Apple Prores 4:4:4

oooops, looks like your sample above went away just got this notice "Sadly, this item is no longer available... however, we've got similar videos for you below!"

Your sample does not look sharp at all and like Miz said the movement is not really pleasing. Maybe it's the preview that P5 is using.

Based on you using a PC do yourself a favor and like Miz said, ensure QT is installed and render your clips using PJPEG. Unless you want to spend a lot more money on good software ProRes just isn't a player. Find an old copy of Premiere Pro CS6 on Amazon and buy it or invest in the CC version. Over the long term it will save a lot of aggravation and give you more capability with higher quality.

About that shake...did you have lens stabilization on?

Rekindle, it is still pending.

Actually it was still snowing when I took the shot. The fog and clouds might have made it soft looking in all likelihood.

Gcrook, I took the IS off since it was on tripod.

Looks like another P5 glitch. The clips previewed just fine a couple times I looked at it. Then all of a sudden I got the message. Yes normally you can't see them until they are approved. Something strange going on.

Came off a bunch of snow and fog shots from yesterday....I was gonna say, it's the look. There is no "sharp" when shooting through snow and fog.

Now doing tests on the Miraizon ProRes V2 codec. Costs about $50. Just don't use 422. Still not as good as PJPEG except for not having banding. For issues with banding, where Photo-JPEG is not sufficient, use Miraizon ProRes 422HQ. Also besides 4444, they have 4444 XHQ It's pretty big. Visually lossless even when looking hard.

I also have V2. So do you think 422HQ is superior to PJPEG? I would agree the 422HQ is better quality than 422. I have heard that even 422HQ is somewhat softer than PJPEG. With the extreme sharpness of many new 4K cameras a little softer would probably not be an issue.

Truth be told I sadly believe that 422HQ is a tad softer than PJPEG. But I have to really look for it. Lots larger file size too. Agreed about the effect on the AX100 stuff - it's actually not an issue ...but don't like it in my HD aerial work, where I fight tooth and nail for every bit of sharpness I can get (vibration problems).

In making an intermediate codec for those clips I create in two renders, I'll be using 4444, but I'll output as 422HQ. For some of them I'd be happy with PJPEG, but the Adobe CC render to PJPEG problem still is there, (which I've noticed a couple times actually augmented the look in a good way, so sometimes I'll use it.)

And PJPEG doesn't always exhibit banding. I haven't really figured out what the difference is. This stuff drives me up the wall.

Hi,

Videomach replied but I don't think I understand their message. It says "Note that VideoMach supports H.264 on input but encodes to H.263."

Does it mean I cannot export it as H.264?

Thanks again!

Yes, unfortunately, that's what it means. I looked up this VideoMach thing. I encourage you to do yourself a favor, as Rekindle said - get some "real" software. I ventured into the world of digital video with software that cost less than $100. It was a complete waste of money and time. Saving money is great, but not so much in this area. Hell, there's FREE software https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/fusion for you to learn that's better (albeit new, and a little costly if you need to go to the paid version, but this is an example). Once you get on the bandwagon with some pro-recognized software, the amount of help you are going to get with multiply, simply due to the fact that more people are familiar with it, and can help you step by step if needed. Oh, and if you want an in-depth tutorial on all things stock, might I be so bold as to recommend this lovely new eBook!

Hope this helps.