Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Am I missing something about ProRes?

R

Roger Alexander

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Reading through the forums, I keep seeing so many people excited that Raven can shoot RAW+ProRes at the same time. I feel like I'm missing something because I don't get it. I've only ever edited with RAW files when shooting RED and to me, that was pretty much the whole purpose of using RED was to have that flexibility in post with the RAW files. I'm a PC guy and I don't think I've ever shot/used ProRes, from my understanding it's just a quicktime .mov file correct? Of course the file size is smaller than RAW files, but to my understanding, the ProRes files only record up to 2K and are NOT RAW. The image and settings are baked in, so to me it kind of defeats the purpose of using a RED cam in the first place. My computer build is decent and I get along fine with editing RAW files directly in Premiere Pro CC 2015 with resolution set to 1/8 or 1/4 for smooth playback (paused resolution at full).

This isn't a troll post, I really want to see if I'm missing something. What are all the advantages of recording ProRes at the same time. What I assume is that:

1. Its good for backup purposes so you at least have some footage if for some reason the RAW files become corrupt. When dumping footage onset I usually dump and clone it across multiple drives for redundancy.

2. It's good for offline workflows if your computer is not very beefy and you want to cut with ProRes first and then link the RAW files when it comes time for grading and rendering. But If I do ok with editing RAW directly, I don't really need this right?

That's all I can think of. Is there any other benefits of shooting RAW and ProRes at the same time? I just don't understand why people are flipping over tables and burning down houses because of this capability lol.
 
For commercial work it can save them money because post want proxies. If the dit doesn't have to make them that saves production money. BUT, in its current implementation, with the file structure the way it is, it's kind of a pain. Hopefully that will be remedied soon.
 
When working on "typical jobs" proxies and intermediate codecs are deployed to editorial, clients, and pretty much anywhere else you can think of.

Having the ability in camera to simultaneously record ProRes or DNxHR saves a fair amount of time on set because you don't need to additional time or kit/crew with somebody rending out these intermediate files.

Additionally, there are other avenues where ProRes or DNxHR can be used in "straight to air" or "straight to delivery" situations. i.e. news, reportage, web work


For me where it's shown it's biggest strength is I'm typically shooting at 4K+ and editorial and post can get my 2K ProRes files for their purposes. Once selects are made post can tap into the REDCODE RAW.
 
I agree with Roger on the Red for RAW thing. I bought the S-W only to shoot RAW. However, on my FS7 I want it for the compressed X-AVC codec for fast turn around jobs and small file sizes.

Horses for courses, different cameras for different uses. Different codecs for different projects.
 
Based on the description of your work, I don't think you're missing anything Roger. There are probably a lot of other people who see it the same way too. At least the ProRes option is there for you now though, in case your needs or circumstances change in the future.
 
IMO if you are a owner operator/boutique, that has all your workflow around RED and is used to control the picture end to end, you wont see that many benefits.
But there are those that send files to other shops that don't necessarily have a R3D workflow that edit directly raw. This people will have to transcode (prores or dnxhd), and having this is a huge time saver.
Also, IMO, prores 422, HQ, 444, XQ, have enough information (10bit+) to be good enough acquisition for a lot of deliveries. So for some jobs it could be the go to format, since Raw will be too much.
For me this option is a huuuge plus, in my market prores is more than good enough (people still shoot h264 5dmkII here).
 
Roger Alexander said:
That's all I can think of. Is there any other benefits of shooting RAW and ProRes at the same time? I just don't understand why people are flipping over tables and burning down houses because of this capability lol.
Click to expand...
I think there were objections by clients who didn't like the delay between shooting and editing footage. If they can get that with Alexa, Blackmagic, and Sony, then Red needed to add that as an option. Quite a few TV-destined projects don't shoot on Raw at all, and instead just deal with Log-encoded ProRes... which can work fine, provided it's well-shot.
 
i just shot two favor projects for artists with prores only, it was amazingly good looking. something about that downscale from 4k makes it super clean.
 
jordan levy said:
i just shot two favor projects for artists with prores only, it was amazingly good looking. something about that downscale from 4k makes it super clean.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Roger Alexander said:
Reading through the forums, I keep seeing so many people excited that Raven can shoot RAW+ProRes at the same time. I feel like I'm missing something because I don't get it. I've only ever edited with RAW files when shooting RED and to me, that was pretty much the whole purpose of using RED was to have that flexibility in post with the RAW files.
Click to expand...
Most Professionals shoot ProRes 2K, that's why the Alexa is so popular. Red Raw gives a better image of course, but it is too much work for a heavy shooting schedule, and it's good enough for the audience.
 
