Am I missing something about ProRes?

[Jon Carr]

I haven't thought I would be using other codecs besides just RAW on my weapon much. But ever since I got it. Most jobs had either a pro res or dnxhd work print with the RAW. Just wrapped my 2nd feature with my weapon and having the option of prores or dnxhd made all the difference on set and in the edit room. My last feature changed editors on day 1, great way to start a feature and al the talks of which work print he needed is now changed, luckily I just installed the firmware the day before with dnxhd option which was the first thing the new editor asked for. If you have the option, use it.

 

[Björn Benckert]

We shot about 29TB of footage during two weeks in Paris beginning of this month. All footage was sent trough the web to the editor in Stockholm that started to edit already after the first shooting day and got a new batch of files every day.... Now to do that with the r3d´s is not really possible with todays internet. Also the editor has no interest in getting the raw files. He wants files that does not slow down his creative process and that is color timed by the DIT.

And even if we could ship him daily drives it would mean we would send him quite a few drives. Have them all hanging off his machine is not really feasible so then he would need to copy all that data onto his system. So then much more simple to use little proxy files that copy quickly and all fit on a small little drive While the actuall footage / raw files can go to VFX and grading. Just the cost for disc space is a good reason to let them edit in proxies.

Then another reason. If you say that you edit r3d´s without problem. Then you have not been doing it enough and or not had enough files in your edit. When things go big the r3d´s will eventually slug you down and do so long before proxies would.

Another reason like in the example above we used a large variety of cameras. A bunch of Alexa´s shooting all kinds of formats, RAW, 4444 and 422 and at different pixel resolutions all depending on camera speeds and lenses used. We also had both phantom 4k and phantom flex and then also weapon. Having all clips in a uniform format that does not stress the drives even when having multiple layers etc is making the editors life easier.

Then when the edit is done the colorist can just link the XML to the original footage.

 

[Marc Wielage]

For highest quality 4K deliveries vs time, there's no other camera right now other than Red's that can enable instant editorial and still retain high quality RAW workflow for grading and post.

Sony, Blackmagic, and Canon can all do simultaneous Raw and ProRes. There's a lot of options out there. I've been surprised by the number of high-end projects going with Alexa 65, which I would not have believed a year ago.

I did my first Sony F55 project back in January, and I was pleasantly surprised by how well it went. That's a surprisingly good camera, particularly for under $30K. I like the fact that DPs have choices, particularly when there are clear-cut workflows that go well for post.

ProRes has shot a lot of major motion pictures as well. I am having a hard time recalling them right off hand, but on Arri's site they list a few and I've stumbled over even more on IMDB. ProRes is a very powerful codec, and is not as compressed as some would think. 4444 is something like 6:1 compression, 422hq is 7.5:1 if I remember correctly ( I'm not looking at the white paper though so don't take what i'm saying as fact ). It is a really solid format that allows a lot of grading possibilities (even422). As an example Phil Holland (thanks Phil for all your help/work/info ), posted 6k weapon with the simultaneously recorded prores 4k 422HQ file. Go try to grade them, look at them at 200%, push them all over the place, and see how you feel about it. In the end yes RAW edges you out an extra 5-10% of grading possibility depending on which flavor of prores you choose, but if your shooting like a pro and getting a lot right in camera that extra wiggle room can easily go unnoticed in a grade. This is of course just my opinion based on how our company does things.

I have to say, ProRes Log 444 grades very well provided the camera files were debayered correctly. All things being equal, I would rather have the camera Raw files, but if it's not possible due to limitations in time and budget, then 4K ProRes 444 Log can give you all the range you need and more.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

I have to say, ProRes Log 444 grades very well provided the camera files were debayered correctly. All things being equal, I would rather have the camera Raw files, but if it's not possible due to limitations in time and budget, then 4K ProRes 444 Log give you all the range you need and more.

What are your feelings on 422HQ for grading... I know the technical benefits of 444, but we are experiencing very little real world difference in grading and sharpness when comparing the two. I am not a trained colorist, but we do a lot of the color work that goes through our company ourselves, but when client needs to sit in the room for the grade we always take it to a professional color house. Those jobs we always shoot RAW or 444. I would love to know what you think is the biggest downfall of using 422HQ for acquisition?

 

[Palmer Woodrow]

I shoot 4K ProRes for clients all the time; it's the most common format I use. I'm disappointed that the Reds will only shoot 2K ProRes.

If I get a call to shoot an interview, I sure don't need to shoot it in raw. And some might ask, why even shoot that in 4K? And I'd say because it gives you recomposition options. When you're delivering in HD, you can dissolve from the full frame to a crop and it looks like multiple cameras. Even better if you shot with two cameras, and can now have four different compositions.

4K ProRes is very valuable and I wish Red would implement it, even if it couldn't be simultaneous with raw recording.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

It is available on the higher end weapons. All the carbon fiber ones support 422hq at 4k up to 30fps

 

[Marc Wielage]

What are your feelings on 422HQ for grading... I know the technical benefits of 444, but we are experiencing very little real world difference in grading and sharpness when comparing the two.

