Proxy vs Optimised and Pro Res HQ vs H254

Hi guys,
I importet about 28h of HD footage and would like to edit it. I imported with the "proxy" option enabled.
Now I did a quick test and exported as Pro Res 422 HQ and H264. The Pro Res HQ looks a tiny bit better then the H264. Why is that?
Now comparing the export with the Original File of the clip, the quality is not as good. Not by far but a little bit worse. Could the reason be that I only enabled the proxy option but not the optimized one? What advantage would I have if I enabled both?
I am working on a Late 2008 MBP with 5GB Ram, so I would like to get the processing power down as far as possible for editing without loosing any final export quality. Whats the best for that?

Colour correction in Proxy is fine . . .
This is my pet simple explanation, of ProRes 422.
(I was confused by it for years, but a Ripple Training tutorial on MultiCam Editing finally cleared it up for me).
Most video cameras use very high compression to store media on cards or tape. If the native camera files you are working with play back and edit well with FCP X, strictly speaking, you don't need to transcode to ProRes (but it helps - especially if you have multiple camera angles and effects, titles etc - and with colour correction).
If your playback is problematic, it's best to transcode the material. You can do this at any time. ProRes 422 is not so highly compressed as native camera footage, so it's far easier for your Mac to play it back (not so much unpacking to do). The downside of the footage being lightly compressed is that it takes a lot more disk space.
If disk space is at a premium, use Proxy. Native 1920 x 1080 footage becomes 960 x 540 when converted to ProRes Proxy, so it this takes a fraction of the disk space but is much lower quality. This is absolutely fine for editing - but you must remember to choose 'Optimised or Original Footage' in FCP X Preferences before you export otherwise you'll export 960 x 540.
I use some XDCAM EX footage from a couple of Sony EX1 Rs and some H.264 from a Canon 5D mk2. Until recently, I edited the XDCAM footage natively but I transcode the H.264. Now I'm using Proxy more - especially for multicam editing.
I sincerely hope your Projects, Events and Media are on a fast (Firewire 800) external HD (Formatted OS Extended). Keeping them on your system drive makes it difficult for your Mac to operate. It's also a very good idea to hide Audio Waveforms in your Timeline when you don't need them. They waste a lot of processor power.
Andy

Similar Messages

MACBOOK PRO and PRO RES

Hello all!
I am researching buying a 15" middle tier, macbook pro for video editing. I understand you need an HD video card to capture the HD video to convert into Pro Res. But once its in the pro res format, can you use a macbook pro to edit it?
And if you can, is it extremely slow that's it's not really worth it?
Or do you that AJA I/O to edit the pro res video with the mbp?
Also, I looked into the eSata external drives to use the mbp, but when I checked out the specs on G-tech, the pdf comparison for speeds between esata and firewire 800 was miniscule. Isn't esata supposed to be much faster than firewire?

You can most definately edit ProRes on a MacBook Pro. FW800 RAIDED drive would be required for this, like the G-Raid, FirewireVR, LaCie D2. However, eSATA is faster and MUCH better. I don't know where you got your numbers for FW800-eSATA comparison, but if they are single drives, eSATA is 20MB-40MB/s faster. Get Raided drives and it is VASTLY different. 75MB/s for FW800 Raid 0 hardware raided drives (G-Raid) vs 140MB/s eSATA (S2VR Duo).
I can edit ProRes with my Powerbook G4 laptop...I just can't capture it.
And with the I/O HD, you have the perfect remote ProRes setup...and because it is a Firewire capture device, you must have an eSATA drive...well, you can get a firewire card, but eSATA is much better.
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 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 422 (Proxy) in Adobe Premiere

Guys, I've been having the most monumental problems today and in order to have a back up in case the doo doo hits the blades can the following be done?
I've got 12 Sequences which have been edited in a mix of Pro Res 422 (Proxy) and Pro Res 422.
The original files are AVCHD.
I'm unable to either access Media Manager or Batch Capture as FCP 7 just crashes.
If I was to give the Pro Res Sequences to my client can he then convert them to a suitable format on Adobe Premiere?
I really am at my wits end
EDIT: OK. I've just read that Pro Res cannot be imported into Premiere
So, lads, what can I do to give a final format to my client so that he can then author a DVD?
Message was edited by: Alpesh Gor

