Using ProRes

Hi,
I was given advice in another thread to use ProRes to improve performance. I didn't know what that was or even really what a codec was but I've been reading up on it so I have some more questions now.
1. I discovered how to transcode clips in the Event Library by right-clicking on the clip. Will this get automatically applied to clips in the timeline? I'm mostly done editing a project but it's going very slowly at this point because it's gotten fairly complex.
2. So from what I've been reading ProRes is a lossy codec but export codecs are lossier, so using ProRes won't actually change the end quality at all if, for example, I'm putting this online or on a DVD or something. Is this correct?
Thanks for the help.
Dave

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

  • 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.

  • Do I need to reinstall FCS 2 to use ProRes on Lion?

    I just moved to Lion on my Mac Pro. I'm mostly working in Adobe After Effects and Premiere now, but I still would like to use the ProRes codecs.
    I still have FCS 2, which I understand I can install on Lion with a little bit of trickery. I don't know if FCS is totally stable on Lion, and the thing is I may not even need FCS at all… but I'd love to keep ProRes. Is there a way I can continue to encode using ProRes without needing to reinstall FCS 2 via Rosetta?
    Thanks,
    Clint

    I figured it out. I can simply copy the ProRes codec from the Quicktime folder on my Snow Leopard drive to the corresponding folder on my Lion Drive. (I clean installed Lion on my second drive, so I still have my bootable Snow Leopard drive available for things like this)
    Now I can encode using ProRes with my Adobe apps without installing or reinstalling my Mac Pro Apps.

  • Quality of Clip captured using ProRes and clip converted to ProRes

    I have captured the same clip in both HDV 1080160 and ProRes 422.
    After editing the HDV version I export it using QT Conversion using the compression type "Apple ProRes." I then use the standard Compressor "DVD: Best Quality 90 minutes" preset unaltered. It looks fine in the Compressor Preview window. I then import the resulting files into DVDSP, and the quality is good.
    After editing the ProRes version I export it using QT Movie using the current settings. I then use the standard Compressor "DVD: Best Quality 90 minutes" preset unaltered. It looks fine in the Compressor Preview window. I then import the resulting files into DVDSP, and the quality is bad.
    Both clips are "ProRes" when imported into Compressor, and they both look fine in the Compressor preview window. The difference is that one was captured in HDV 1080i60 and converted to ProRes using QT, and one was captured in ProRes and exported as a QT Movie. Surprisingly, at least to me, the clip originally captured in HDV and then converted to ProRes looks much better than the clip originally captured in ProRes when they are imported into DVDSP. Both .mov files are compressed using the same Compressor preset, and the preset is unaltered.
    I assumed the clip originally captured using the FCP ProRes preset would yield the better quality, but this isn't the case. I've tried capturing using ProRes 422 HQ, and the results are the same. I must be missing something, but so far I cannot explain it.
    Thanks

    I have tried at actual, full screen, using 1080p30 size from the original compressed to 4mbs (something my system can handle without blinking), 720p30, etc. etc. etc.  Nothing stops the jumps. Even the activity monitor shows only 5%-15% processing being used by QT and/or FCP.
    I plan to pull my old G5 out of the closet, it runs 10.6.8 and is still rock solid for video editing in FCP7.  If it plays smooth on that 8 year old system then I know it's Mavericks. I'll try that tonight. It floors me though why the original 1080p30 will playback perfect via FCP and Motu, but once I turn of external monitoring and just try to play it via the preview monitor it is jumpy as **** and then the exported file does the same thing.  So strange.  I even deleted prefences of FCP and that does help with screen playback initially, but it always gets jumps in it after playing for a while.
    I knew I should not have started using Mavericks and I HATE FCP10.

  • Can I use ProRes on a - already existing - projet?

