ProRes on PPRO on PC possible?

[Rudi Herbert]

Ok, I have to ask,

I'm almost sure I know the answer to this but, is it possible to work with ProRes on Premiere running on a PC? I like the new AJA Ki-Pro mini, which records to 10 bit ProRes, as opposed to the 8bit Nano Flash, but can I edit directly onto Pro
Res in a PC? I've received ProRes files in the past which I had a fried covert to my favorite Cineform files so I could work with those, but can I work directly on ProRes? I've never tried because I don't think I can, but perhaps I'm wrong?

 

[Erich Ocean]

You can read the files but not write them. Download here: http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Windows

 

[Alexander Mejia]

I know for a fact that 720P Prores files are RT playback capeable on a dual core Windows comptuer.

It may be possible to play back 1080P ProRes files on a hefty quad core Windows setup. Never tried it.

Make sure that you have the person on the mac take a screenshot of the video clip in Final Cut Pro so that you can verify the correct gamma. There are still some gama shifts happening when you try to play back ProRes in Premiere Pro CS5 on Windows.

 

[David McGavran]

I know for a fact that 720P Prores files are RT playback capeable on a dual core Windows comptuer.

It may be possible to play back 1080P ProRes files on a hefty quad core Windows setup. Never tried it.

Make sure that you have the person on the mac take a screenshot of the video clip in Final Cut Pro so that you can verify the correct gamma. There are still some gama shifts happening when you try to play back ProRes in Premiere Pro CS5 on Windows.

Can you tell me more about the gamma shifts? ProRes for us is gamma correct and consistent on PPro/AE mac and windows. I just got a report that FinalCut shows a gamma shift. But being that FinalCut is such old technology I am not surprised. However we do appreciate that people need to be able to get off of Final Cut and onto newer technology so I am looking at this issue tomorrow. If you give me steps I will look into what you see as well.

:smilewinkgrin:

Cheers

Dave

 

[Tom Lowe]

But being that FinalCut is such old technology I am not surprised. However we do appreciate that people need to be able to get off of Final Cut and onto newer technology so I am looking at this issue tomorrow.

Haha, nice! :thumbsup:

 

[Rudi Herbert]

The footage I'm being given is for grading, so in the larger scheme of things, it does not matter much whether there are inconsistencies as I will have to tweak it anyway. I will deliver DPX sequences so that will take care of shifts, etc, I just wanted to make sure that I can read ProRes ok inside Premiere in Windows. I must be one of those few professionals who never needed to work with Apple products (made an effort not to actually) but this footage is too much for me to transcode it to my beloved Cineform.

David, when will Adobe develop their own mastering format like ProRes? This is one of those things holding back a lot of professionals. Cineform is great, and it's been there with you guys from the beginning, just saying....

 

[Paul Leeming]

Don't see the need for another format when you are working with original source material? Intermediate transcoding to a common format is really just a legacy of Final Cut's methodology in needing everything in its own format, as opposed to a more modern outlook like Premiere Pro which is truly format agnostic and can read anything in natively without any need of an intermediate.

I've been watching the beta forums argue the same thing on both sides but it seems like a massive step backwards to me....

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Paul, agree with you this user does, however...

Just because I can work with any format in Premiere does not mean I choose to do so. AVCHD is a pain to edit with, and even worse to grade. And HDCAM, XDCAM and DVCPRO are, most of the times, only 8 bit formats. Which is why I prefer to transcode all of those into something like Cineform, which is far less taxing for the hardware, is 10 bit and offers far more flexibility when grading with it. Furthermore, I was talking more about a delivery format for VFX, mastering and other facilities, which are quite happy when being given a ProRes master. So, it would be great for us to have such a high quality format to deliver on, BESIDES having the flexibility of working with whatever format they give us. I know the single format concept is a drawback from FCP, and the one reason why FCP is so "stable" since it only works with a single format At least, as mastering/delivery format, it would great to have our own version of ProRes.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Paul, agree with you this user does, however...

