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

Similar Messages

  • 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

  • Issue with Pro Res sources when encoding in Media Encoder.

    There seems to be a big issue with Pro Res sources in Media Encoder. I've noticed that when exporting using the 'software only' mode my graphics and titles look horrible, they are pixelated around the edges and the compression looks bad. This issue only happens when it's being made from a Pro Res source, if I make the exact same file Uncompressed this issue is resolved. If I use the 'Cuda' option (which I already know is the better option) this issue is resolved. The thing is, in a work environment not all of our systems are Cuda enabled and I would like to use Media Encoder as a exporting option overall. I love Media Encoder, it's fast and easy to use but this Pro Res issue is huge because the majority of the time we are working in Pro Res. I also did a test out of Avid Media Composer to Media Encoder, I sent a reference file referencing the Avid MXF material and the issue is gone, this seems to my knowledge to be a Pro Res only issue. The settings I am exporting to is 960 x 540 h.264 and also .mp4. This is coming from a 1080p source and yes I do have the 'maximum render quality' checked for best scaling. I understand that Software only vs Cuda and Open CL use different algorithms when scaling but this seems crazy to me that it would look  this much worse.
    Anyways if somebody can please look into this that would be great, this seems to be an issue where I can't continue at this moment to use Media Encoder. Making my source files Uncompressed every time to do an export is just not a real workflow I want to do.
    On a side note I've also recently noticed on a clip that had text over a grey background that there are lines going all down the screen evenly when exporting to even a non scaled 1080p .mp4. Once again, this issue goes away with any format but Pro Res. The weird part is this happens even with Cuda enabled. This is why I am thinking Media Encoder is having some sort of issue with the Pro Res codec.
    I am on a current new 27'' fully loaded iMac with the latest Adobe CC updates.
    Has anyone else experienced this?
    thank you

    No, it is why advance users do not use the wizard.
    Have a look at OpenOffice.org and its form creation. Once you add your fields in OpenOffice.org, just export to PDF and the form fields will be named just like you named in them in OpenOffice.org and the drop down values carry over.

  • 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

  • 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 or  Apple Pro-Res 422???????

    ok i have an cannon xh-a1. and if i want to get the top quality which one do i use? would i use HDV or Apple Pro-Res 422, and then which one would i export in to get the top quality.
    or are there any other ways to get the best quality. Thanks

    A simple answer? OK here it is: You bought the wrong computer for doing what you want to do. You should have bought a MacPro, an external drive array, and a 3rd party capture device such as an Aja IoHD or Kona LHe.
    That's your simple answer. However, as is often true in life, simple isn't the same as easy. Golf is a simple game, but it's far from easy.
    If you have clients paying you money to produce video projects, then you should buy the tools for the job that won't let you, and your clients, down. You might be able to edit with an iMac, but it can let you down when you most need it to perform.
    I would never recommend the iMac for a video business. You cannot expand it with 3rd party cards or powerful-enough external storage.
    I know that is not possible for you, so of all the bad choices you have in front of you, the least bad is to edit HDV. Forget about your quest for "the best quality". That ship sailed when you chose your iMac. Even editing HDV, you might be disappointed in your iMac's performance from time to time.
    For an external Firewire drive, I'd recommend a Burly enclosure (from MacGurus) with a removable drive tray and a Seagate 7200.11 SATA drive. Do not buy a LaCie or a Western Digital MyBook.
    Sorry, but this is a realistic answer.

  • PRO RES 422 HQ from color to fcp to HDV 1080i tape

    Have just thrown myself off a bridge due to frustration. Filmed a holiday movie a few years ago on HDV Pal and taught myself color on the project after completing it on FCP. I have spent 3 months of my spare time getting it looking how I want it and have just sent it back to FCP for outputting. Everything hunky dory so far except when I came to print to video (back to HDV for archiving) I'm being told that I can't print that seq to tape. Presumably because PRO RES 422 won't go to HDV. Is that so and do I have any answers?

    For having just thrown yourself off a bridge, your grammar, spelling, and punctuation are impeccable.
    You are correct. A ProRes sequence will not go to HDV. You must place your ProRes sequence into a new HDV sequence, render/conform, and print that to HDV tape.
    When you're going out via firewire, you pretty much have to match your sequence settings to your deck settings, DV>DV, HDV>HDV. Hardware capture cards/boxes by AJA & Blackmagic can up/down/cross convert on the fly, but not a direct firewire connection.
    So, use your ProRes sequence to create the DVD, and create an HDV sequence to archive it to a tape.
    And stop throwing yourself off bridges.

  • 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

  • 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 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.

