What is the current ProRes 422 Workflow?

[Scott Webster]

Just wondering how the Red team are working with ProRes at the moment.
Are they Going from RedCode in RedCine to ProRes into FCP?

Doing final output as ProRes?
(ie are running Redcode native in a FCP beta and then outputting at ProRes 422)

From transcoding from RedCine to another file type and then outputting that as ProRes?

 

[GlennChan]

(Speculating here) I think there are multiple workflows that are valid with Prores.

As far as the *highest highest* quality goes, Prores won't do that (it uses 4:2:2 chroma subsampling, which is just a bad compression technique IMO at high bitrates). What is would be good for is:

A- You need to offline at HD resolution with lots of real-time effects. Prores decodes fast... you can decode multiple streams of it in real-time. Chances are it will outperform Redcode RAW 2k extraction and Recode 1080p/720p.

B- You use Prores to master from. Edit Redcode RAW footage without transcoding,
picture lock,
export EDL to redcine,
redcine spits out high quality debayered footage (with some image processing like highlight recovery) in Prores codec
Color grade (e.g. Color will work well with the Prores codec; it may not work with Redcode), do online editing tasks, etc.
Make your master from there.

You don't need a big RAID array to do that. And if you need to send your files around, Prores will transfer quickly.

C- If you need a very fast turnaround, it might make sense to record the HD-SDI output off your Red into Prores. You sacrifice some quality and flexibility this way (no RAW processing).

2- There is some information on the workflow for Crossing the Line if you search around. Prores was not used... for some workflows Prores does not make sense. The Quantel system used for the online does not support Prores (AFAIK). Except in that case they are using it as the deliverable/viewing format... good quality but only need a normal single hard drive to play back from.

If I'm wrong someone please correct me.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

But why would anyone want to use ProRes when you have Redcode RAW 4k 4:4:4 at nearly the same file size as a Prores 1080p 4:2:2? I'm not being sarcastic, I've been honestly trying to figure this out and can't see any reason.

 

[Scott Webster]

But why would anyone want to use ProRes when you have Redcode RAW 4k 4:4:4 at nearly the same file size as a Prores 1080p 4:2:2? I'm not being sarcastic, I've been honestly trying to figure this out and can't see any reason.

Hey Shawn

We must of been in the same line at NAB 06. Reading between the lines it looks like Red have been working with Prores a lot. The screening of CTL in Sydney was from Prores. For our market a film out is going to be the exception rather than the rule so most projects will be HD deliverables.

I understand in Sydney Red were recommending the Prores workflow for broadcast work. If so I'd like to get a better understanding of the process.

 

[Ken K]

Isn't ProRes what we have to use now in FCP if we want to edit our footage? I thought that was the temporary solution until FCP supports 4k and Red finishes the Redcode plugin. Watching this video again, once FCP supports both formats, it looks like you'd use Redcode for filmouts and ProRes for broadcast (1080p and lower).

The way I look at it (based on what info I've gathered), I'd use ProRes as the temp solution until the Redcode plugin is available for FCP. Then there's really no reason to use ProRes unless you need to output something for broadcast and that's the preferred codec.

 

[ChristopherKenworthy]

But why would anyone want to use ProRes when you have Redcode RAW 4k 4:4:4 at nearly the same file size as a Prores 1080p 4:2:2? I'm not being sarcastic, I've been honestly trying to figure this out and can't see any reason.

I had an hour long chat with somebody from Apple, at SMPTE, and he said that ProRes will have a performance advantage over Redcode in FCP6. If you're just cutting, it probably makes little difference. But you're adding effects and transitions, well, render times might be quicker with ProRes. So, although ProRes is a mighty codec, I can live without it for professional work. Ironically, I'll use it for some amateur stuff I do...

 

[M Most]

But why would anyone want to use ProRes when you have Redcode RAW 4k 4:4:4 at nearly the same file size as a Prores 1080p 4:2:2? I'm not being sarcastic, I've been honestly trying to figure this out and can't see any reason.

1. There is a lot of overhead in decoding/debayering Redcode clips. Performance for multiple streams and real time effects should be noticeably better when the overhead of real time debayering is not part of the process, and when the displayed resolution is the actual resolution (not an extraction).
2. The real time debayer is likely not of the best quality, so you would have to render Redcode clips anyway in order to get the highest quality debayer.
3. Because of (2), you wouldn't likely want to deliver from a real time playout of Redcode, but you can deliver an HD master from a real time playout of ProRes.

