DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony ENG / EFP Shoulder Mounts (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-eng-efp-shoulder-mounts/)
-   -   ProRes 422 and XDCam HD (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-eng-efp-shoulder-mounts/95363-prores-422-xdcam-hd.html)

Dan Brazda May 30th, 2007 08:32 AM

ProRes 422 and XDCam HD
 
I'm still having trouble seeing the advantage to converting native XDCam HD 35 VBR to ProRes 422. I've heard you get SD file sizes with HD material when using ProRes but XDCam HD already does that. Is it a color space issue? Speed of rendering? I always thought it was a bad idea to transcode a native format to something else unless you had no choice.

Steve Connor May 30th, 2007 10:34 AM

The better colourspace will help with any rendered effects such as filters, CC and transitions etc.

Simple way is to do all the work in XDCam HD codec and when you are finished drop the finished sequence into a ProRes timeline and render.

If you are planning on mastering back to XDCam then I can't see where there would be an advantage to this route. However if you are outpuuting to HDCam or above then it will improve the quality.

Greg Boston May 30th, 2007 10:40 AM

Dan, the main promise of ProRes is to make UNCOMPRESSED HD come down to near standard DV data size without a loss in visual quality. Since XDCAM HD is already just above DV25 data rates, there is no significant advantage to using ProRes. If however, you were grabbing a live HDSDI feed from the camera head into an uncompressed capture, ProRes would be your friend.

-gb-

Bennis Hahn May 30th, 2007 10:50 AM

There is also the issue of an Intraframe codec vs. a Interframe codec

Steve Connor May 30th, 2007 10:55 AM

Ah yes the evil of Mpeg 2 Long GOP!

Greg Boston May 30th, 2007 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bennis Hahn (Post 689037)
There is also the issue of an Intraframe codec vs. a Interframe codec

Help me out Bennis. I don't see the relevance of your statement in the context of this thread.


-gb-

Steve Connor May 30th, 2007 11:27 AM

I think it's another long GOP Mpeg2 is bad to edit with reference

Nate Weaver May 30th, 2007 11:41 AM

There's a setting in FCP6, that if you have a native HDV/XDCAM HD timeline, FCP can use ProRes as a render format. It's in Sequence Settings/Render Control.

This makes the old method of copy/pasting XDCAM HD native timelines into Uncompressed or other codec timelines unnecessary (or mostly unnecessary).

Steve Connor May 30th, 2007 11:45 AM

Cool, I'm getting my copy of 6 next week.

Dan Brazda May 30th, 2007 05:02 PM

Thanks for all the responses and for confirming where I was headed. We shoot on XDCam HD 35 VBR, edit natively and then master back to XDCam HD 35 VBR so in this workflow I see little advantage to ProRez. VERY COOL though for the HDCam and higher folks.

Dan Brazda May 31st, 2007 08:10 PM

Hate to beat a dead horse here, but just when I thought I had it all figured out I have to ask:

-If you are XDCam HD native all the way through post and then mastering back to XDCam HD- why would rendering in ProRez do you any good?

Greg Boston May 31st, 2007 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brazda (Post 690017)
Hate to beat a dead horse here, but just when I thought I had it all figured out I have to ask:

-If you are XDCam HD native all the way through post and then mastering back to XDCam HD- why would rendering in ProRez do you any good?

Okay Dan, as much as I loathe animal cruelty, I'll bring out the whip one more time. In the scenario you mentioned, there is no benefit of ProRes 4:2:2 IMO.

-gb-

Dan Brazda June 1st, 2007 06:10 AM

Thanks for the additional swat at the beast Greg. I brought it up again because I keep seeing it mentioned on other "reputable" sites that one should use an XDCam HD timeline but render in ProRes for the scenario I described. This site has a higher percentage rate of correct advice in my experience so I'm going with that.

Andy Mees June 7th, 2007 09:29 PM

i beleive (though have not personally tested) that using ProRes422 as the render codec may provide a speed advantage. rather than conforming every render file as MPEG HD the renders are instead encoded as ProRes422.

as I said, I've not tested this, am merely offering it up as a suggestion.

Bennis Hahn June 7th, 2007 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bennis Hahn (Post 689037)
There is also the issue of an Intraframe codec vs. a Interframe codec

One reason you may want to not stay with the XDcam format is because it is interframe which isn't as ideally suited to editing as intraframe (prores422). Depending of what you are doing, this could be a factor.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network