4:1:1 formats (DV) and 4:2:0 formats (HDV, XDCAM) are harder to pull a clean key. Missing color information makes it so. Doesn't matter if you make it 4:2:2 later...the information is already gone.
Shane

Similar Messages

MP4 to Apple ProRes codec

Hi all!
Just a quick query here.
I have a GoPro HD Hero sports camera which shoots at MP4. As FCP doesn't like the format I have converted to Apple ProRes using good old MPEG Streamclip.
I had roughly 40GB of rushes and once converted it has taken the folders file size to over 200GB!
Any reason why such a massive jump?
Cheers!
GK

Cheers for you replies
I did think it'd be because ProRes was less compressed but to jump up so much made me ask. It just seemed excessive that's all.
Studio X - Cheers but I do run all my media from an external Western Digital 2TB Firewire drive, have always done so. I shall certainly be deleting the ProRes transcode once the job is done.
Many thanks
GK

Edit HD footage in a PAL timeline

Hello gurus!
I will be editing a commercial with the latest FCP installed on my laptop. The commercial will be shot entirely on a Phantom Camera (1920x1080 HD). I will export the Phantom footage to TGA or Tiff sequences and then import them into FCP. The finished product will be delivered in PAL format.
I guess what we want to do is edit the HD footage in a Pal timeline but have the full 1920x1080 resolution available so as to perform various zooms on the HD footage and still retain PAL quality. The zooms will not be exceeding PAL limit i.e we will not zoom in the HD footage past 720x576 pixels.
Will this work if i just follow the above procedure, import HD footage and use a PAL timeline? Will this retain full HD quality of my footage or will the PAL timeline force the footage into 720x576? Will I probably have to render all the time? I am opting for delivering a title-less finished film in Pal format and then hand it over for the titles to be placed at a later stage.
I am new at HD so any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
Tolis

Thanks a lot you guys,
like you all said, it is as simple as importing HD footage and editing them on a SD timeline. Here's what i did:
I took my image sequences and converted them to ProRes .mov in Quicktime then dropped them into a DV Pal project with the DV Pal Sequence Preset (I tested both High Quality and Proxy and both work in FCP with no need to render) and voila, i have HD footage to pan and zoom around to!
This is what i wanted to do.
I also did a few tests and i am posting the questions that came up in the process.
When i did the test i realized that whichever workflow we devised, i would have to convert my image sequences to video before bringing them into Final Cut!
Any other way to create video files out of image sequences besides QuickTime Pro or Mpeg Streamclip?
Is the HQ ProRes codec or any other ProRes Codec good enough to retain all color space so as if i convert all my Tiff Sequences to it i can use as my new source for online?
I also tried to work with the HD Tiff files directly into FCP and would like to know what would the best Sequence Preset be. I used 1920 x 1080/HDTV 1080i (16:9), square pixels and no field dominance. For the compressor part i found out that if i use uncompressed 10 or 8 bit, i can work without rendering, same with the Apple ProRes but if i put Tiff as a compressor i need to render to work. Can you explain a bit more on what the compressor option refers to in the sequence settings?
Another thing i tried is the Auto Conform option for new sequences but it appears to not work when i drop a tiff file into the sequence. I guess FCP does not consider this video to conform the sequence to.
Again thanks a lot for all the help. I will mark this thread solved once we discuss a bit more the new questions that came up.
T

Sony HXR-NX5U

My current video camera is a Sony TRV-20, a mini DV camera that I've had for 11 years. I just purchased a Sony HXR-NX5U camera, which records to memory cards using the AVC HD format. The Mac that I have was purchased in 2005 and is a Dual 2.7 G5 with 8GB of RAM. I have Final Cut Studio 2, but am unable to use Final Cut Studio 3 since my Mac still uses a PowerPC chip and not an Intel chip.
What I'm wondering is how well my setup will be able to handle HD video from this camera. Will I be able to work with the video this camera produces at its highest quality settings, or will I need to scale back a bit? Or will I need a new Intel Mac altogether?