The bottom line is that one might want to use something other than the original Red clips if either performance or real time effect performance is important, or if one is delivering an HD video master. How much difference in performance is available is yet to be determined, because nobody other than those directly involved at Red has tried Recode, and the codec itself is still being tuned.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Redcode RAW is a camera recording and proxy-editing QT format to create an edl/xml. Put this edl/xml into REDCine and conform to any format you want, eg. QT ProRes 1080p. Did I miss something?

For most postproduction SFX work or deliveries you need a RGB or YUV file. It can be 4:2:2 or better 4:4:4:. Apple ProRes is a YUV 4:2:2 10 bit compressed format with a considerable high fidelity and low data rate. For multi generation work ProRes is not the codec of my choice. In my last project I got after the 3rd/4th generation banding. Also ProRes is only supported by Apple computers with FCS 2 installed AFAIK.

For better fidelity check out Bitjazz or Cineform. RED announced a RED RGB codec. I am not sure how development is here.

Hans

 

[M Most]

Redcode RAW is a camera recording and proxy-editing QT format to create an edl/xml. Put this edl/xml into REDCine and conform to any format you want, eg. QT ProRes 1080p. Did I miss something?

Yes. Redcine is not a conforming tool. It is a format converter. Having said that, what you are alluding to is basically true, but it's a two (actually 3) step process if you're using the Redcode files for offline. Step 1: offline using Redcode files and produce some type of pull list that Redcine understands (hasn't been defined yet, at least not publicly). Step 2: Use Redcine to extract and convert all the clips in the list. Step 3: Go back into some type of editing program and conform those clips.

 

[GlennChan]

Red Pull List:

Q: It has been said that with Redcine, you can convert to offline, edit, then come back and convert for online - but other than manually coming up with a list to re-convert (which could be ridiculously daunting on a feature), how will conform be more realistically doable? As in automated? I see this as a HUGE potential stumbling block to the proposed workflow.

A: We're looking to automate this with RED Pull List, which will take a NLE EDL or XML file, and create a new project in REDCINE with just the clips you need to tweak or re-render out to a higher resolution. RPL is still in early stages of development, but I think you can see how this will help enormously.

Q: Great, that's a huge missing piece I was worried about. As a follow up, is RPL a separate app or a function of Redcine? Or TBD?

A: RPL is a function of REDCINE, and the exact details of it's operation and interface are still being worked on.

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/11/hd4nds-exclusive-big-red-update-part-2.html

So presumably the workflow is...?:

Offline edit.
(IMO it would be nice if you could export an interim/speculative EDL and debayer clips in that list.)
Picture lock.
Export final EDL.
Redcine converts that EDL into a pull list.

(If offline and online are in different locations, hopefully there is some mechanism that helps deal with data transfer. The best is to send only the Redcode RAW clips that are used... this will transfer the fastest. Unless the online facility already has a copy of all the Redcode RAW footage... in which case you only need to email the RPL.)

--Ok, now you have a Red Pull List.
--Presumably, Redcine debayers all the clips on that pull list.
--This could potentially be output as uncompressed 2k/4k files onto a SAN.
--Hopefully there are no problems with the original EDL. Which in online conforms, there usually are.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Yes. Redcine is not a conforming tool. It is a format converter. Having said that, what you are alluding to is basically true, but it's a two (actually 3) step process if you're using the Redcode files for offline. Step 1: offline using Redcode files and produce some type of pull list that Redcine understands (hasn't been defined yet, at least not publicly). Step 2: Use Redcine to extract and convert all the clips in the list. Step 3: Go back into some type of editing program and conform those clips.

Thanks for your input, make things clearer!

Yes your are right REDCine is "just" a converter. The point is that the new debayered files you created with REDCine should have the same name and timecode as the original camera REDcode Raw files you did your editing with. Put these new files in a different location on your harddisk and conform to them with your nle. Sounds like a decent workflow.

Hans

 

[M Most]

Thanks for your input, make things clearer!

Yes your are right REDCine is "just" a converter. The point is that the new debayered files you created with REDCine should have the same name and timecode as the original camera REDcode Raw files you did your editing with. Put these new files in a different location on your harddisk and conform to them with your nle. Sounds like a decent workflow.

I echo what Glenn said: "should" have the same name and time code. That doesn't mean it actually does. None of these tools will make up for pilot error, which is unfortunately very, very common these days, especially when someone without an editing background is doing the editing, and even more so when they don't have an assistant editor.

 

[Dominic Jones]

Not to mention the fact that anything involving an EDL scares the bejesus out of me - I've never seen an EDL-based transfer go smoothly. I haven't had much experience of XML as yet, but a couple of projects we've done have been through XML for on-line and conform (including one feature) without a hitch, so that route looks promising, at least...

Do all NLE's now support XML? And what about the high-end conform tools - how prevalent is XML as a standard there?

