ProRes 4444?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Sidmar Holloman

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:30 am

ProRes 4444?

PostMon Oct 15, 2012 12:41 am

I do not know if employees from Blackmagic reads these threads, but it is likely that their will be an update
on firmware to record ProRes 4444 as an option in the future?
Last edited by Sidmar Holloman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Eric Santiago

  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:41 am

Re: ProRes 444?

PostMon Oct 15, 2012 1:40 am

Don't you mean ProRes4444?
Offline
User avatar

Nick Bedford

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:56 am
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Oct 15, 2012 4:08 am

I would love a 12-bit ProRes 444(4) option with film log. 422 HQ is really great, but having all 12-bits would be really damn good. Plus it's still under 350mbps (not 1gbps).

It's possible that 4444 requires even more processing power than 422 HQ. Who knows.
Nick Bedford, Photographer
http://www.nickbedford.com/
Offline

Bernhard

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:00 am

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Oct 15, 2012 8:30 am

Hello,

if there is the prospect for higher frame rates as has officially been mentioned,
then encoding ProRes4444 at 12 bit should not be the problem.

Instead I would expect de-bayering for (a good) 444 being the hard processing part of this.
Nevertheless I would prefer ProRes444 for the 12bit anyway.

Best regards,
Bernhard
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2139
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Oct 15, 2012 12:50 pm

I think ProRes4444 would exceed the bandwidth of the camera to do.

There's also a negligible improvement in terms of colour sampling because of the way the video sampling works off the CMOS sensor.

If you really want it, you can easily do it using the included copy of Resolve to render ProRes 4444 files from the DNG's.

jb
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Eric Santiago

  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:41 am

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Oct 15, 2012 1:34 pm

John Brawley wrote:If you really want it, you can easily do it using the included copy of Resolve to render ProRes 4444 files from the DNG's.

jb


Which is a common workflow for some of us coming from RED rushes.
For us we use the RCXPro to convert to ProRes4444 at 4K.
Works smoothly in FCPX :)
Offline

Bernhard

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:00 am

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Oct 15, 2012 2:26 pm

ProRes4444 at 10bit indeed would make no difference.

But:

ProRes4444 at it's full 12bit would be the first choice for those of us who:
- are not willing to deal with the uncertainty of different de-bayering processes
- are not able to handle uncompressed data amounts (as long as not required, e.g. for VFX)
- appreciate BMCC's workflow usability AND demand the maximum reasonable quality (12bit)

Those arguments might hold up as long as:
- BMD not released a BMCC CinemaDNG De-Bayering SDK or
- Apple not released a ProResRAW coder (which BMD implements)


Best regards,
Bernhard
Offline
User avatar

DaleCampbellFilms

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:53 pm

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostTue Oct 16, 2012 4:05 pm

Sidmar Holloman wrote:I do not know if employees from Blackmagic reads these threads, but it is likely that their will be an update
on firmware to record ProRes 4444 as an option in the future?

As I understand it (and the terminology is not quite as precise as I would like). The camera cannot output 444 in any 'true' way.
However if you shoot RAW and are looking to maintain the maximum colour information etc. then transcoding to 444 should yield superior results compared to 422HQ.

Now most of this thinking is coming from broadcast/ENG cameras so doesn't entirely take into account how the 12bit RAW will contribute to the image....
I don't know if they would want to implent 444 if it was 'true' 444............
Someone from BMD could probably sum all this up better/more accurately :)
http://www.dalecampbellfilms.com
Offline
User avatar

Nick Bedford

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:56 am
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostTue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 pm

Yeah the only reason I would want a direct ProRes 444 option is so that we can get 12-bit log, even if the chroma information is somewhere on the 422 side of resolution, disregarding the obvious non-related way of discerning raw resolution.
Nick Bedford, Photographer
http://www.nickbedford.com/
Offline

Pierre Reynard

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostThu Oct 18, 2012 6:35 am

I think the same than Nick about the worklow, i've test the John Brawley's shots, take it to AE, export on prores 422 or 4444 to work with in FCPX and it works very well on my old 24'' IMAC. I'm going to shoot with this camera in prores 90% of the time ( cause of my work ) and shoot short movie and other stuff ( personnal video ) using RAW. I'm thinking about a workflow for RAW shooting, tell me what do you think of it.
BMCC
MBP Retina 15'' ( maybe the 13'' Retina can run resolve ? )
2 thunderbolt / Usb3 1TB Lacie Rugged disk
2ssd for the camera.

Shoot with BMCC, make the first correction on resolve with the MBP and export it as 2.5k Proress 4444 on one disk, delete RAW shots, Back up the prores files, and continue :D .

