ProRes and Weapon

[scott devitte]

I would prefer to have 4k out the weapon sdi bnc connector (using the single bnc standard so i can connect that to my atomos shogun for it to save 4k prores).

+1 for Convergent Design Q7. I wish it would do for Weapon what it does for c500- takes single sdi, converts raw to 4k prores.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I don't get why anyone would want Prores, except to please the false perception that it is "easier".

- 1080p 444 Prores is heavier than full resolution 6:1 R3D, often with more artifacts, 4K ProRes is way, way heavier than even 5:1 R3D
- Avid accepts DnxHD natively, not Prores (last time I looked anyway), so you still need to convert for Avid
- Premiere Pro will edit R3D natively - you'd need to have a really, really old machine for it not to be able to do 1/4 res, which is more than good enough for offline - it even goes to full res when paused. Same is true for the prosumer FCX. Only Final Cut Pro 7 accepts Prores Natively, but not r3Ds (although it does accept proxies already made in-camera by any Red Camera)
- Full res rendering with no Rocket is near real time on a reasonable machine - and even if you never go back to the R3Ds, gives you a chance to grade after the fact, at least a bit when you are doing the transfer of the rushes - no need to fiddle with paint and LUTs on set, which is way more expensive per hour than after everyone has gone home. Who really needs better than real time rendering of the final timeline?
- This obsession with Prores for acquisition no longer has any merit whatsoever.

 

[David Battistella]

- This obsession with Prores for acquisition no longer has any merit whatsoever.

i think this is true as well, but That doesn't seem to be the case. RED went out and licensed another IMHO inferior codec with some disadvantages, to include it in their newest cameras. Who knows what that costed or whether it will change anything.

I dont buy buy the argument that if Prores is in the camera then it will bend people toward raw, but that is yet to be seen. Truth is on professional sets the ISO and the wb is locked in for a scene, so loosing those two things in the Prores file won't be a big deal.

My only point starting the thread was that scaling takes processing power so I just suggested that the Prores file equal whatever the RAW file resolution is. 6k raw, 5.5k whatever in the proxy file so that whatever reframing you do, etc will stay consistent when going back to R3d

One cornerstone has been the r3d, the other has been resolution. The resolution gives you more room to reframe etc. one thing is for sure, I don't think the people shouting for Prores were wanting a proxy, they were wanting an "alternate master" so 4k Prores is probably a must for those people.

overall my thought on all of this is tha choice is good, long live red.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

I don't get why anyone would want Prores, except to please the false perception that it is "easier".

- 1080p 444 Prores is heavier than full resolution 6:1 R3D, often with more artifacts, 4K ProRes is way, way heavier than even 5:1 R3D

ProRes is not the reason I bought into WEAPON, but I have to correct the above. 6K DRAGON 5:1 REDCODE = 141MB/sec (source http://www.red.com/tools/recording-time), which is 1128 Mb/sec.

ProRes 4K 422 is 155Mb/sec, which is less than 20MB/sec. ProRes 4K HQ is 754 MB/sec, which is still < 100MB/sec. To get under 100MB/sec, you need REDCODE 8:1 at 6K. To get under 20MB/sec, you need to shoot 4K at RECODE 16:1. Which may all be moot if WEAPON never delivers 4K ProRes proxies. If it remains limited to 2K, then 2K 4444 XQ is 453Mb/sec, which is approx 57MB/sec, which correlates to 6K at RECODE 13:1.

Obviously, 8K source is going to be almost 80% heavier than 6K source, making proxies that much more advantageous for systems that do not have infinite bandwidth.

My ProRes source is https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper.pdf

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Prores is useable to me. Use them all the time, independently of Premiere's or other editors R3D capacity. It's just a lot faster for me.
Conform for online is a breeze these days...

 

[Matthew J]

I don't get why anyone would want Prores, except to please the false perception that it is "easier".

- 1080p 444 Prores is heavier than full resolution 6:1 R3D, often with more artifacts, 4K ProRes is way, way heavier than even 5:1 R3D
- Avid accepts DnxHD natively, not Prores (last time I looked anyway), so you still need to convert for Avid
- Premiere Pro will edit R3D natively - you'd need to have a really, really old machine for it not to be able to do 1/4 res, which is more than good enough for offline - it even goes to full res when paused. Same is true for the prosumer FCX. Only Final Cut Pro 7 accepts Prores Natively, but not r3Ds (although it does accept proxies already made in-camera by any Red Camera)
- Full res rendering with no Rocket is near real time on a reasonable machine - and even if you never go back to the R3Ds, gives you a chance to grade after the fact, at least a bit when you are doing the transfer of the rushes - no need to fiddle with paint and LUTs on set, which is way more expensive per hour than after everyone has gone home. Who really needs better than real time rendering of the final timeline?
- This obsession with Prores for acquisition no longer has any merit whatsoever.

ProRes IS easier and faster. Note that I am not necessarily saying better. I shot a piece a few weeks ago that ProRes would have been preferred because there was no need for RAW. We spent two minutes correcting the shot on set and then basically shot the same shot for the rest of the day. ProRes would have been a time saver in post for that shoot but it will cost them some more time in post because of a slightly slower process dealing with files and then rendering at the end.