I see fewer problems in delivering ProRes 444 because of using 4:4:4 RGB encoding, and I think 444 is also better for VFX workflows. Having said that, 422HQ can still look very good. Apple breaks down the technical differences here:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202410

If I have the ability to pick and choose, I'll go with 444 whenever possible. I have a client that goes a step further and demands 444XQ (which I'm working with right now), and while I don't see a big difference with regular 444, I have no problem giving the client what they want.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

Thanks Marc... that pretty much mirrors my experience. Thanks again

 

[Steven Abrams]

For highest quality 4K deliveries vs time, there's no other camera right now other than Red's that can enable instant editorial and still retain high quality RAW workflow for grading and post. From what I know, Red is the only one having it in-cam and with instant access from the media cards at the DIT station.

Panasonic Varicam 35 ?

I see fewer problems in delivering ProRes 444 because of using 4:4:4 RGB encoding

You need to be careful with ProRes 444, some cameras record their log information into superwhites but 444 is treated in apps as data levels which means anything over 940 is lost in the scaling and NOT recoverable by most apps.

Ryan, try test this with your Blackmagic. Shoot at ISO1600 in 444 and expose just below clipping (use zebras), then without changing anything switch to 422HQ. I'm betting in Resolve you can recover the highlights in 422HQ but not 444.

 

[M.Halsell]

444 Superwhites

444 Superwhites

Marc, which cameras in particular record those super white values? And with ACES what is a work around to get those values in a rec709 colorspace?

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

Shooting any type of 422 destroys your footage at the source. 444 is minimal, and not really heavier. And to me, doing mainly commercials, prores 4k 444 is the minimal, 4k/4k+ raw being the standard.

But you need educated clients. I work with productions/clients/agencies which I trained to work on Premiere since the first Mercury Engine. Now they 99% wants Raw. 99% because I had one commercial last month where they wanted 4k prores, with a 4k rez'd shoot...

:emote_head_explode:

 

[Clovis Libert]

I agree with Bérenger. most of the time raw is a better option specially considering that
-pretty much any decent computer can edit a resonable length video in this format.
-you can go for a higher RC in order to have file lighter than 4k prores 444 ou 422 and still remain in RAW in the process.

then once that is said, when I shoot in Alexa most of the time I'm asked prores huhuhu.

 

[jake blackstone]

I agree with Bérenger. most of the time raw is a better option specially considering that
-pretty much any decent computer can edit a resonable length video in this format.
-you can go for a higher RC in order to have file lighter than 4k prores 444 ou 422 and still remain in RAW in the process.

then once that is said, when I shoot in Alexa most of the time I'm asked prores huhuhu.

So, with your statement you're clearly contradicting youtself.

 

[jake blackstone]

I'm no longer a RED owner but I have noticed that downscale to prores has a few benifits. Both the 6k down to 4K and the 4 down to 1080. Seems to reduce moire and just tidy up the noise ( which it should in theory ). I've been shooting a lot of 4.6k ursa mini and the downscale from 4.6k to 4K also seems to have these same affects. It has gotten to the point that my business partner and I after much testing/grading and a couple real world projects are starting to lean more towards prores for acquisition rather than raw or compressed raw formats.

Sorry, having 4.6k bayered sensor doesn't mean final 4.6k image. As a matter of fact, with that sensor you can't even get a true debayered 4K image, quadHD at best, may be. So your statement in regards to downscaling ursa mini image is plain incorrect, which in turn calls into a question your downscaling methodology.

 

[Christopher-lee dos Santo]

When cutting longform feature films, post facilities prefer proxies to cut with as they are easier to work with and require less hard drive space and CPU performance. The editor can just cut and get the main story/edit done. When the picture is locked, the film is then relinked to the RAW R3D files for grade and final export etc.

One can still cut a full feature in R3D files, but when a 2 hour film shot in 5k/6k is on one timeline, you need a pretty beefy system. Prores eliminates this problem.

You will only be using the Raw capabilities of the RED right at the end when you grade or do VFX. Not whilst editing. Most productions conform their RED footage to prores to edit, only to relink to the RED raw in the end. This just makes it easier for them.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

Sorry, having 4.6k bayered sensor doesn't mean final 4.6k image. As a matter of fact, with that sensor you can't even get a true debayered 4K image, quadHD at best, may be. So your statement in regards to downscaling ursa mini image is plain incorrect, which in turn calls into a question your downscaling methodology.