Can FCP work natively with AVCHD files
nope.
or is ProRes so good that you wouldn't want to?
ProRes is an editing codec.
Can you export AVCHD, or only ProRes and SD footage once you're done?
Gotta convert to ProRes.
When it records in 1080/24p, does it record in that mode natively? Or, does it record the footage as interlaced and then you can remove the pulldown during the import?
Not sure. I don't own the camera. Shoot a test and see. Or, look that up in the camera manual.
Shane

Render Issues - Vertical lines

Speed Grade sure knows to handle CinemaDNG, realtime playback, very smooth, ...
But when I render, the result has a vertical striping pattern all over the image. And it happens with every output format possible (DPX, ProRes mov, H264 mov, CineForm, ...).
I've attached an example. The Vimeo compression seems to make the issue a little bit less noticeable, but the source files show big stripes.
I do not have this issue with any other CS6 application.
Any idea what may be causing this. A setting I'm overlooking?

Can you give me some infos about your system?
Also attaching your projectfile would be very helpful.
Thank you in advance
Duy-Anh

Best options for uncompressed HD master?

I've just finished my first feature-length project in HDV on FCP, and I have some questions about output. In the past I've always been editing SD DV under 60 mins, so master output was always easy. But between the HDV and the 90 min. run time, things are a little more complicated.
We shot and edited in native HDV 1080/60i. We've rendered our final master sequence in HD ProRes, but I don't know where to go from here. These are my main questions:
1. My primary distribution is going to be SD DVD, but I want to keep an uncompressed HD master file backed up on multiple hard drives. What's my best output option for such a file? Can I just export a self-contained QT in sequence settings? Will that apply compression I don't want? Is there a better output option in Compressor?
2. Keep interlaced or deinterlace? Again, most people will be seeing this as an SD DVD.
3. I'd also like to get a local video outfit to make an HD tape master for more secure long-term archiving. What tape format is recommended?
4. Question I should have asked but didn't? Please, do tell.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Stu

Ken Summerall, Jr. wrote:
The absolute best quality that you are going to get is by exporting a QT movie using current settings and making it self contained. Since you shot and edited in an HDV sequence this will add no further compression (remember that HDV is already heavily compressed).
Uh-oh. That's not actually correct.
HDV is relatively unusual as shooting formats go, in that it's a GOP format, as opposed to an I-frame format. In I-frame formats, each frame of footage (or pair of fields, if you're shooting interlaced) is compressed all by itself, independently of all other frames (or field-pairs). But in a GOP format, a number of frames are compressed together — that's what "GOP" means: "group of pictures." The first frame is compressed independently, then the next frame is described in terms of what's different from the previous frame.
When you edit HDV +and then export it as HDV again,+ whether to videotape or to a Quicktime, the GOPs must be "conformed." As you edit, you make cuts that break the GOP structure, so the timeline cuts from the middle of one GOP to the middle of another without including the first frame on which that second GOP depends. So when you export or lay off, Final Cut has to go through and convert a bunch of I-frames to B- or P-frames, and convert a bunch of B- or P-frames to I-frames.
In essence, exporting or laying off HDV imposes a compression hit. You will reduce the quality of your footage.
Since the question was about the best option for mastering, HDV is +definitely not it.+ Would it be okay? That depends on the footage, and on how picky you are. But it's not the best option. The best option is to master to a (ha ha) mastering format. Uncompressed 8-bit, Uncompressed 10-bit and ProRes are good choices here.
As for tape … that's tougher. You can absolutely send an uncompressed or ProRes Quicktime file to a dubbing house and get it laid off to videotape, but the question is to what format? HDV is a poor choice, because of the aforementioned compression hit you take when conforming the GOPs. DVCPRO HD would actually be a step down for you, because it would downsample your 1440x1080 native footage (or your 1920x1080 master, if you chose to upres) to 1280x1080.
That leaves HDCAM and HDCAM SR. If you've done things like color correction or compositing in a 10-bit color space — or even long-slow dissolves to or from black, which is one of the places where 8-bit really falls apart on you — choose HDCAM SR. HDCAM is an 8-bit format only, and you'll lose color precision if you go to that format. But if you stayed 8-bit all the way through your workflow, then you can go to HDCAM without any real problems.
Note that both HDCAM and HDCAM SR +are compressed formats.+ Your only option for uncompressed HD videotape is D6, and good luck finding a Voodoo recorder nearby. But HDCAM and SR are good enough for professional mastering, so they'll surely be good enough for you as well. And they're both available in 94- and 124-minute lengths, so you can master your whole feature on a single tape.
(While you're at it, consider getting your uncompressed or ProRes master file dubbed off to a data tape format as well. You worked really hard on this project, so it makes sense to be a little paranoid about preserving the fruit of your labors.)

