Uncompressed QT vs Apple Pro Res

Question

Level 2

179 points

Uncompressed QT vs Apple Pro Res

Hi All

We are about to venture into 16mm transfer to HD for the first time. The telecine house can give us Uncompressed QTs or Apple Pro Res on a hard drive.

These are the pro's and con's as I far as I can tell:

Uncompressed QT:
- Large Files
- Cannot be used (without conversion) on our current FCP set-up
- Highest quality, which is great for archiving and future use of the media

Apple Pro Res:
- Smaller files
- Can be used directly on our set-up, without any conversion (there are some time constraints on the project
- Almost the same quality as Uncompressed (???)

The workflow I am considering is to get the files back as uncompressed qt's (to make sure the Masters are the highest quality possible) then convert them to Apple Pro Res in Compressor, then edit. Does that sound right?

Is there any point to doing a 'neg match' (editing in Apple Pro Res then upconverting to uncompressed qt's as if in an off-line/on-line environment)?

And, lastly, what Apple Pro Res format should I ask for?

Any other golden nuggets of information you ca add will be greatly appreciated.

cheers

-j-

G5 DP 2.7, Mac OS X (10.4.5), LaCie 120G, 40G iPod,

Posted on Sep 17, 2009 8:31 PM

Reply

Answer 1

RedTruck

Level 4

2,145 points

Sep 18, 2009 7:56 AM in response to jokke

If you have the storage for the uncompressed, I'd take them. That way you have the highest quality master. Convert to ProRes and work from there. As far as how to get the right ProRes, that depends on the intended mode of output.

Reply

Answer 2

jokke Author

Level 2

179 points

Sep 20, 2009 4:52 AM in response to RedTruck

Hi RedTruck

Thanks for that. I have calculated that for 40 mins of Uncompressed QT it will take approx. 300GB of storage. Does that sound right? I am asking because the telecine house said we needed 1TB of storage, which sounds too much, even for Uncompressed QT...The intended output will be an SD DVD, a High Res QT, and possibly a Blue-Ray DVD. Should we go for Apple Pro Res 422 or 422 HQ? And is there a difference?

Cheers

-j-

Reply

Answer 3

Nick Holmes

Level 7

30,018 points

Sep 20, 2009 5:03 AM in response to jokke

will take approx. 300GB of storage. Does that sound right?

[Videospace|http://www.digital-heaven.co.uk/videospace] calculates the space required for a given format/run time. Free download.

Reply

Answer 4

Andy Mees

Level 6

12,610 points

Sep 20, 2009 5:55 AM in response to jokke

Jokke
The data rate for Uncompressed HD depends on the target frame size, frame rate and bit depth ... without providing that info we can't tell if your calculations are correct

Videospace as linked above is also available as an online app here: http://www.videospaceonline.com/

Don't forget that you will want more space than just that required for the source footage. You'll want good performance from your scratch disk so you don't want it to be anywhere near full, you'll want some available working space for renders and exports etc ... working with source at around 300GB then a 1 TB drive would be a reasonable suggestion for a scratch disk size

Best
Andy

Reply

Answer 5

RedTruck

Level 4

2,145 points

Sep 20, 2009 3:35 PM in response to Andy Mees

Agreed.

Sounds like a prime candidate for learning the offline to online workflow. Doesn't really matter what resolution you edit at, as long as you can point the project back to the uncompressed files when you online. That way you can edit with ease, and have the highest resolution master movie. Downconvert from there to any and all flavors you want and you'll always have the best of everything.

Message was edited by: RedTruck

Reply

Answer 6

Sep 20, 2009 4:47 PM in response to jokke

Hi Jokke, If it's not too late, I've just been through exactly the same decision: shot on super 16 and had to worry about what to do with it. For me the decision had a lot to do with speed of editing, size of files and the way the final thing would be presented (HD Mpeg projected in my case) For all these reasons, the Prores codec worked fine. All the film buffs will scoff at this but very often the differences are really indiscernible and you won't need a bunch of supercomputers to crunch through the uncompressed footage with filters and dissolves applied to it. If you choose to go with Prores, you should definitely take the 422 HQ variety, although I think there's a newer better Prores codec coming out. Maybe one of the more tech-savvy persons on the forum would know about that.

Reply

Answer 7

Sep 20, 2009 4:53 PM in response to jokke

What about aspect ratio - 16mm is close to a 4:3 aspect, but the fact you're considering a Blu-Ray release suggests you've shot for 16:9. Are you planning a full-frame conversion or are you cropping during the telecine?

The only reason I ask is because it would probably effect your decision about what resolution to encode to.

Reply

Answer 8

jokke Author

Level 2

179 points

Sep 20, 2009 7:50 PM in response to Denis Murphy

Hi All

Thanks for all the feedback. I realised I forgot to say it is super 16, not just 16mm, so it is 16:9.

@ Andy: I think we'll be going for full 1080, 24 frames, and undecided on the bit rate. Is there a huge difference between 8 and 10? We only have FCS2 so we can't use the brand new Pro Res codec.

Thanks again, very valuable.

cheers

-j-

Reply

Answer 9

jokke Author

Level 2

179 points

Sep 25, 2009 1:22 AM in response to jokke

Hi All

The footage came back today and it looks really good, fantastic detail and great color. The grain is more prominent than I had thought, but that may be because we went for 1080 rather than 720 (and that exposures and stock was not perfect at all times...).

The students decided to go directly for Apple Pro Res, and they are happy which is, after all, the main point.

Again, thanks for the advice guys.

cheers

-j-

Reply