Prores 4:2:2 versus PJPEG

Thanks for that link. I think I am finally understanding a little of what is going on. I can see transcoding the H.264 out of the camera to ProRes for editing and for upload.

great read zygis... "ProRes was not intended to replace the camera native codecs we use daily but to extend the post process into the future." I think that is why we should deliver this to our customers, who are doing the post processing on our files. It's an intermediate codec... and we are the middle men.

Why would you use ProRes HQ instead of regular ProRes, we mostly shoot on DSLR which produce a 4.2.0 colour space in 8 bits ProRes HQ is a little bit overkill than the standard ProRes.

@Normstock Im always using cameras with a greater color space when possible. This year it's the Blackmagic Design Production Camera 4K. So far Best Bang for the Buck!

That is a valid question. If the camera only shoots 8 bit 4.2.0. why try to up convert to 4.2.2. Does it really make the footage better by taking 0 and turning it into 2 ;)

No, but it ensures that further damage from turning an 8-bit codec to a (propably lesser) 8-bit codec will be (more or less) avoided.Especially in gradients, which is a serious issue for all 8-bit codecs.

Recording from Z5U to PIX220 ProRes 145 yielded results worse than HDV. No kidding. I've got proof (sadly) Bit rate is NOT the absolute defining factor. ProRes HQ was the way to go. So I would not bother rendering to ProRes at any less than HQ. Some clients may not care, but then, they don't care, except it may take them a little longer to download the file. The ones who do care are the ones I'm aiming for - when they go to color correct the footage they will be able to do more, and it is nice to know that the file they are getting is more true to the original, or, in the case of color/contrast/etc. modified imagery, more of the artist's vision preserved. It is one thing to modify camera-native footage (I'm talking 8-bit for us mortals), and it is another entirely even using PJPEG. Now that we have ascertained that PJPEG induces artifacts and gobbedleygook and banding, making the move to ProRes as a standard in my mind is a good thing, and necessary.

So in this thread we just successfully killed h.264 and wounded PJPEG ;) We will let the other thread on using h.264 keep arguing it's merit ....

Just to clarify ProRes has now 5 different levels, rather than the 2 levels from before 2009? They are all 4.2.2 10 bit apart from ProRes 4.4.4 and in FCPX you cannot adjust the quality, each level of ProRes is locked the only difference in each version of ProRes is the data rate. ProRes HQ is around 30% larger than ProRes.

If we are still talking 8 bit souce footage,then prores HQ vs "simple" prores (at 120 mbps if i am not mistaken) makes virtually no difference.But 8-bit to 10-bit prores is all that matters.The issue to convert to 10bit footage isn't only the quality boost.It is mostly (and cynical as it may sound it is true) about offering a present in a better wrapped colorful and high quality paper.

Some producers that i know of,and sadly,sometimes editors, would have an internal struggle about buying the "less appropriate" shot if it's something that post can ingest easily.Plus prores has made a name for itself as the go to codec (which is marketing at its best and pisses me off but lets not get into that) .Funny thing is, framerates are more important that codecs but that just shows how stupid the film and television business can be.

Again these are my personal experiences.I have been exporting every shot i edit and grade as uncompressed blackmagic 8bit avi (and not 10-bit mind you) and then (batch) reconvert the shot/shots to 10bit prores hq as a final step.According to my tests this is the best workflow for my software combination.Anyone willing to bypass the uncompressed step is of course welcome,but i like to believe,that this is part of what makes my footage stand out, if only a bit.