Prores 4:2:2 versus PJPEG
Normstock
2 Nov 2014 17:21
I guess I was trying to say to PC users coming to ProRes from Photojpeg that HQ isn't automatically needed, the regular ProRes would do just fine if you were capturing 8 bit from a DSLR or prosumer camcorder.
Mizamook
2 Nov 2014 18:31
...unless you have color corrected. ?
cinecameratv
2 Nov 2014 18:52
I only have one question ........ do buyers download prores over pjpeg?
Mizamook
2 Nov 2014 19:00
I would hazard a guess and say if you equalized the ProRes and PJPEG sales, even taking into account h.264, and offered the same exact clip three times, one in each codec, we could possibly determine that. We would have to instigate a control - so that half the clip groups have the three codecs priced identically, and the other half have the "better" codecs costing more.
The fact that some very successful clips are not ProRes would suggest that it doesn't matter overmuch to sales in general. It is my supposition then that the choice to go ProRes is a personal/professional decision - Is it worth it to you to offer the best you can, or are you fine knowing that some percentage of your buyers (who will likely buy your unique content anyway) will be left wishing you had provided the clip in a professional standard?
The fact that some very successful clips are not ProRes would suggest that it doesn't matter overmuch to sales in general. It is my supposition then that the choice to go ProRes is a personal/professional decision - Is it worth it to you to offer the best you can, or are you fine knowing that some percentage of your buyers (who will likely buy your unique content anyway) will be left wishing you had provided the clip in a professional standard?
sebolla74
2 Nov 2014 19:24
I might be wrong but to me transcoding a 8 bit footage to 10bit does not add any information...i can understand that delivering h264 which high compressed long gop codec is not the way to go but even not deliver in a 10bit "fake" codec when it comes from a 8 bit source...
Mizamook
2 Nov 2014 19:36
You are not wrong, but misunderstanding the concept.
With ProRes (or any pro intermediate codec)
No additional information is added. You are adding flexibility and workability.
What you are doing, basically, is adding more steps, or shades, of color "control", perhaps, between the primaries.
You are also refusing to further compress your already compressed to death detail. You may not see it if you do not "pixel peep", but if you do, look for "garbage" around the edges of things in the compressed codecs - it is there. When the end user gets the clip, and they do things to it, this garbage is magnified, and becomes visible at normal viewing magnification, thus limiting the amount of "stuff" they can do to it.
When you add information with your computer, you are not limited to doing so with an 8-bit program. I frequently do light corrections to my clips, then render out, and re-import into another program for further alterations before rendering for submission. It from doing this and experimenting with it that I speak thusly. I am not presenting my clients with what came from my camera - I am presenting them with my interpretation of the visual I imagine when I am shooting and editing. The corrections you make (adding/changing color, contrast, sharpness, noise reduction, etc.) are better preserved by the better codec. The difference is really easy to see in person. Very hard to express in a forum. But it is very real. If your camera had a brain as powerful as your computer it would likely be as big, therefore hard to get those shots with, but it would not have the limitations we currently are fighting against.
The real pros, i.e. those who are likely to care, are more likely to have a 10 or 12-bit workflow at least, so this added flexibility will not be lost on them.
With ProRes (or any pro intermediate codec)
No additional information is added. You are adding flexibility and workability.
What you are doing, basically, is adding more steps, or shades, of color "control", perhaps, between the primaries.
You are also refusing to further compress your already compressed to death detail. You may not see it if you do not "pixel peep", but if you do, look for "garbage" around the edges of things in the compressed codecs - it is there. When the end user gets the clip, and they do things to it, this garbage is magnified, and becomes visible at normal viewing magnification, thus limiting the amount of "stuff" they can do to it.
When you add information with your computer, you are not limited to doing so with an 8-bit program. I frequently do light corrections to my clips, then render out, and re-import into another program for further alterations before rendering for submission. It from doing this and experimenting with it that I speak thusly. I am not presenting my clients with what came from my camera - I am presenting them with my interpretation of the visual I imagine when I am shooting and editing. The corrections you make (adding/changing color, contrast, sharpness, noise reduction, etc.) are better preserved by the better codec. The difference is really easy to see in person. Very hard to express in a forum. But it is very real. If your camera had a brain as powerful as your computer it would likely be as big, therefore hard to get those shots with, but it would not have the limitations we currently are fighting against.
The real pros, i.e. those who are likely to care, are more likely to have a 10 or 12-bit workflow at least, so this added flexibility will not be lost on them.
gcrook
2 Nov 2014 19:44
Well yes,if you put it like that, it IS "fake".But "true" to its source, quality wise.And there is also the camera data in case anyone wants to dig deeper.
We live in 2014 and post people have come to expect certain standards in footage regardless of their source.It is much less of a hassle and makes sense to a company to mix footage from gopro,red,dslr and c300 (which is ridiculous by itself as a production to go about that, but it happens more often than it should -meaning all the time nowadays-) as long as they can get them in a codec that levels the playing field.
Plus it shows that the person who provides footage n this manner, indeed has some sense of how project management works.And to be honest every editing job i do,i stress this to people and i am by no means whatsoever a production company.
We live in 2014 and post people have come to expect certain standards in footage regardless of their source.It is much less of a hassle and makes sense to a company to mix footage from gopro,red,dslr and c300 (which is ridiculous by itself as a production to go about that, but it happens more often than it should -meaning all the time nowadays-) as long as they can get them in a codec that levels the playing field.
Plus it shows that the person who provides footage n this manner, indeed has some sense of how project management works.And to be honest every editing job i do,i stress this to people and i am by no means whatsoever a production company.
sebolla74
2 Nov 2014 22:33
I understand that prores is the best package you can deliver but i wonder how it worth considering that most of our works go throught youtube not national geographic...
Normstock
2 Nov 2014 22:39
There are enough TV shows and commercials to make it worthwhile.
zanyzeus
2 Nov 2014 22:52
I understand now that it is advantageous to upload ProRes. Photo-jpeg is a dead horse. Here's a question then to Premiere Pro users. I shoot with cameras that capture h.264 and as I understand it, PrP does not change the base clips. Is it reasonable to do my color grading and such against the H.264 clips I see in the timeline and then export out as ProRes, or, should I transcode my H.264 to ProRes, do my color grading and such, and then export out to ProRes? Obviously the first method is easier.