Apple ProRes 422 HQ vs. AJA Kona LH:525 29.97 DV

Question

Level 1

35 points

Apple ProRes 422 HQ vs. AJA Kona LH:525 29.97 DV

Anyone here have an AJA Kona? If so, PLEASE help us figure this out.

ProRes 422 HQ - Color information looks good, but a little blurry
AJA KONA LH 525 29.97 DV - Looks the clearest, but a little washed out
AJA KONA 525 29.97 8 BIT (Uncompressed) - Looks very similar to the ProRes and surprisingly not clearer than the DV.

Now, here's my second issue:

The 19 second ProRes file is: 156 megs, but a little blurry
The 19 second DV file is ONLY: 73 megs (but looks the best? HUH?)
The 19 second Uncompressed file is: 399 megs, but a little blurry

On the broadcast monitor: The color information looks almost the same, for all 3 files. However, the uncompressed and ProRes look blurrier than the DV file.

In Quicktime (Obviously not NTSC), the clarity is the same between all 3 clips, and the color looks the best in the Apple ProRes file.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

Message was edited by: ryansalazar

Mac OS X (10.4.11)

Posted on Jun 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Shane Ross

Level 8

43,110 points

Jun 19, 2008 10:21 AM in response to ryansalazar

Well, what are you capturing? If you are capturing DV, then capturing to ProRes or uncompressed won't clean up the image at all...the compression is already there, recorded to tape. What capturing to those formats does is allow for better latitude when color correcting and adding filters...and adding graphics. The renders are cleaner.

But DV is DV is DV...there is no fixing it once it is on tape.

Shane

Reply

Answer 2

ryansalazar Author

Level 1

35 points

Jun 19, 2008 10:36 AM in response to Shane Ross

Thanks for responding!

We're capturing footage off of a digibeta. Should we not even consider using the dv codec for this? Maybe that's the issue. Just so strange that the DV file looks clearer (although, not as color rich - but close on NTSC) than the ProRes and Uncompressed.

Reply

Answer 3

Shane Ross

Level 8

43,110 points

Jun 19, 2008 10:42 AM in response to ryansalazar

Should we not even consider using the dv codec for this?

As an offlince codec, yes. But not as your online full quality codec...heck no. Dunno why it looks clearer...are you judging this quality on the computer monitor or NTSC monitor attached? For online purposes look at the DV50 codec. Light and very close to digibeta compression.

Shane

Reply

Answer 4

ryansalazar Author

Level 1

35 points

Jun 19, 2008 10:51 AM in response to Shane Ross

Shane,

The DV codec I'm referring to is DV50. So, we should or shouldn't be using that over Apple ProRes or Uncompressed ? The DV50 looks clearer than ProRes or Uncompressed. When looking at an NTSC monitor, color looks almost the same on all 3 files, but on the Apple monitor, DV50 looks to have less color information.

Reply

Answer 5

Shane Ross

Level 8

43,110 points

Jun 19, 2008 11:07 AM in response to ryansalazar

AH...DV50. That is DVCPRO 50, not DV. When you say DV we all think you mean DV/NTSC, also known as DV25. DV50 is a 4:2:2 codec, as are uncompressed and ProRes. And just because you captured it and it looks less colorful doesn't mean it's worse. You still haven't color corrected the footage at this point. All the footage I have...which is DVCPRO HD...was shot with a setting that makes the footage look washed out. But after color corrected, it looks great.

DV50 would be a fine codec. And it might be clearer than uncompressed and ProRes. This is why you...smartly...are testing your options. Find the one that works best and go with it.

Shane

Reply