WHo says Premiere doesn't import ProRes? It has since CS3.
And why not try to solve your problem? Trash your prefs?
#44: FCP acting weird - Trash Prefs
Shane's Stock Answer #44: FCP acting weird or unusual. Just not like is normally should
If the program was working fine, and now isn't, or just isn't working the way it should, the first things to do are:
1) Trash your FCP preferences. Download the Preference Manager from Digital Rebellion: http://www.digitalrebellion.com/pref_man.htm
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/trashing_fcpprefs.html
2) Open the Disk Utility and Repair Permissions.
3) Shut down for 10 min. Go for a quick walk around the block and get SOME exercise today. Come back, turn on the computer and see how things are.
4) (optional) Do the Hokey Pokey and turn your self about. Results may vary.
Shane

Pro Res and Intensity Pro Question

Hello All!,
I currently traded in my Sony FX-1 for a Sony V1-U. Very happy with everything on it so far! My question is simple. I am about to undertake a project that is some basic 2 cam sit down green screen interviews. I will be purchasing the intensity pro to capture Pro Res 422 via HDMI from the V1U. My biggest concern is that I will not be able to re-capture if needed! I have read and am pretty sure I can set my camera to HDV downconvert and my device control to DV and capture preset Pro Res 422 and capture through the intensity pro.. My only question is will this allow me to log my footage then do a batch capture. Highly critical that I am able to re-capture the footage as this client seems to come back every couple of months and make changes and I don't like to keep footage on my drives. I also think it would be beneficial to have pro-res to help me with keying the green screen as HDV is 420 and Pro res is 422. Any suggestions? thanks so much in advance!
My Toys:
Mac Pro 8 Core
FCS2
2GB Ram
1.5 TB Internal Raid 0
Intensity Pro Card (Coming soon)
Matt Brodersen

Hello,
I have done just that sort of operation. I am using a Canon HV20 with HDMI out to
Intensity Pro. My camera allows for down convert, which I do not use, but I do connect
a firewire cable which then gives full log and capture. I am not a pro so my daily
experience is for my own needs.
I hope that gives you some help, others here might be able to offer more.
Tom

Question re :delivery in Pro Res HQ 1920 X 1080

I was just wondering what would be the correct sequence of events if you were shooting in HDV but had to deliver on Pro Res HQ 1920 X 1080.
Would you select "HDV Pro Res HQ" in the "capture settings" edit in this and then export using "Quick Time Movie" and Pro Res HQ 1920X1080?

If you can afford the drive space, yes, this is the best method. Though when you export, Current Settings will be fine rather than specifying ProRes.
If you can't afford the space, then capture in native HDV and export to ProRes HQ when finished. If it doesn't have to be "HQ", you also have the option of rendering to ProRes in your Sequence Settings.

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

Log and Transfer - XDCam to Pro-Res

Does anyone know a way to transfer XDCam footage directly to Apple Pro-Res using Log and Transfer?
Thanks,
M

Thanks meg. I'm trying not to have to sync all the rushes in a timeline. All rushes are in the one 58 min prores file. I wanted to, I guess, log and capture the rushes as clips that I logg in the log and transfer winnow and that it would then log and sort out the material as proxy files. I'm guessing I'm just being lazy or it can't be done. Thanks for the reply but I was looking for a differentbway round than a straight import of the whole file.
M

I'm trying to log and transfer from a pro res file (HQ) final cut s7 is telling me it is an unsupported format. What the?

i have a 58 min pro res hq file that is a .mov. it is in a folder on my hdd. i'm trying to syn rushes by logging and transferring clips from this file but i cannot bring the said file into log and transfer. final cut putsup a window that tells me the file is in an unsupported format. and to bring in a file with a supported pathway. this i do not understand. any simple explanation as to what i'm missing?

Thanks meg. I'm trying not to have to sync all the rushes in a timeline. All rushes are in the one 58 min prores file. I wanted to, I guess, log and capture the rushes as clips that I logg in the log and transfer winnow and that it would then log and sort out the material as proxy files. I'm guessing I'm just being lazy or it can't be done. Thanks for the reply but I was looking for a differentbway round than a straight import of the whole file.
M

If I imported proxy media to edit in fcpx, can I export a hight resolution (apple pro res 422 (hq)) version of the project ?

If I imported proxy media to edit in fcpx, can I export a hight resolution (apple pro res 422 (hq)) version of the project ?

OK, let me re-answer here. You HAVE to have either original or optimized media, you can not have Proxy only media, when using FCPX's inport options. You will switch between which FCPX is using; in 10.1 via the Canvas menu option called "Media", or in 10.0.9 and earily via the Preference's "Playback" settings.
When set to Proxy, FCPX only references that medai, which is 1/4 resolution, and not full quality. When set to Original Or Optimized, you'll get full resolution output, as FCPX is not referencing those files.
The only way to have Proxy only media is to convert it in Compressor and then import that. And that would just be a huge mistake.