 

[Dominic Jones]

Don't worry - I've just answered my own question with a bit of googling. The answer, for anyone else who doesn't know and is interested is no, they don't, and even when they do it's usually an application or vendor specific extension within the XML spec - so conversions are necessary to get the data from one app's XML format to another's.

Oh well, never mind!...

 

[MikeCurtis]

Mike Most nails the quality issues - and I've been (OK, spent 3 days then had my interns start doing it) doing FCP testing for WEEKS to quantify realtime performance stuff.

And the big issue is performance - want a cross dissolve? Want to use the 3way color corrector? Want to add titles? Want to do it all at the same time?

You need realtime performance. And if your box is fast enough, you can do it in real time, at high quality, with no waiting to render. If you don't, progress bar city. Go get some coffee.

Glenn - awwww! Its always nice to be quoted.

: )

And, as I keep saying to those who want to master RGB 4:4:4 at 12 or 16 bits - WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOU GOING TO PLAY THAT!?!?!?!?

On some thread on here I saw somebody talking about amateur 4K moviemaking.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

There is definitely amateur 4K shooting with Red (OK, relatively well financed amateurs in comparison to a lot of the indie folks who email me looking for advice).

You can even finish in 4K (but not in Final Cut) with desktop tools.

But unless you have an $80-100K projector lying around, and the infrastructure to drive it, YOU'RE NOT NOT NOT going to be watching your movie in 4K.

I think it'll be very interesting to see the wise indies shoot 4K Redcode, offline in whatever (or MAYBE ProResHQ if they have a fast enough box and the storage space), run it through Color, make a nice 4:2:2 festival master (SXSW and Sundance both wanted 1080i60 HDCAM tapes this year). That'll get you a nice looking festival master. If you can afford a professional colorist on a DaVinci or Quantel or whatever, fantastic - do that - but high quality 4:2:2 is good enough for festival screenings.

THEN, if you get picked up for theatrical distribution, THEN worry about conforming 2K or 4K and sending to a high end post house yadda yadda.

Otherwise, go make a nice 24p master to whatever specs the distrib wants and go from there...

But for those worrying about 4:4:4, or 4K, for less than theatrical distribution, I say you're worrying too much - you can make a much better looking file than you can reasonable watch or distribute.

Final Cut Pro, even 6.0.1, can't properly process RGB 4:4:4 beyond 8 bits. Surprise! It can play it back, but if you want a cross dissolve, or add a title, you're out of luck. The Apple folks managed to say with a straight face that you should process your cross dissolves in Shake. Titles too. (Hey, at least we can reposition in Color now though, but it has its own issues to address when dealing with high quality frames, but that is another thread/site/article).

And of course, you can't do 4K in FCP now - 2048x1556 AFAIK is the biggest supported frame that'll play out to a color accurate display in real time if you have a Kona3.

The flip side, the advantage, is that you if you NEED a high quality deliverable, you'll have it, at a lower cost than has been the case in the past.

There's a BUNCH of other issues and details and caveats to what I've said here (Mike Most might want to chime in here, or not), but that's the gist of it from where I stand, until we see what Red has up its sleeve with the 4K displays and projectors they mentioned at NAB 2007 come to fruition.

At which point, we can all go back and re-render to 4K if we want to.

-mike

 

[Corrado Silveri]

Amen.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Mike,

FCP6+Leopard going to make your statement about FCP6 SOON obsolete,

for example to do 4K it's not an issue of FCP,

it's an issue of old Tiger"s video graphic engine, Core Video,

Leopard will change a lot in Apple"s video and graphic world with a brand new rewritten Core Video engine,

just wait a bit till end of October...

 

[M Most]

Not to mention the fact that anything involving an EDL scares the bejesus out of me - I've never seen an EDL-based transfer go smoothly.

There's nothing magical or dangerous about an EDL. What's dangerous is people who decide to edit their projects without knowing how to edit when a conform is going to follow. Things are done that are not documented, effects are used that are not easily replicated without a lot of explanation, and cuts are changed without generating a new list. Not to mention the simple fact that Final Cut (the program most often used by inexperienced editors these days) stupidly defaults to Drop Frame time code on sequences. Most inexperienced "editors" don't even know what that means - at least not until the post sound facility calls them up and tells them that all of the sound needs to be resynced because the EDL is bogus. That is, of course, assuming the "editor" was able to even generate a sound EDL, or took the proper preparatory steps to be able to do so. Bottom line: far too many people are in way over their heads when it comes to post production, but unfortunately don't seem to either know it or admit it.

Being a writer, cameraman, or director doesn't make you an editor, not even if you spend $1000 on Final Cut.