Flip hd...sony webbie...kodak zi6

anyone using these small hd cameras with final cut pro 6.0? thoughts? need to convert in fcp with aic?
thanks

If this is a version of AVCHD then yes you will open Log & Transfer and transcode to AIC or ProRez.
Good Luck
Z1

Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422

Is there any real advantage in transcoding DSLR H.264 files to a 4:2:2 via NeoScene to the Cineform 422 coddec over ProRes 422 with MPEG clipstream or Adobe Media Edcoder?
Thanks,

Since I often am dragging my CTI over my Sequence timeline, I get far better response using i-frame (ProRes) over LongGOP (H.264). It's physics. It's the law.
Depending on how much footage in your project, it can be faster in the long run to transcode to an i-frame codec rather than editing native. For long form work, I recommend transcoding to i-frame first. It will take more time before you can begin editing, but once your timeline starts to get 30 minutes plus, you'll avoid a lot of slow-downs caused by LongGOP unpacking.
For short projects - those that take a few days - I mostly edit native. The slowdowns caused by LongGOP don't seem so bad when they're not multiplied exponentially, as in a long-form project.
For the most part, ProRes 422 works well in Pr on my Mac. I've not had as good luck with ProRes4444 (I have a thread ongoing about my issues.).
I use MPEG Streamclip to make ProRes 422 from H.264 from a digital still camera.
Here's a tip, if you have an 8-core machine: Duplicate your copy of MPEGStreamclip. Launch both, set them to use 4 Simultaneous Tasks. Then, when you batch export (half of your files to each instance), you'll see that all 8-cores of your CPU are being maxed out. This will get your transcodes done at maximum speed.

Cineform to ProRes so I can export to Color

Hi,
I have a bunch of edited clips that were captured in the Cineform codec - I cant send them to Color so I would like to convert them to ProRes so I can send them to Color.
How can I convert them to ProRes? I send the sequence to ProRes and rendered but they stayed as Cineform and would not work in Color.
Thanks.

Sorry for resurrecting a somewhat old thread. I've been on a forum hiatus for a while.
Cineform is a very high-quality codec, however, the workflow to properly transcode your source clips requires the use of Compressor.
There was a project at the university campus here a while back that encountered a similar issue. One of my co-workers works on a camera that uses the Cineform codec, and he confirmed this workflow. The idea here is to transcode your source media to ProRes, and "Reconnect" it in FCP.
You will need to do the following:
1. Locate your source media via the Finder.
2. Create a separate folder with a similar name to that of the folder which contains your source media.
3. Open Compressor.
4. Add your Cineform clips to the Job window, and apply the appropriate ProRes setting. Set your Destination to the secondary folder.
** I would recommend creating a "Custom Destination" for this. By using a Custom Destination, it will automatically strip away the preset info from the exported file name. The idea here is to create new source media using the same filenames as your Cineform media.
5. Submit your batch.
6. When the transcoding has completed, go back to your FCP project and DUPLICATE your sequence (for backup purposes).
7. Select the clips on your timeline and take that media offline.
8. With all of the clips still selected, reconnect them to the new ProRes clips. (This is why it's important to keep the filenames the same.)
9. You may need to change the Sequence settings to match your ProRes settings.
10. Send to Color.
Hope this helps.

