Whats the difference and how much of a difference is there. Is it worth using (HQ).

Whats the difference and how much of a difference is there. Is it worth using (HQ).

Data Rate is the major difference. It is worth using if your workflow necessitates it. Google ProRes 422 whitepaper.

-C

I've been wondering this myself. I looked up the whitepaper, but what I am wondering is if I have HDV footage does the ProRes (HQ) do any good -as opposed to regular ProRes? Is the (HQ) only for the true HD stuff, or would it even make my HDV better looking or easier to chroma key?

I find it very difficult to tell the difference between the quality of the two codecs. I normally use ProRes for most stuff to save on disc space. But if I'm rendering graphics, then I use ProRes HQ.

I could be wrong but:

Pro-Res 422 HQ is equivalent to Avid's DNxHD 220 (mbs).
Pro-Res 422 is equivalent to Avid's DNxHD 175 (mbs).

So, again, data rate is major difference.
-C

I edit in HDV 1080i 50i but then master in pro res at 1080i 25p, I havent found the HQ to be any better quality when coming from HDV but the use of pro res as a master file seems to be a good workflow as it then transcodes for web and DVD use a lot better.