Just because I can work with any format in Premiere does not mean I choose to do so. AVCHD is a pain to edit with, and even worse to grade. And HDCAM, XDCAM and DVCPRO are, most of the times, only 8 bit formats. Which is why I prefer to transcode all of those into something like Cineform, which is far less taxing for the hardware, is 10 bit and offers far more flexibility when grading with it. Furthermore, I was talking more about a delivery format for VFX, mastering and other facilities, which are quite happy when being given a ProRes master. So, it would be great for us to have such a high quality format to deliver on, BESIDES having the flexibility of working with whatever format they give us. I know the single format concept is a drawback from FCP, and the one reason why FCP is so "stable" since it only works with a single format At least, as mastering/delivery format, it would great to have our own version of ProRes.

I haven't edited with DVCPRO or HDCAM on CS5, but AVCHD and XDCAM are very easy to grade natively. Sure, they are 8-bit, but once in CS5 every image is 4:4:4 and 32-bit floating point color (if you so choose). The 8-bit image remains 8-bit - there's nothing you can do with that, despite the myths - but as you grade, you are creating a new image and staying native in CS5 gives you a lot of headroom. I don't buy the "it helps grading" theory at all, and I have objective evidence to disprove it. It may just be a placebo? There's absolutely no reason to convert to Cineform. All that happens is you lose information. One of the best features of CS5 is the interoperability with formats. Not only can it take in anything you throw at it - it even conforms/retimes the footage according the timeline settings.

Here's a good video about the issue: http://vimeo.com/13764135

There are no shortage of high quality lossless and delivery codecs for the Windows platform. There are good free ProRes alternatives as well, for that matter, DNxHD, Matrox etc.

All this said, if you are editing on a 4 year old laptop and can't settle for lower preview resolutions, by all means transcode to an intermediate codec.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Well, if you have evidence to disprove this notion, by all means, post it. But post frames of effects applied to the same 8 and 10 bit images and let's see which looks better or if they look the same. Grading a 10 bit 4:2:2 codec, upsampled to 4:4:4 is better than an 8 bit, 4:2:0 codec upsampled to 4:4:4. Each extra bit doubles your precision i.e. 8-bit gives 256 values, 10-bit gives 1024 values. Also, compressing across a Long Group Of Pictures yields less precise results than compression over each frame, like wavelet codecs such as Cineform. NOBODY grades native AVCHD in our industry, though granted, you can edit with it and then transcode the finish piece to a better codec for final grading.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Well, if you have evidence to disprove this notion, by all means, post it. But post frames of effects applied to the same 8 and 10 bit images and let's see which looks better or if they look the same. Grading a 10 bit 4:2:2 codec, upsampled to 4:4:4 is better than an 8 bit, 4:2:0 codec upsampled to 4:4:4. Each extra bit doubles your precision i.e. 8-bit gives 256 values, 10-bit gives 1024 values. Also, compressing across a Long Group Of Pictures yields less precise results than compression over each frame, like wavelet codecs such as Cineform. NOBODY grades native AVCHD in our industry, though granted, you can edit with it and then transcode the finish piece to a better codec for final grading.

Here's the thing - you have to know that in Premiere Pro CS5 you are not grading the codec! You are grading the image! Once you insert any footage to your timeline - be it 4-bit or 16-bit, everything is up-sampled to 4:4:4 and 32bpc (float). As simple as that. There's no doubt that an intraframe codec like Cineform retains better image quality, but this quality is already lost in the source, i.e. AVCHD. Do you want to lose further information by transcoding to Cineform? Once again, you are not grading the source codec. Your graded image stays 4:4:4 / 32bpc till you render to your delivery codec, in which case it is likely downsampled once more.

By claiming "NOBODY" grades natively in the entire industry, you are making a hasty assumption, as I am sure you don't know every person in the industry. Whether or not CS5 users grade natively, I can never be sure, but one thing is for certain - staying native is simply the best way and could be the primary reason people are upgrading to CS5. All this said, all your arguments are sound and applicable to FCP land, but not here. CS5 doesn't have performance limitations, and even moderately powered modern PCs can handle a vast array of source footage natively - AVCHD, DSLR H.264, R3D, whatever.