Cineform in PPro 2014.1 playback Native?

Is the new built-in Cineform codec read natively in PPro 2014.1?

Ok Thanks. I'm just trying to get a handle on the supposed performance and impact of using Cineform as a system wide codec for editing/compositing. We do not work with camera acquired ftg...everything is animation from in-house GFX dept. They are rendering for our use in various PPro Systems...both Mac and Win. We have bailed on ProRes as some of our Window builds will give errors when importing prores that was exported from the macs. We can not find a consistent reason for this error. So we are looking for a codec that is happy going to and from both mac and win.
And best performance - no dropped frames - is what we want. And we work mostly in 4k minimum....seldom good 'ol HD...however we do Previz in HD so that is another possible application for cineform.
So bottom line...Cineform is natively supported in PPro on both win and mac...meaning no further decoding needed for playback...and does that mean it does not access the QT 32bit engine for this process?

Help! Premiere Pro runaway timeline playback with multicam and Cineform Neo clips

Hello,
I have experienced a problem with a "runaway timeline" in Premiere Pro CS5.5 - not always, but fairly often. Once playback begins, nothing short of restarting the computer can stop it. I don't know if this is a bug that needs fixing or something else. I am a recent Mac / FCP7 switcher to the Adobe product line.
My machine is a Sandy Bridge i7 quad core chip on Windows 7 with 16GB of RAM. I do not have an Nvidia card in the system yet. I am running Premiere Pro 5.5 using a multicam timeline with Cineform Neo clips at 1080p (four camera angles). The initial "live edit" of the multicam went well, and I am now trying to go back and tweak the exact edits. Playing back the multicam sequence to check the program edits has resulted in three "lock ups" where nothing will stop the playback (video and audio), not the space bar, mouse, escape key, nothing. The mouse still moves normally but none of the buttons in Premiere Pro "click". Interestingly, I can open other programs and hit restart on the computer, but the timeline just keeps on playing. All clips are converted to Cineform Neo at 1080p. The computer is showing 56% of CPU being used and roughly 45% of RAM.
I don't what other info would apply - no other apps are open when this happens and none were open before this (clean boot with Premiere being the first and only program run).
If anyone has any suggestions on how to fix or avoid this, I would be very appreciative.
Thank you in advance,
Videoguy 16x9

Hi Jim,
Thank you for your reply. I like the machine, and I did try the clips without converting but the HDV and DSLR clips alongside the XDCAM clips all in one multiclip really didn't flow so well. I also love First Light for color grading and correction (part of Cineform Neo) - the color correction is all in the metadata, so there is no slow down or drag on the system during playback.
I have an OWC 4TB RAID connected via eSata which should be plenty fast, especially on the Sandy Bridge chipset and 16GB of RAM, but the clips just didn't feel light or zippy. Coming from a Final Cut Pro background, I'm so used to transcoding everything to ProRes (and I used to be on Adobe and then Vegas so I was used to Cineform's workflow), that going back to Cineform seemed like a good solution. Cineform is also the format we are using as a mastering format for program materials.
It all plays very well, the four cameras in the multiclip, the trouble is that as I'm watching the playback of the mixed multiclip, it just keeps on playing. Nothing stops it, it's very weird. Especially since it continues to playback perfectly and I can also open other apps and work around in them (trying to unstick Premiere). Still the timeline continues to play, perfect video and sound without skipping a beat. I haven't let it reach the end (long form program) so I don't know how that would affect it. I wish I knew if it was a Premiere thing, a Cineform thing or something in the cross talk. In any case, I seem to be the only one with this weird side effect.......