  • 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 Capture as Pro Res 422

    I have captured my 50i HDV footage using the Pro Res 422 codec, but when I look at the captured files in finder they are marked simply as text files?
    Is this normal?
    I can open the files up in quicktime, but when I try to import them into a new project I cannot?
    Any help

    The 7.0.2 update is contained in the ProAppsUpdate 2010-01 which is accessed via Software Updater under the apple menu.
    x

  • FCP Settings HDV - Pro Res

    Hello.
    Im shooting some video in HDV but i want to edit in Pro Res (HQ)
    Might seem like an easy question but how do i set up the project.. there are so may options.   And im guessing i want it to be HQ or am I wrong.   I want FCP to digitise in Pro Res as well..
    Thanks in advance Rob

    Sure. But that means you'd have to capture, then convert...and have the drive space to do that.  With the method laid out, the capture takes about 40% more than real time (it does some odd encoding process)...and you only have the ProRes file...not HDV AND ProRes.  And media managing will take a lot more time than straight capture.
    Up  to you though..

  • Speed of conversion into Pro Res 422

    Has anyone done a test to check the speed of a conversion from HD to Pro Res 422 using compressor?
    example 1- a 10 minute clip in HD converted to Pro Res 422 using compressor takes . . .
    example 2- a 10 minute clip in HDV conveted to Pro Res 422 using compressor takes . . .
    also, does the meta data come across during the recompress (ie the timecode)?

    Ok, at least one of them:
    I converted a HDV "reference" export of 7 minutes to ProRes 422 HQ and it took about 16 minutes on a G5 Quad, 4GB memory using the second internal drive for source and results.
    I did it a couple of ways: using the smart defaults, and then tweaking it a bit to get rid of "jaggies" on all edges. I can't make them go away when viewing the resulting ProRes 422 HQ movie in Quicktime: tried changing QT to deinterlace, HIgh Quality, and all other known variants: no dice. It actually looks like what compressor 2 would do when down converting HDV to SD directly without the Bonzai workaround. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong.
    I was at the FCS 2 seminar in San Francisco on Tuesday, and their ProRes stuff looked great, so I don't know if it's because I started with HDV or what, but my HDV video in Quicktimes look MUCH better than my ProRess 422 HQ.
    The PR422 file size is and data rate are big enough; 220mb/s data rate and 10.6GB file. Hmmmmmmm.
    Anyone got a clue?
    Ed

  • DVCPRO HD/Apple Pro Res 422 HQ slow to transcode to DVD on 8 core Mac Pro's

    I've been conducting some tests and narrowed down the slow transcode times I'm having specifically to DVCPRO HD or Apple Pro Res 422 HQ clips when transcoding to 90-150 MPEG-2 DVD Presets. These formats take forever to render on a Mac Pro 8 core when compared to a G5 or a quad 2.66GHz Mac Pro. DV and DVCPRO 50 are transcoding at very fast speeds on a Mac Pro 8 core. I would like other Mac Pro 8 core users out there to confirm this... that way Compressor developers can do soemthing about these slow MPEG-2 transcode times. A 6 minute DVCPRO HD clip is taking 52 minutes to transcode to a MPEG-2 90 minute DVD Best Preset in Compressor. This is in comparison to 20 minutes on a G5 and 10 minutes on a Mac Pro 2.66GHz for the same transcode. This problem does not happen while transcoding to MPEG-1 or HD DVD MPEGs.
    I've tried everything:
    1. Wiped the system
    2. Switched memory
    3. Tried virtual clusters.. still slow even at 750% cpu utilization.
    4. Tried with updates and without updates.
    5. Tried with multiple other clips.
    6. Looked at my file permissions for each clip
    7. Made sure that each file is self contained.
    8. Tried custom presets.
    9. Googled to see if other people are having the same problem... found this: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/155/866630
    10. Compared times to DVD Studio Pro's encoder... DVD Studio Pro is way faster.
    11. I've written to Ken Stone and Mike from HDforindies.com... just to confirm the problem... waiting for their response.
    12. I've also written a suggestion/problem report to Compressor developers.
    Message was edited by: Trancepriest
    Message was edited by: Trancepriest
    Message was edited by: Trancepriest

    I've had the same chooppy/ipxelated results that you are having with DVD Studio Pro's encoder at different settings. If DVD Studio Pro had worked well... I would have dropped this issue somewhat. I'm so irritated that a Mac Pro 8 core... top of the line machine is getting floored by G5's and Quad Mac Pro's. Even though it's just with the DVD 90-150 minute presets... its still a major issue because i need to make DVD's on a regular basis. I woud feel so much better if I knew someone was looking at the problem. Including you I've found 3 others with the same issue. I'm hoping to get them on this thread.

Maybe you are looking for