    Hi everyone,
    I've bought FCS2, and so, I have FCP6.
    I've currently an existing project in FCP (it come from FCP 5.1.4, and FCP 6 actualized it).
    I would like to know if I can convert my project data (my DV stored one my hard drive) into ProRes (DV PAL 48kHz) or if I need to create a new project to use ProRes.
    I'm especially interested in ProRes, because I'm run FCP6 on a laptop, and ProRes permit me to use less ressources when I work.
    Can I set ProRes (PAL) for all my projects even if some projects didn't have been imported into ProRes. Will FCP 6 annoy me?
    Thank in advance,

    There's some basic FCP knowledge needed here. Search / browse the manual for the parts where "clip" and "sequence" are defined and explained.
    Your clips are DV. You can drag them from anywhere - another sequence, the browser, whatever.
    The sequence is the timeline. Its output format is defined separately from those of the clips. If the clips don't match the sequence they are translated on RT playback, rendering, and output.
    If you were to "capture DV media directly to ProRes", then you will have recompressed it for no good reason - before you even start editing.
    On your last question: it has nothing to do with tape. It has to do with the compression. DV is a VERY lossy codec, thus the bit about going through DV twice being a hosing.
    If you send your stuff back to DV you are for the most part recompressing it to DV anyway, so having used a DV timeline would be no loss. ProRes is much less lossy, but like uncompressed formats it can't be recorded natively to videotape.
    Many variations on this answer depending on what one is actually doing. Probably confused it more...

  • When to use ProRes? or If?

    I have an uncompressed 10 bit movie on a USB drive in 720 x 486 format and I'm starting to work with FCPro for the first time in years. I understand that ProRes is an editing format and not an output format. My goal is to output to a standard def DVD. All the pro res sizes seem to be for HD. I'm just wondering if or when using ProRes is appropriate with my files?
    Thanks
    jeff

    At this stage of my project, I am color correcting the original film. That is about all I'm going to do with it except crop it for compression to 720x480 from x486. That will be one file for the dvd. I may have another film or two to put on the dvd [they are family films, short duration, transferred from old media like 8mm] and a slde show or two of old photos. The original film I received was uncompressed 10 in black magic at 720x486, and after emailing with Larry Jordan, I finally understood that the presets only affect capture of raw material and do not change an already encoded mov. I'm probably going to start over and apply the color corrections from favorites.
    So, I have 2 questions that have come to mind in response to your help:
    1. When creating for a DVD, does it make any difference if you put all the films [if there are more] on the same track if each film is going to be accessed by a separate play button? Is it just wiser from a workflow perspective?
    and
    2. I don't understand what you mean by "accessing more streams." Are you saying running the file through compressor, after being edited, won't work as well or at all if the original file is on a USB drive?

  • Using ProRes in HD Production

    Is anyone using ProRes in HD Production?
    If so:
    What is your source material?
    What are you mastering too?
    Are you using the HQ 220 or Medium 145?
    Any noticeable difference between the HQ and Medium quality?
    What capture card are you using?
    Are you having any problems?
    What has been your overall experience?
    As part of FCP6 ProrRes has been out for a while but there's surprising little debate about it which leads me to believe that few people are using it, it works great and there's no need for discussion or there isn't a need for it.
    We recently completed an HD project with 11 DVCProHD cameras, about 6TB worth of data. We are thinking we would like to switch to Sony HDCam and then capture to ProRes 145.
    Any insights or thought would be greatly appreciated.

    Is anyone using ProRes in HD Production?
    Yes, as a render codec for XDCAM HD.
    What is your source material?
    XDCAM HD
    What are you mastering to?
    Occasionally back to XDCAM disc, otherwise just file export.
    Are you using the HQ 220 or Medium 145?
    145.
    Any noticeable difference between the HQ and Medium quality?
    Have never used HQ so can't comment (using ProRes as a render codec, for an otherwise native XDCAM or HDV edit, is preset to use 145 only)
    What capture card are you using?
    Not applicable
    Are you having any problems?
    No
    What has been your overall experience?
    Rendering to ProRes is faster than rendering to XDCAM HD!
    As part of FCP6 ProrRes has been out for a while but there's surprising little debate about it which leads me to believe that few people are using it, it works great and there's no need for discussion or there isn't a need for it.
    There was endless debate about it at the outset, but folks quickly seemed to agree that it was a good thing, superior as a compressed HD edit codec to DVCPROHD, which many had been using for lack of a better option... and then they all just got on with their work. Some adopted it right off the bat, others didn't like the filesize and so stuck with DVCPROHD
    I'm inclined to agree with you, that (relatively) few people are using it and that those that are are finding that it works great and there is no need for discussion. The majority that aren't using it are not doing so because they have no need for it.
    Thought you were using the BitJazz lossless codecs?