The issue is that getting more data throughput is far easier and cheaper than getting a graphics card which can play RAW at full debayer. Heck, I am still on a 2008 MacPro and it will play 444 4k ProRes at 24fps of my eSATA RAID5 no problem. But even with putting a GTX580 with 2.5GB Ram, I only get somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 good in RCX or Resolve. Not everyone can afford the latest machine or need to upgrade to that. I don't do enough editing anymore (glad that I am not) to justify getting a new MacPro, but the shoots I still edit would benefit from ProRes for the most part.

You also have to consider that not everyone can edit on a MacPro or comparable machine. Sometimes you need to edit in the field. If the shoot is right for ProRes, then a laptop with a thunderbolt drive will be great for field editing.

There are honestly many reason that ProRes is a good thing. Options are always a good thing. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean others don't need it. I wish people would stop trying to shoehorn into their own workflow and just let people use whatever makes the most sense for the project at hand.

 

[David Battistella]

Prores is useable to me. Use them all the time, independently of Premiere's or other editors R3D capacity. It's just a lot faster for me.
Conform for online is a breeze these days...

yup,

Prores is usable and good enough for a lot of jobs.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Right now doing prep for a mini-series without possibility for a RAW finish. I'll transcode everything to 1080 RLF (or work for free for a RAW grade, which kinda isn't a real option).

Shooting 1080 RLF directly would have made me more money, and them more happy...

/sorry

For my own work I shoot 6k at lowest compression all the time, but I have to accomodate others to make some $$$.

If I was running a rental, prores and auto-black-calibration alone would have been worth the upgrade to Weapon.
(And external recorders don't do the "same". Many want overlays in their SDI stream, and often RLF isn't practical for preview + you lose slomo. That's not a viable alternative).

For this gig I'd have considered recording 1080 prores 444 RLF only, copied the files and moved on, I think.
No way this production has an UHD "future", and no way it will be taken through a proper Online. SImply isn't budget for either.
Also, unless I am to supply a lot of equipment for no cost, there is not capacity for a RAW edit.

Prores solves all that in a whiff.

Personally I prefer working offline/online to editing from RAW by a wide margin, too...

 

[David Battistella]

Absolutely. The bleeding edge are ready and embrace r3d, many jobs might see it as an added step or hassle. See that all the time and that is keeping the world a bit "stuck" in 1080p/good enough land.

Personally, everything for me is 6k raw. A lot like you.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

And it is good to think a bit on your own margins if people really aren't ready to pay for a 6k signalchain.

I know this is "counter to RED philosophy", but it's a reality around me at least

 

[David Battistella]

Not kidding, I shit you not.

I spoke to someone here last week who did a job on a DVX100A, the camera that kinda started this whole thing. I still have mine.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Not kidding, I shit you not.

I spoke to someone here last week who did a job on a DVX100A, the camera that kinda started this whole thing. I still have mine.

Well I just had to update a project for my employer from 2009 shot with an HVX200. This update includes Gopro hero 4 black 4k shots, Red Epic MX and Dragon shots. Had a heck of a good colorist helping me out and everything intercutted perfectly - mastered at 1080p...

I sold my original DVX but kept the 200. I still love that cam and many important career milestones were achieved with it, so its in a shelf decorating my post room... ( i believe its color was the inspiration for Scarlet's one- sort of a tribute from Jarred from its dvxuser days- but maybe I'm wrong!)

 

[Scott Stickane]

Have we definitively heard that RAW + ProRes will happen in camera simultaneously? I hate to bring it up, I just haven't been able to find the answer. It would be a shame to have to choose between the two.

 

[David Battistella]

Yes. It will be simultaneous.

 

[Mark Pugh]

I hope RAW compression rates don't have to go up to unacceptable ratios in order to get both RAW and decent ProRes onto the one card.

 

[Charles Bergquist]

I hope RAW compression rates don't have to go up to unacceptable ratios in order to get both RAW and decent ProRes onto the one card.

Yeah the biggest "gotcha" is the data rate, that's why I've got to wait it out to see what Weapon does in the real world. A lot of specs just haven't been announced when it comes to compression ratios and the hundreds of permutations there are of them within any given Red.

 

[Elsie N]

Personally, I would rather RED had adopted a double capture stream of R3D and Redcode.

I meant to say .RED rather than Redcode.

 

[David Battistella]

Personally, I would rather RED had adopted a double capture stream of R3D and Redcode.

Redcode and r3d are the same, no? And they sorta did have a double capture stream in the 2 track recording format known as HDRX. Prores is excellent for those that need it, raw is great for those that want it. The data rates/transfer times will roughly double but that wont be a problem with fast transfer station.

 

[Elsie N]

Redcode and r3d are the same, no? And they sorta did have a double capture stream in the 2 track recording format known as HDRX. Prores is excellent for those that need it, raw is great for those that want it. The data rates/transfer times will roughly double but that wont be a problem with fast transfer station.

Heh... I misspoke. I meant R3D and .RED.

 

[David Battistella]

No worries.


Just a a tiny bit of red history.

.RED And .R3D is the same. The 3 acts as an inverted/reversed capital E