Audio and Video out of Sync after Pro Res export

I´m getting an audio/video sync issue when I´m exporting to Pro Res.
I started off in a HDV1080i50 sequence. Audio sampling rate is 48khz. (16 bit depth)
The sequence is less than 20 minutes long. It plays correctly on the timeline.
When I export the sequence for DVD and view it on a set top it plays absolutely fine.
When I export the video to ProRes (422 HQ - I used Export using Quicktime Conversion) and the audio to AIFF, they quickly go out of sync. This was brought to my attention first by the guys who were making the DigiBeta master, and when I view the exported material in a Pro Res sequence I can see it for myself.
The audio and video clips are of the exact same duration.
Possible issues...
Some of the narration was recorded at 44.1 khz. I didn´t resample it (I´m still a learning novice..).. but if that is the issue should it not have affected the DVD as well? All the other audio in the project is 48khz.
Most of the material is HDV1080i50..but one clip used was originally an NTSC clip and therefore a different frame rate. However I converted it to a 25fps clip and this is reflected in the vid rate column in the browser where it says 25fps.
Final point, the exported AIFF files..when I import them back into the HDV1080i50 sequence and play back, it is perfectly in sync.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

First, yes resample the narration to 48k 16 bit. You will probably be able to reconnect to the resampled files. Usually works for me. That's a simple fix and will probably solve the problem. If it doesn't, you can try to change the codec (compressor) in the sequence settings to prores 422HQ, fully render and see if that solves the problem.
Wait, just reread your original post. Export from fcp using file: export: quicktime movie NOT quicktime conversion with current settings. If that works without synch issues, use compressor to convert to prores.

Pro Res and FCP X

Will encoding my clips to Pro Res and then importing them into FCP X speed things up instead of importing the clips straight from my camera to FCP X?

Sorry, this is footage taken from a Canon 7D. 24fps 1920x1080. FCP gets bogged down sometimes. I have a dual quad core Mac Pro with 16 gigs of ram.
Thanks,
Shawn

Sharing FCPX Pro Res 422 .mov master file with both Ps and Macs

I'm using FCPX 10.1.4 on Mac OS 10.10.2. I want to put a FCPX Pro Res 422 master file on a data DVD so it can be read and poled on both a Mac and PC using Quick Time 7. I tried using Toast 12 to create a data DVD playable on both a PC and Mac but it would not open on the PC. Any ideas what the problem might be or an alternative way to do this?
Thanks

One additional possible point of confusion: I think you wrote (or meant to write) "so it can be read and played."
A playable DVD is a very specific standard of filenames & compression sufficient to fit a two hour movie into 4.7GB of standard def video. Simply writing any video file onto a disc (maybe marked as "DVD-R") never creates a DVD that is playable in standard DVD players.
Given that, you can transfer any file (up to 4.7GB) by writing it onto a data "DVD" disc. However, as others point out, ProRes isn't windows-friendly (or good for small files) and just for seeing the video on other platforms, H.264 would be the right choice.

Uncompressed vs Pro Res 422 (LT) as archival codec and as editing codec

Hi -
I'm working on a project where we will be capturing 600 hours of footage from Hi8 tapes. The tapes are in somewhat iffy condition so we're only going to get one pass with them and that's it.
We've agreed with the owner of the tapes to digitize all of them for archival purposes, after which we will make a backup copy for us to edit with. We want to use Pro Res 422 (LT) as our editing codec, but there's some question about what codec we should use for archival purposes -- Pro Res 422 (LT) or uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2.
Basically, the debate is, given that the Hi8 format retains a relatively small amount of data, is there a benefit in terms of quality if we archive the tapes in uncompressed, or will the quality be just as good if we deliver in Pro Res LT to the archive?
Thanks!

Because while we would prefer Pro Res as our editing codec, the people to whom we will deliver an archival set of the material may insist on uncompressed.
Please -- no more questions about why I'm asking this question.
What I am hoping for here is a brief, to-the-point comparison of the pros and cons in terms of video quality of the two codecs (but something a little more informative than 'filet mignon' and 'hamburger').
I'm aware of the white papers, but I'd like to get the opinion of people with experience and knowledge who don't work for Apple who could boil it down --
Is Pro Res a good codec for archiving material, and how much if anything would be lost if we delivered to the archival house on Pro Res rather than uncompressed?
What argument, if any, can we make to an archival house that is leaning toward uncompressed that Pro Res will work as well for them? At the risk of answering my own question, would we be correct in saying that the image quality would be effectively as good with either codec (given that we're digitizing from Hi-8 tapes) and that delivering in Pro Res would save them a great deal of storage space?
As a reminder, we're talking about 600 hours of Hi-8 footage here. Thanks.

Proxy vs Optimised and Pro Res HQ vs H254

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for