  • Why doesn't iMovie use ProRes 422 or native instead of AIC

    Does anybody know why apple still uses AIC to transcode all captured video streams instead of ProRes 422? And why does it transcode in the first place? Why can't they use the native HDV or AVCHD streams?
    I know that using native HDV, and especially AVCHD, loads the processor with all the decoding, but it should at least be an option for high-end machines. HDV editing on FCP works fine and the storage requirements go down to between 1/3 and 1/8 of what it is with AIC and ProRes.
    I think the ideal workflow would be to capture in the native format, edit in the native format when no re-compression is necessary and only render to ProRes when effects/titles/filters are applied.
    Is it just too much development work or is there an architectural consideration from the development group to force everything through AIC for some reason?
    Is it a licensing issue? Does Apple pay royalties for ProRes for every FCP sale? Would it be prohibitively expensive to distribute ProRes with iLife?
    Obviously only someone from the iMovie group would be able to answer all of these questions but we may be able to gather some insights from the community to get a better picture.

    I understand that the iMovie and FCP teams at Apple have been, hitherto, completely independent.
    FCP was bought in - under a different original name - and tweaked from its original incarnation before being offered as 'Final Cut Pro' by Apple. See the section marked "History" in this Wikipedia article.
    iMovie, however, was written long ago to Steve Jobs' specifications by Glenn Reid as a simple video editor for amateurs.
    The ProRes codec appears to have been created separately from the Apple Intermediate Codec of iMovie ..probably because of different programmers' responsibilities for the separate programs ..although, under the 'Terms of Use', we're not supposed to speculate here in Apple Discussions.
    HDV and AVCHD, being extremely 'compressed' methods of storing video, similar to the MPEG-2 format used for squeezing long movies onto small DVDs, cannot be edited 'frame-accurately' directly, as most of the video frames rely on data stored in other frames for their content. In other words, the 1st frame of fifteen frames contains a whole frame's worth of data, but the next 14 contain only differences between the first frame of a group and the subsequent frames.
    So there needs to be a method to 'unscramble' or extract the data from the next few frames after the first of each group, in order to reconstitute the rest of the frames for editing them.
    AIC is the method used in iMovie. ProRes is the method chosen for FCP.
    It's interesting, though, that Randy Ubillos, now 'Chief Architect - Video Applications' at Apple, and the "onlie true begetter" of what later became Final Cut Pro, was the man who demonstrated iMovie '09 at last month's MacWorld Keynote. So if Randy's on hand to explain how to use iMovie, and created the new-style iMovie, then maybe we'll see some more convergence occur. (..iMovie has already taken on board FCP's "instant rendering", so that we no longer have to wait for transitions to be rendered within iMovie, but can see the results immediately. iMovie's real "behind the scenes" rendering now takes place during export, after after editing's finished..)