George Butterfield said:
Most Professionals shoot ProRes 2K, that's why the Alexa is so popular. Red Raw gives a better image of course, but it is too much work for a heavy shooting schedule, and it's good enough for the audience.
Click to expand...

Acquiring at only 2k's days are numbered.
 
As mentioned, you have to crane up to understand that ProRes 444/422 is definitely of enough quality for broadcasting and post-production needs. The format rightly fits the time constraints and quality needs of the broadcast industry. Not to mention corporate, event, education markets or any acquisition sector where time is money.

There is also a cost component. ProRes is more hardware ubiquitous. Playback and editing is easier across the board as compared to RAW. So, it's definitely not a diminutive or acrimonious production option. Offering a ProRes option definitely improves market positioning, both for the camera manufacturer and production companies.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Bob Gundu said:
I'm not arguing the benefits of shooting one or the other. But any serious work that's worth selling down the road, better be at least 4K.
Click to expand...

Agreed! We have been mastering most of our content in 4k for the past 3-4 years... even if we had to kick out a 1080 for the client. We just hold on to the 4k master just in case
 
George Butterfield said:
Most Professionals shoot ProRes 2K, that's why the Alexa is so popular. Red Raw gives a better image of course, but it is too much work for a heavy shooting schedule, and it's good enough for the audience.
Click to expand...

This^^^ is the truth. Fact is, ProRes is for Mac as DNxHR is for PC. Smaller files, easier to play with...
I know the benefits of RAW, but think about the time you will be saving if you didn't have to do any post or very little post work?

Lets put some perspective on that... think of feature films... 100 day shooting schedule, and say there are 8 to 10 hour shoots per day. that 800 to 1000 hours of footage. You need to neatly sort, keep the good, throw the dirty, sometimes keep the bloopers, then cut it into 2 hrs. Color correction... and FX... may be needed but if it can be avoided. It would be easier with a team... everything is easier with a team, but if you can do it on your own???

I mean... think of it this way... suppose a production company gave you a million dollars to do a movie... thats your budget.... after the movie is completed... the production company owns the movie... not you so you don't get any of the royalties... if you can do it on your own from beginning to end... you keep all of the million. You bring in a team, you start splitting the cost... and even if you thought... okay... I'm just going to let this one slide... its an investment in my portfolio... its still a gamble, right? Okay... fine thats all just hypothetical...

The Blair Witch Project was done on a budget of $60,000 and made $248.6 million...
The first that spawned a whole bunch of shaky cam movies.


Bob Gundu said:
I'm not arguing the benefits of shooting one or the other. But any serious work that's worth selling down the road, better be at least 4K.
Click to expand...

Total BS... This tells people that movies like the Godfather or Citizen Kane is all of a sudden irrelevant if watched in 720p.
 
Kabilen Mullaithilaga said:
This^^^ is the truth. Fact is, ProRes is for Mac as DNxHR is for PC. Smaller files, easier to play with...
I know the benefits of RAW, but think about the time you will be saving if you didn't have to do any post or very little post work?

Lets put some perspective on that... think of feature films... 100 day shooting schedule, and say there are 8 to 10 hour shoots per day. that 800 to 1000 hours of footage. You need to neatly sort, keep the good, throw the dirty, sometimes keep the bloopers, then cut it into 2 hrs. Color correction... and FX... may be needed but if it can be avoided. It would be easier with a team... everything is easier with a team, but if you can do it on your own???

I mean... think of it this way... suppose a production company gave you a million dollars to do a movie... thats your budget.... after the movie is completed... the production company owns the movie... not you so you don't get any of the royalties... if you can do it on your own from beginning to end... you keep all of the million. You bring in a team, you start splitting the cost... and even if you thought... okay... I'm just going to let this one slide... its an investment in my portfolio... its still a gamble, right? Okay... fine thats all just hypothetical...

The Blair Witch Project was done on a budget of $60,000 and made $248.6 million...
The first that spawned a whole bunch of shaky cam movies.




Total BS... This tells people that movies like the Godfather or Citizen Kane is all of a sudden irrelevant if watched in 720p.
Click to expand...

We clearly have different type of clients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top