Is there a good way to "debug" a QuickTime

The subject of my question is a little misleading, but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it.
Until recently, I've done all my work in ProRes 422 (not HQ) using 8-bit rendering. Naturally, I expect that all my finished QuickTimes coming out of Final Cut have had 8-bit video in them. This has been fine.
But yesterday I rendered a graphics project out of After Effects that exhibited some pretty nasty banding. "I know," said I, "I'll make this a 16-bit project, then render out to a 10-bit ProRes movie."
I went through all the necessary steps to do this — since this isn't an After Effects forum I won't go into details, but feel free to ask if it sounds like I need to be checked on these — and got a resulting QuickTime movie that … looked exactly like the first one.
This got me scratching my head, so I went back into Final Cut, took some 8-bit footage I'd shot on my camera and dropped it into two ProRes 422 (HQ this time, just for safety) timelines, otherwise identical except for the "render all in high-precision YUV" option which was ticked on for one and off for the other.
I applied the same ridiculous three-way-CC filter to each clip, and rendered them out as self-contained QuickTimes.
Opening each movie in QuickTime Pro and looking at the info inspector reveals that they're each a 1440x1080 ProRes 422 (not HQ) movie with "millions of colors." Specifically not "trillions of colors."
Are there any good tricks or tools for peeking inside a QuickTime file and finding out exactly how the video is stuffed in there? Is there a good tool that I can use that will tell me, for example, "Hey, this QuickTime contains movie data encoded with the ProRes 422 compressor, stored as 10-bit YUV," or whatever?
Cause of course one possibility is that one of these movies really is 10-bit and the other really is 8-bit and QuickTime Pro is just wrong about the "millions of colors" thing. But the other possibility is that I messed something up in my workflow, and both of these movies really are 8-bit, despite my telling Final Cut specifically to use high-precision rendering for one of them.
Any suggestions?

Well, there are settings you can change in QuickTime Player to improve it's playback. Look in the Window menu to see the properties and inspect the QT movie.. there is a button to turn on in the Inspector so it plays at "high quality".. it's not the default setting, and will show you all the quality you have. Plus viewing interlaced material on a computer display will never look all that great, because the computer display is progressive, not interlaced... need to always judge things externally on a video monitor because of this, or add a Matrox MXO to your system to change the nature of the computer display so it becomes a video monitor in essence.
BUT any time you put a clip in a sequence in FCP, it changes it's format to match the format that the sequence itself is set to be. So if you put a 10 bit clip in a sequence set to render in 8, it becomes an 8 bit movie.
HTH
Jerry

To save time, could I get away with just using ProRes Proxy?

