Very interesting codec shootout - MustRead

@RekindlePhoto that is how ProRes encoding works. For different quality you have to use ProRes 422, LT or Proxy.

Hey P5 ... ya'll said buyers will be purchasing ProRes when downsizing starts. Based on this conversation and your expertise what do you think? Should be keep uploading PC based ProRes or should we stay with PJPEG? We all understand the difference between MAC and ProRes but many if not most artists are using PC based processing.

It would be great to ensure you get the highest quality from us; if we had some expertise direction from P5 to give us what ya'll want to receive.

Hi, guys! I won't open a new thread for an old topic, but I will post my issue and questions here.

I am hardly trying to compress a 12s, 24FPS, 4K timelapse with gradients. Photojpeg is a nightmare. So is H264. Even though I added a layer of noise or grain I keep getting the banding. The only codec that retains the gradients without banding is Animation with quality set to 100% - but the result file is 16GB!!! The original RAW sequence is 3GB. Where is the huge difference coming from? Are video codecs that inefficient? Is something I am missing?

Love,
xxx

I think it's a "pick your poison" kind of thing.

Been messing with tests and charts for a bit here, and all I can say is that it seems that:

Miraizon ProRes 4444 is the closest without banding. Biggest file size.
PJPEG is best for when you want DETAIL but don't have gradient issues.
Miraizon ProRes 422 and 422 HQ is "OK" but detail softens ... better use HQ.

ProRes HQ is best choice for balance between file size, banding, detail loss. Not perfect, but there you go.

All previous comments subject to correction
Not to scale.
Wish it was better.

Christian - make sure your gradients are not due to limits of your monitor. There's something there I don't understand - totally willing to hear information regarding this!

Also, try PJPEG with your project settings at 16 bit or 32 bit if you haven't. This sometimes helps me. You might be able to crunch the file size down (using PJPEG or ProRes 422 HQ) but you will have longer render times.

I'm totally frustrated by this - I know it's not an issue much of the time, but when it is, it really hurts.

Hi, Gene! It is not a monitor problem as the banding is visible only in Pjpeg clips. I tried both 16 and 32 bit workflow and I saw only a little improvement. For this timelapse the main issue are the gradients, so I don't care that much about details. But thank you very much for your details, they are very useful!

p.s: I promise to stay away from gradients when it comes to stock!

In PC - Premier Pro CC - How do you export to ProRes?

In 2015 I will need to replace my PC. I wonder if I should switch to Mac.

On a PC you have to buy a plug-in such as Miraizon ProRes that uses Quicktime that you should already have active. Its about $50. I've looked at the Mac but now they use Intel I really don't see that the specs are much better than a PC. Same basic components. Not sure about upgrade or replacement of parts on a Mac now that they have gone PC based. I always stayed away from Apple because they upgrade often (built in obsolescence) and were so proprietary that working on them was almost impossible. I'm sure they are just as good as a high end PC and in some respects better.

Apple is a religion. Pros always use PCs.

But let's get back to the problem: I decided it is time to buy Prores codec. Looking for a variant.

I use a PC at work and a MAC at home. Both are capable systems. But if you want "true" ProRes, you need a MAC.

This is very confusing to me. Is it Apple doing it's "well you don't subscribe to our hype so you can't have the "real" codec" thing? The Apple attitude is one of the reasons, besides having to pay triple for short-lived almost as fast hardware, that I never jumped on the Apple bandwagon even though several PC things piss me off pretty good too. I've used both in recording studio and the "do" the same thing - pretty much the user interface is slightly different.

The two are both capable as machines, and both capable as OS. In fact they are interchangeable (dual boot) these days! WHY would one have lesser ability to render into a licensed codec?

Without access to an Apple machine here, I can't do my own tests ...I'd like to, so will contact a local friend who happens to do this kind of thing.

Christian, at least I can say the folks at Miraizon are real people and will communicate with you. Why not try it? You have 30 days.