Just the built in to the camera downscale. It may not be a true 4K but if that is he case then Red has some investigating to do as well cause it's noticeably sharper than 6k dragon. So is the upscale on the Alexa mini. You still can't beat red though for ease of use in post

 

[jake blackstone]

Just the built in to the camera downscale. It may not be a true 4K but if that is he case then Red has some investigating to do as well cause it's noticeably sharper than 6k dragon. So is the upscale on the Alexa mini. You still can't beat red though for ease of use in post

There is no need to confuse things. Yes, ARRI does upscaling for QuadHD, Red doesn't. BMD 4.6k image is not 4.6k nor it is even a a true 4K. So, claiming you can take UM 4.6K and downscale it to 4k is plain incorrect. Red doesn't need to investigate anything. Missing OLPF in UM 4.6 is the cause of an appearance of sharper UM image, but, unfortunately, it results in an increased probability of an image with severe aliasing. Add a proper OLPF to UM or remove the OLPF from Red camera and then see just how sharp image looks in comparison to Red:ihih:

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

We have yet to run into any aliasing and he camera is working nearly every day. I'm not confusing anything. These are things I've witnessed with my own eyes. Yes you can downscale to 4K we have done it. Yes the arri upres looks about the same as the dragon 6k. Again we test and test and test again before we ever put a camera into our professional pipeline. That's not to say red is not a top notch camera. It just in my opinion does not preform to the level of what we get out of arri and the 4.6k. There is no doubt we will shoot with red again as well. Certain clients want certain things.

 

[jake blackstone]

We have yet to run into any aliasing and he camera is working nearly every day. I'm not confusing anything. These are things I've witnessed with my own eyes. Yes you can downscale to 4K we have done it. Yes the arri upres looks about the same as the dragon 6k. Again we test and test and test again before we ever put a camera into our professional pipeline. That's not to say red is not a top notch camera. It just in my opinion does not preform to the level of what we get out of arri and the 4.6k. There is no doubt we will shoot with red again as well. Certain clients want certain things.

Ryan.
Please stop dragging Red and ARRI into this conversation. Both companies design professional cameras, that don't have issues we're discussing here- mainly, severe aliasing with UM 4.6.
So, here is what happening with "downscaling" to 4k with UM 4.6. You start with 4.6 bayered sensor. After the de-bayer you have, at most, QHD image. Then, if you you want the 4.6k image, that UM claims, it must be upscaled back to 4.6k and only then it will be downscaled to 4K. Now do you see a problem with your "we test and test and test again before we ever put a camera into our professional pipeline" approach? Facts don't support the rhetoric.
As far as "We have yet to run into any aliasing", again, BMD doesn't actually use some Black Magic to somehow create an aliasing free 4k images out of 4.6k sensor without an OLPF. For a proper 4k image you need quite a bit higher sensor resolution doing a good bit of oversampling to work without an OLPF or you can use an OLPF, which, again, requires higher than 4.6k sensor resolution. With 4.6k sensor it is a physical impossibility to have a 4k aliasing free images, according to Nyqvist.
All modern professional cameras use Nyqvist algorithms for the optical path design. Ignoring it means not quite being professional gear.
And finally, please look into a difference between sharpness and resolution. You're confusing the two.
It truly amazing, that in today's market we can even have a camera manufacturer denying an existence of such significant issues with their camera product, like aliasing and magenta cast by simply claiming "it's a look". There is nothing wrong with your camera:emote_headwall:

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

I will use Red and Arri where they are relevant and they happen to be relevant here, especially when speaking about prores. They do both exhibit aliasing in certain situations as I have experienced on rare occasions when owning RED's. Just about all Digital cameras that I have ever came across will show these issues at some point or another.

The downscale methodology does not really play into my test and test and test statement, but from my understanding the sensor is a 16x9 sensor that debayers and takes the debayered image of the full 16:9 sensor and then scales down to UHD. Just as the weapon does to get its 4k 422... probably not the same algorithms but relatively the same process. Currently there is no what to get a 4.6k prores file straight out of the camera... nor do I see much use in it, as after Debayer there is not 4.6k worth of information as you said.

With my test and test and test statement it was putting all three cameras under the same conditions and in tungsten and daylight. Shooting Charts, skin tones, overs, under etc... Did many of the tests twice or even 3 times. All tests for sharpness were viewed at 200% and that is how I judged not seeing any aliasing. That is not to say it could not appear worse in some other situation, but I have yet to have it stand out at anything delivered in 4k. Our company masters just about ever project we do in 4k and have since we began shooting on RED around 2010 or so, for archival sake. I am however not confusing sharpness and resolution, I am quite aware of the difference. I will say I have never shot on a camera to date that resolves a true 4k, and the ursa mini is the closest I have seen do it. Thats not saying its the best horse for all courses either, all these cameras have their place. We are just finding it to be a work horse, 4 rolling stone jobs already in the can. A Mapco/Hype energy promo with a Big Machine Records artist, and a few in pre pro that will most likely go to this camera. Clients are loving it.

I am aware that some customers are having some magenta issues. The video you displayed though is a farce and even the customers who have seen this issue are not reporting it to appear as it does in that video. If I remember correctly someone posted that video as a joke. Thats not making excuses for the camera either, but we all know arri and RED have had their issues too. Im just lucky as well as the 2 other owners in Nashville that have had their cams on the Rolling Stone jobs do not have the magenta problems.

Again all these test I did... the results lead to my opinion. Your welcome to yours as well, I'm just trying to report my experience. Back to the real meaning of the thread though is that of ProRes, and I still stand by the fact that if you shoot right 422HQ can really get you some amazing results, when your not in the situation to shoot RAW. I can see why someone would go the 4444 route with ProRes, but in my opinion when your getting into those data rates I really think RAW is a better way to go no matte which camera you shoot on.