Might be a dumb question. But please play along with me...
I've been battling with FCP-X since it first came out. Beach balls, crashes, failed auto saves, you name it. Sluggishness is my middle name. But I think it might be because I'm trying to force too much quality through my older, less powerful machines and my little firewire 400 hard drive. All three of my Mac are 3-4 years old, all are from the old "Core 2 Duo" era (not quad core processors), and are all maxed out at 4GB of RAM. While I've read that many people are having performance problems with FCP-X even on brand spankin' new suped-up Mac Pros with lots more horsepower than I'm running, I've long thought that my machines and their lack of power by today's standards may be at the heart of my sluggishness problem, especially given that most of the material I work with is shot in 1080 HD. (I've never actually tested it in FCP-X, but I'm assuming that things would speed along more like I've been used to in the past if I would just do everything in Standard Definition 480, but that ain't gonna happen.)
Like many, I shoot most everything in 1080 HD (usually 24p, sometimes 30), unless I'm occasionally shooting 720 HD at 60i for later slowing down to slo-mo.
Here's my question: Most everything I edit is for web delivery, and 99 percent of it is for my own use (not clients). Mostly podcast-like stuff, although occasionally I'll create something for my business website. Most of what I do is talking head type stuff, not a lot of motion (except for the 720/60i slo-mo stuff, which usually has some motion, which is why I shoot it at 60i for slowing down). Most of what I shoot is green screen talking heads, intended to be keyed in front of some innocuous background like some of the generators in FCP-X. I want it to look good. Even great. But given the limitations of power on my machines, I also don't want to invest an eternity in rendering and processing time. The work I'm doing with video just isn't that important. It's mostly for grins.
Until last night, I had been working exclusively in ProRes422 (aka "Optimized"). But last night I shot some footage and imported it into FCP-X, encoding it ONLY in ProRes Proxy. And frankly, I couldn't discern any difference. It looked every bit as good as the 422 stuff I'd shot before. There was absolutely no difference to my naked eye. That said, the footage I shot last night to test this out was not shot in front of the green screen (I'll test that out today or tonight), so maybe the Proxy footage won't key as well. (I've been stunned at how good the keyer is in FCP-X, but up to this point I've only been keying ProRes422 footage, not Proxy.) But really, based on just eyeballing the footage, I couldn't tell the difference between the Proxy footage and all the other footage I'd shot previously that had been imported and converted to "Optimized" ProRes422.
I'm not looking to deliver anything for broadcast television (if I were, I'd for sure use 422). I'm not doing any feature film type stuff. My video work consists mainly of stuff just for me, for my own personal amusement (and for the amusement of anyone who might watch it on the web). It's intended for YouTube, Vimeo, or occasionally (in smaller dimensions than 1920x1080) for deployment on my company website. Mostly, it's just me doing podcast-type stuff. Occasionally I'll shoot and edit something for church, or for friends. I like to think the production values of my stuff tend to be higher than, say, the footage Aunt Delores shot at Uncle Ralph's birthday party (okay, A LOT higher than that!). But my stuff isn't going to air on "Good Morning Flatbush" either (unless, on the off chance it should happen to go viral).
So let me make my question as clear as possible: Could I not get away with just using ProRes Proxy throughout my entire work flow, end to end, never switching over to ProRes 422 even when exporting? Honestly, it has taken hours just to render the keyed green screen footage on a 15 minute video, and just the other night, it took the better part of 4 hours (after it was already rendered) to export a 15 minute ProRes422 sequence to YouTube (and then the darn thing timed out, essentially wasting all my time). I'd rather just stay in Proxy the whole way through if doing so would streamline my workflow without compromising too much quality in the "look" of the video. Based on my very limited use of Proxy (just testing it out last night for the first time), I couldn't tell the difference. Maybe for web deployment, Proxy is all I really need.
Have any of you just stayed in Proxy the whole way through, never switching to 422 even when exporting? Might this be an acceptable work flow for some of us, especially those of us on older, less powerful machines? Is this a viable solution? Do any of you work this way? What's your level of satisfaction?
Thoughts?

A lot of what I'm shooting is being shot on a Canon XA-10. Some (and certainly all of the 720 footage, but some of the 1080) is shot on a 7D. And still more is shot on either an iPhone 4S, or even on a Flip Ultra (720p, 30fps).
Most is shot on the XA-10.
What I'm trying to avoid is the excessive render times (doesn't the ProRes 422 footage have to render as well?), and the ridiculously long times it takes to export. Would all that not be reduced significantly by sticking to Proxy the whole way? And what would the trade-off be? I mean, I honestly can't see any discernible difference. Maybe I will when I try to pull a decent key. (Haven't gotten that far yet in my Proxy experimentation.)
Of course, editing in Proxy and outputting using 422 requires that FCP-X encode to BOTH when importing, right? Doesn't that add yet another bit of time to the overall process?
I'm trying to streamline, and to reduce the overall amount of time I'm spending doing this stuff.

Follow up question about image not looking good in canvas-Shane?