I will try posting some comparison images if I have time, but until then, check out this video: http://vimeo.com/13764135. And also this, http://thomasberglund.no/misc/codecwars09/. You are simply losing information by transcoding to ProRes, Cineform, etc.

To round-up - Use Cineform before final render only if you are on an ancient computer unable to grade natively (performance constraints). For all other purposes, the only thing Cineform or ProRes will buy you is a loss in image quality. And waste storage space. And waste hours of transcoding time. (Though you will make up a bit in the final render time) It is just an obsolete workaround for an obsolete software. When I used FCP, it caused me tons of headache and moving to Vegas Pro and a native workflow just changed everything. A post production workflow which took 20 hours now could be done in less than 10. The final result was better too - objectively in terms of image quality, but also subjectively, as the person doing the work wasn't constantly scratching their heads in frustration. The whole point of modern NLE's like PPro CS5 or Vegas Pro is to ensure you don't waste time, make your process as efficient as possible. I am not saying these intraframe codecs are useless - but more now than ever, their scope of valid usage is becoming extremely narrow. I am all for intraframe codecs replacing long GOP codecs at the acquisition stage, though. (i.e. in camera)

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Well, if you have evidence to disprove this notion, by all means, post it. But post frames of effects applied to the same 8 and 10 bit images and let's see which looks better or if they look the same. Grading a 10 bit 4:2:2 codec, upsampled to 4:4:4 is better than an 8 bit, 4:2:0 codec upsampled to 4:4:4. Each extra bit doubles your precision i.e. 8-bit gives 256 values, 10-bit gives 1024 values. Also, compressing across a Long Group Of Pictures yields less precise results than compression over each frame, like wavelet codecs such as Cineform. NOBODY grades native AVCHD in our industry, though granted, you can edit with it and then transcode the finish piece to a better codec for final grading.

there is no tech advantage to transcoding - this is 100% myth. Cineform does not "uprez" the colorspace - how would it do that? You are left with the same 8 bits of info in a 10 bit container. If you keep your effect layers in 32 bit, this will give you the same advantage and save time and space.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Here's the thing - you have to know that in Premiere Pro CS5 you are not grading the codec! You are grading the image! Once you insert any footage to your timeline - be it 4-bit or 16-bit, everything is up-sampled to 4:4:4 and 32bpc (float). As simple as that. There's no doubt that an intraframe codec like Cineform retains better image quality, but this quality is already lost in the source, i.e. AVCHD. Do you want to lose further information by transcoding to Cineform? Once again, you are not grading the source codec. Your graded image stays 4:4:4 / 32bpc till you render to your delivery codec, in which case it is likely downsampled once more.

By claiming "NOBODY" grades natively in the entire industry, you are making a hasty assumption, as I am sure you don't know every person in the industry. Whether or not CS5 users grade natively, I can never be sure, but one thing is for certain - staying native is simply the best way and could be the primary reason people are upgrading to CS5. All this said, all your arguments are sound and applicable to FCP land, but not here. CS5 doesn't have performance limitations, and even moderately powered modern PCs can handle a vast array of source footage natively - AVCHD, DSLR H.264, R3D, whatever.

I will try posting some comparison images if I have time, but until then, check out this video: http://vimeo.com/13764135. And also this, http://thomasberglund.no/misc/codecwars09/. You are simply losing information by transcoding to ProRes, Cineform, etc.

To round-up - Use Cineform before final render only if you are on an ancient computer unable to grade natively (performance constraints). For all other purposes, the only thing Cineform or ProRes will buy you is a loss in image quality. And waste storage space. And waste hours of transcoding time. (Though you will make up a bit in the final render time) It is just an obsolete workaround for an obsolete software. When I used FCP, it caused me tons of headache and moving to Vegas Pro and a native workflow just changed everything. A post production workflow which took 20 hours now could be done in less than 10. The final result was better too - objectively in terms of image quality, but also subjectively, as the person doing the work wasn't constantly scratching their heads in frustration. The whole point of modern NLE's like PPro CS5 or Vegas Pro is to ensure you don't waste time, make your process as efficient as possible. I am not saying these intraframe codecs are useless - but more now than ever, their scope of valid usage is becoming extremely narrow. I am all for intraframe codecs replacing long GOP codecs at the acquisition stage, though. (i.e. in camera)

Welll Cineform is still a great delivery format in many cases - some braodcasters here accept it, for example.