  • FCP6 - been advised to use ProRes HQ but am too late for that I think

    Hi Guys
    I'm really confused and a bit bewildered - would really appreciate any thought whatsoever on the following.
    For some bizarre reason I can't figure out yet, my rapid-edits sports sequences blur/ghost from frame to frame (like a bad frame blending) when I preview the sequence on my Dell monitor from my FCP Canvas. Also, when I choose to export to a Quicktime file using current settings, the blurring/ghosting is preserved once I view the burned DVD.
    However, if I choose to select Pro Res 422 as my choice of Quicktime export file instead of keeping current settings, the ghosting seems to go away upon viewing the eventual burned DVD.
    My sequence is in a standard Apple ProRes 422 Timeline. Field Dominance Upper. 25fps. HD(1440x1080)
    I filmed on a PAL Canon XHA1 50i and captured this as standard Pro Res 422.
    I checked the item properties of the sports clips and they match the timeline settings.
    1. I have a couple of Motion clips elsewhere in the sequence which have frame size 1920 x 1080, Field Dominance None - could that cause a problem?
    2. Is there a danger of losing any picture quality by choosing to export to a standard ProRes 422 1440x1080 Quicktime file rather than choosing to export using 'current settings'?
    3.I have been kindly advised to recapture as ProRes HQ but this isn't really feasible for me since I'm at soundmix stage of a 50 minute project (118 one hour tapes). The video for each of the 30 second sports sequences occurs across 3-5 tapes each.
    4. My main concern is that by choosing to export my QT file as standard ProRes 422 1440x1080, since it doesn't seem to ghost when I watch the video on my DVD player, will 'locking it' as standard ProRes 422 1440x1080 when I export ensure it won't ghost when playing the DVD on other people's machines?
    5. If I really must, is there a way of only* re-capturing the sports footage as ProRes HQ and somehow combining that into my standard ProRes timeline with all the other footage that doesn't blur?
    If you can can offer any tips at all I'd really appreciate it.
    Warm regards
    Peter

    My guess is you've shot HDV? And your sequence is HDV Native? HDV is an interframe compression. When things change too fast, HDV sometimes can't keep up. That's my guess about your mushy frames.
    When you're exporting ProRes (an intraframe format), the frames are all compressed individually.
    My advice - export as ProRes and make your DVD that way. By exporting any format, you don't affect the sequence itself.
    You can media manage the quick cut sequences, recapture as ProRes, then cut them back in, but if your ProRes export works, don't bother...
    Patrick

  • Premiere Pro Exporting Issues using ProRes LT

    Using Premiere Pro CC and is currently up to date.  When exporting ProRes LT (1920X1080) I am getting constant glitches and purple/pink scan line across my footage.  This happens within the timeline and the export.  Raw footage is clean.  Footage shot on a Canon 5D Mark ii.  System:  Mac Pro (2013 - The trash can one), 3.5GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5, 64 GB 1867 MHz DDR3 ECC, AMD FirePro D500 3072MB, OSX 10.9.3.

    HI Tswbmatt,
    It sounds like you are hitting the OS X 10.9.3 bug, corrupting exports with the Mercury Playback Engine (OpenCL). Usually, it's with H.264 exports, but I"m not surprised it affects other codecs too. I'll add that to the bug report.
    You can change the Mercury Playback Engine to "Software Only" or roll back to OS X 10.9.2 to fix it.
    Thanks,
    Kevin

  • Render problem using ProRes HQ Codec on FCP7.01 and current AJA driver

    FCP 7.01 won't let me render using ProRes422 HQ Codec and current AJA Kona 3 driver.
    When I put a video filter EFX on the clip in the Timeline it gives me a orange colored bar. When I try to render it an error message comes up saying something like the Codec is not recognized or the video card doesn't recognize the Codec. I've checked all my settings and the sequence and playback match the 1920 X 1080 ProRes422 HQ 23.976 format.
    I've trashed my prefs updated all the software and it still won't let me render.
    I'm cutting with ProResHQ proxies from R3D files for a RED Camera 3D movie test and I don't have a lot of time to sort this out.

    You are most likely adding video filters that are FXPlug filters...ones that rely heavily on the VIDEO CARD (not Kona, but the one that drives the monitors). If your video card is the base stock one that comes with the Mac, it most likely isn't up to rendering ProRes HQ footage with that filter. You will need to get a beefier card.
    Like the ATI 4870.
    Shane

  • How to transfer XDCAM from EX1 using ProRes 422

    Ok, I'm starting to think a little above my pay-grade here, but:
    My understanding is that I can directly import XDCAM files shot on a Sony EX1 by placing the SxS card in my MBP express card slot and using Sony's transfer application. However, I want to transcode to ProRes 422 because the timeline will contain P2 footage from an HVX200.
    Does the ProRes 422 step require the EX1 camera itself to be connected via firewire, or can I transcode using just the cards? If I transfer using the native codec but edit in a ProRes 422 timeline, can I edit both the P2 and XDCAM footage just as well as if they had been transcoded on transfer?
    Any advice welcome. Tnx!