I guess this is a follow up question for Shane....
You wrote this in response to someone a year ago which helped me out.
Shane's Stock Answer #49 - Why is the quality different between what I see in the Viewer and what I see in the Canvas?
Well... the viewer is just that-- a viewer. It will display anything that fcp will recognize as usable video or graphics. The canvas is a viewer too, but at the pixel dimension specified by the settings of your project and sequence.
For example, if your graphic or footage is much higher resolution than your 720x480 DV sequence, FCP is interpolating down your file to fit the settings of the sequence. Usually this makes it look not so hot. DV is a 5:1 compression working with a 4:1:1 color depth. Your pristine picture images and graphics are being crushed.
Same with picture files. HIgh res pics now adopt the sequence settings and will render to those specs, and most likely they are not as high quality.
So, based on your answer, I made an HDV sequence, dropped my DVCPro50-NTSC footage and my tiffs into the sequence and now the stills look great. Is this an okay workaround or do you have another suggestion? I'm worried about this HD sequence taking too long to make a compressed QT from in the end.
Thanks!

Photo JPEG is a good option. But this all depends on what your final output will be. If you are going to make a DVD, then that is SD, so using an HD sequence setting makes no sense. Photo JPEG is good, but not realtime in FCP. DV50 or ProRes NTSC are good options.
Unless you are making an HD master...in which case ProRes 422 for HD is good

AE CC and the Rest of Adobe Apps - ProRes Quicktime Render Gamma Problem Back AGAIN

Hi ---
With this version I am back to square one with AE NOT being able to render out correct gamma exporting to PR4444 -
Scenario (And this matter NOT whether I use Color Management or Not)
1) I open a Clip in AE or PPRO (In this case a TIFF Sequence RAW'ed from Lightroom)
2) I switch back and forth between Lightroom and AE and the images are identical in color and gamma
3) I export to PR4444 and open in Quicktime Player or FCPx and the Gamma is off.
4) If I re-import the exported file into AE - AE reads the file with a diff. gamma and the result appears to be identical with source
But it is no good that the result only looks the way it was intended in AE ! --- The poeople on the web are not viewing the movie in AE but with other players.
If i open that same tiff sequence in the quicktime player pro and export to PR4444 the results are 100% identical.
I find it highly frustrating that a company so higly regarded with so amazing software is NOT able to render out an image correctly...
This problem has been around since forever and I find it higly disturbing that this issue has not yet been addressed.
As of now I have no choice that to ditch AE and PPRO.... I WANT the images I work with to look the way they do in the app while color grading... What point is there in CG'ing images to perfection
if adobe cant even render out the results....
As I stated it does NOT matter whether I am color managing or not... Results are lighter in gamma when viewed in anything else than AE or PPRO !!!!!!
The amount to correct back is approx. a gamma of 0.9
BTW --- When in 32 bit how come I cannot set a gamma of 0.905 why is the gamma limited to two digits after the comma... 32 bit has MUCH more to offer !!!!

Thanks Todd,
I have tried those tips before. Unfortunately, I haven't had great success with them in this case.
When I reserve the 16GB of RAM for other apps and RAM preview a comp containing multiple Prores 4444 footage layers, it plays back and retains the cache as expected. However, the 2nd RAM preview of another comp in the same project containing multiple Prores 4444 footage layers stays stuck in "Initializing Background Processes." A check with Activity Monitor usually shows aeselflink processes that are hung up.
This has been my experience until I came upon the work-around of precomping Prores files.
To demonstrate, here's a screen shot of the stuck process with the memory settings I used -
I rebooted the system and tried 2 more times with the same result.
If I simply precomp the Prores 4444 footage layers as demonstrated in the video, I get smooth RAM preview caching and performance. This works even if I allocated less RAM to other applications in the Memory and Multiprocessing preferences (hence the 6GB setting from earlier). With the work-around, AE runs smooth with no hiccups and RAM previews behave as expected.

Is ProRes as good as Cineform?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for