 

[Uli Plank]

I can only second what Subhadip says: there is no advantage at all in transcoding if you work with decent hardware and CS5. ProRes, CineForm or DNxHD are still compressed, so transcoding looses quality! You are cascading codecs. As long as you stay in CS5, there is no reason to transcode.
For delivery it all depends on what your partners need. Might be DPX sequences for a high-end grading system or uncompressed QT (there are cross-platform codecs for free from BM or AJA) or whatever is needed. But, please, keep that to the very last stage!

 

[shashbugu]

When you transcode to Prores 4444 there is an illusion of uprezzing. I am not sure what it is, but there is a certain level of clarity. I have seen this in DSLR footage. I stay as far away from any type of transcoding at the moment till final delivery. Admittedly this same clarity I speak of is achieved in CS5 with simple white balancing and levels.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Well, I've done more research and experimentation with CS5 and found out it is an even more amazing software than I thought it was! Subhadip is right, 32 bit effects are not applied to the codec, they are applied sort as a layer, AE style, so no, it does not matter whether the codec is 8 or 10 bit in that sense. BUT, having said that, a few of the other things said here are wrong. To begin with, this qualitative jump has only happened with CS5, CS4 was still pretty much dependent on codec types for quality and speed, even if it already accepted a bunch of codecs natively, which CS3 also did. Working with AVCHD on CS4 was a pain, far more difficult than even R3D, it was very difficult to add transitions and other effects to, and it responded very badly to color grading, because you were indeed working on GOP structures. So, transcoding to Cineform DID make a big difference, since it was a far easier codec to manipulate and it kept its quality far longer. And no, Cineform was not simply a container, 10 bit is 10 bit, regardless of where it was converted from, inferior 8 bit footage or native 10 bit from a camera HDSDI, and working with 10 bit instead of 8 when all renders are applied to the clip and the codec rewritten with every render, DOES make a huge difference. So, doing comprehensive post work on either tough to handle 8 bit codecs or 10 bit codecs optimized for such post work did make a difference up until CS4. CS5 on the other hand does change all that.

 

[Johnny Friday]

S0, when asked to deliver a 422HQ or 4444prores file.....can you just spit this out of Premier if working on a mac? I posted this question in another thread, but this thread seems more adequate. most of my deliverables are asked as prores.
Thanks.....Rudi?

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Johnny,

Not sure, but almost certain that you CAN'T encode to ProRes from Premiere, neither on a PC nor on a Mac. I guess, for you, the easiest path would be to encode DPX or something like that out of Premiere, import into FCP and convert to ProRes. Since on Premiere you don't need to transcode the R3D files on ingest, you do it then at the end, leaving you in the same position as far as steps are concerned. Which might negate the advantages of using Premiere, except that doing all color correction and other effects directly onto the RAW files is probably better than on ProRes, so you might gain a slight quality edge with this method, but I can't confirm this.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Johnny,

Not sure, but almost certain that you CAN'T encode to ProRes from Premiere, neither on a PC nor on a Mac. I guess, for you, the easiest path would be to encode DPX or something like that out of Premiere, import into FCP and convert to ProRes. Since on Premiere you don't need to transcode the R3D files on ingest, you do it then at the end, leaving you in the same position as far as steps are concerned. Which might negate the advantages of using Premiere, except that doing all color correction and other effects directly onto the RAW files is probably better than on ProRes, so you might gain a slight quality edge with this method, but I can't confirm this.

Thanks Rudi,
was what i was suspecting after some research. That said, it just seems more logical then to work on Storm and pass back and forth from FPC...It's super simple to go back to the original media with the Storm setup. Just now that it's not quite up to par and has some fickle moments....so for now RCX. Just wish i could push out prores after doing all color work on premier.
JF

 

[Uli Plank]

You can encode to ProRes just fine with Premiere Pro CS5. Needs to be a Mac, though, and legally you'll need to have FCP installed.