    There is no direct file based XDCAM EX to ProRes ingest method in FCP. You can import the footage directly into FCP using Sony's XDCAM Transfer app or through FCP's own Log and Transfer interface when using Sony's PDZK-LT1 FCP Log and Transfer plugin. Either way, its just a rewrap of the native media into an FCP friendly Quicktime wrapper.
    If you want to transcode to ProRes for edit then you need to either transcode the imported clips using FCP's Media Manager > Recompress option (or some other post capture transcode method/software eg Compressor, MPEG Streamclip etc) or capture the media directly as ProRes using the camera's baseband output together with a suitable I/O device attached to your Mac.
    Can you edit the XDCAM footage directly in a ProRes timeline? Absolutely ... obviously it will not be as render free / fluid as if you were editing in a native timeline, but depending on the power of you Mac it should offer no real issue. I know many who always edit with their camera native media such as XDCAM HD/EX and HDV directly in a ProRes timeline as a matter of course.
    Hope it helps
    Andy

  • FCS2 (FCP6.0.1) using ProRes on a MacPro 3ghz DP Quad Core - beta products?

    Just wondering if anyone else is suffering at the hands of FCS2 on a new Intel.
    We have just bought the biggest machine Apple offer, with FCS2 as a clean install. The project is being cut in ProRes, and is causing us nightmares.
    Constant "out of memory" errors, super frequent crashes and now the system is refusing to find the SmoothCam plugin. We have reinstalled FCS2 already, and it still does not find it.
    Our old G5 edit suite is also running FCP 6.0.1, and thankfully is no where near as buggy, but the Intel workstation is dragging the project backwards.
    I have repaired permissions, reinstalled the software, cleaned the caches, deleted the preferences. The only thing I have not done is format the hard drive, and start again. Any other tips before I nuke the system?
    Cheers
    Alister

    ok, I have rebuilt the machine from scratch. reformatted and started again. installed all updates and such.
    opened existing project, and rendered, and the whole thing has gone south again. maybe not where I thought the issue was.
    I then changed the timeline from ProRes HQ (ProRes crashed just as badly) to anything else, and all works fine. so far I have tried Photo JPEG, Apple Intermediate, 8 bit Uncompressed and they all render, play and edit fine - even though the source footage is still ProRes HQ....
    curioser and curioser.
    I havent bothered swapping out the RAM yet, as this seems to be identifiying the source of issue.
    So, I guess I just sit back and wait for an update???
    Cheers
    Al

  • Stills look better when using ProRes timeline instead of HDV

    I thought I'd share a discovery, and also ask for some advice.
    Discovery:
    When exporting stills (as PSD files), I exported from an HDV timeline, and I exported from a ProRes HQ 1920x1080 30p timeline (I took the same shots from the HDV timelime and pasted them into the ProRes timeline before exporting).
    The HDV exports are not only the incorrect aspect ratio, but have many more "jaggies" than the ProRes export.
    The HDV exports also have a slightly higher contrast ratio.
    Personally I prefer the look of the ProRes 30p stills.
    Now my question: If I edit in the ProRes 30p timeline, will that also improve the look of my video?

    Stands to reason. ProRes is a full raster 10-bit I-Frame codec.
    HDV is an anamorphic (squeezed) 8-bit GOP codec. ProRes wins.
    Good discovery...thanks for sharing.
    Shane

  • Using AIC in ProRes timeline

    I currently edit a lot of videos - mixing high quality original footage with found low quality clips from the web. I edit in ProRes, but for the sake of storage space, would it hurt much to convert the low quality web clips to AIC instead of ProRes and use them in the timeline? Even when I use ProRes, I encode at the resolution of the source clip, so it has to be rendered in FCP anyway. Just curious what your thoughts are about this. Thanks!

    I think they are basically the same sort of idea.
    AIC was the original and ProRes is the "new improved" version though I've never noticed any difference in quality.
    Of course, that doesn't mean that others with more specialised eyes and requirements can't see vast improvements.

Maybe you are looking for