I want to work with RAW to learn it, and i think that in 2 years 2TB ssd 2.5'' will be cost about 200€ (Maybe ?), so i think that this camera is a very good investment, for people like me who never shoots RAW, this is a chance to learn it :)

Sorry for my english ! I'm French

Pierre
Offline

Joel Crane

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:55 am
  • Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostThu Oct 18, 2012 1:41 pm

Hey, ProRes being Apple propitiatory and everything, how does it actually go with Adobe on a Windows machine? I've never actually used ProRes so I don't really know...
___________________________________________________

Joel Crane

- Photographer - Filmmaker - Superhero -
www.joelcranephotography.com
Offline

bhook

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:19 pm

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostThu Oct 18, 2012 1:43 pm

Edits like budda...you just can't export ProRes from PPro on Windows.
Offline

Peter McAuley

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:22 pm
  • Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostThu Oct 18, 2012 2:59 pm

All of that assumes BlackMagic is willing to pay Apple for the ProRes 4444 codec license.
Offline
User avatar

Tom

  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:08 am
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostThu Oct 18, 2012 4:17 pm

If BMD are listening, Cineform RAW would seem to be the perfect alternative codec. Like a half way house between Cinema DNG and ProRes422 HQ - but with all the extra benefits of cineform for post production.

The extra bit depth of ProRes 4444 would be great, but having debayering options such as you get with Cineform Raw would be even better.
Tom Majerski
http://tetragrade.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5157752/
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 7:01 am

I'm about to rant again!
Just kidding, 4444, 422, H.265, and of course Cineform all lovely but we are missing the big picture here!

I'll leave it at that, hoping many of you pickup what I'm putting down, without me stating the obvious.

No bashing allowed, I'm just wondering how many of you really get it?
Offline
User avatar

Thomas Schumacher

  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:14 pm
  • Location: Germany

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 7:17 am

Wow, spam in the early morning....

It is exciting that Bigasoft, the world's leading media software company,
https://www.gernemehrfilm.de/
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 7:20 am

gmf wrote:Wow, spam in the early morning....

It is exciting that Bigasoft, the world's leading media software company,


I don't see that post gmf?

UPDATE!!
I see it now! :lol: I skimmed right past it, it must be my speed reading skills failing!
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 7:37 am

Nice it's gone now, Thanks gmf your now my Early warning system!!
Offline
User avatar

Trevor Zuck

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:37 pm
  • Location: the 515

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 2:58 pm

ProRes 4444? this would be nice if the sensor was capable of doing 4:4:4 chroma (no)subsampling.
here's an article that explains what I mean:
http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/02/when-is-444-not-really-444/

so to recap, if the BMCC were to record ProRes 4444 (really it should be ProRes 444, unless the camera can film transparency) it would be 99.99% same as ProRes 422 HQ, but eat up more space on drives. But if you really wanted to eat up more drive space then film in RAW, because at least that give you more bit depth to play with in post. If the point is to improve the BMCC I don't see how adding ProRes 4444 does that, same with Cineform RAW, I don't understand why you would film in it.
- TZ

Visual FX and Post Production Artist
Screenscape Studios
Offline
User avatar

Tom

  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:08 am
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 3:32 pm

TZuck wrote:ProRes 4444? this would be nice if the sensor was capable of doing 4:4:4 chroma (no)subsampling.
here's an article that explains what I mean:
http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/02/when-is-444-not-really-444/

so to recap, if the BMCC were to record ProRes 4444 (really it should be ProRes 444, unless the camera can film transparency) it would be 99.99% same as ProRes 422 HQ, but eat up more space on drives. But if you really wanted to eat up more drive space then film in RAW, because at least that give you more bit depth to play with in post. If the point is to improve the BMCC I don't see how adding ProRes 4444 does that, same with Cineform RAW, I don't understand why you would film in it.



1: the sensor does not perform any chroma subsampling.
2: Bayer pattern sensors and chroma subsampling are not the same thing and should not be directly compared. Similar ideas, but very different thing with different implications.
3: Cineform RAW would be beneficial because the data is bayer data with very good, visually lossless compression with a high colour bit depth. It means the benefits of not having pre-debayered video footage such as with DNG, the benefits of high colour bit depth such as with DNG, but with much smaller files - and of course all the cool things you can do with cineform such as with their meta data.
Tom Majerski
http://tetragrade.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5157752/
Offline
User avatar

Trevor Zuck

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:37 pm
  • Location: the 515

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 8:36 pm

Tom wrote:
TZuck wrote:ProRes 4444? this would be nice if the sensor was capable of doing 4:4:4 chroma (no)subsampling.
here's an article that explains what I mean:
http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/02/when-is-444-not-really-444/

so to recap, if the BMCC were to record ProRes 4444 (really it should be ProRes 444, unless the camera can film transparency) it would be 99.99% same as ProRes 422 HQ, but eat up more space on drives. But if you really wanted to eat up more drive space then film in RAW, because at least that give you more bit depth to play with in post. If the point is to improve the BMCC I don't see how adding ProRes 4444 does that, same with Cineform RAW, I don't understand why you would film in it.



1: the sensor does not perform any chroma subsampling.
2: Bayer pattern sensors and chroma subsampling are not the same thing and should not be directly compared. Similar ideas, but very different thing with different implications.
3: Cineform RAW would be beneficial because the data is bayer data with very good, visually lossless compression with a high colour bit depth. It means the benefits of not having pre-debayered video footage such as with DNG, the benefits of high colour bit depth such as with DNG, but with much smaller files - and of course all the cool things you can do with cineform such as with their meta data.


1.) It would appear as though i've been mistaken. gone and messed up my words...
2.) correct. that being said ProRes 444 still should not be noticeably better quality coming from the current camera. and if you want a true 4:4:4 image from this camera the resolution would be 1200 x 675. Canon has this on the c300 for 1080p only because the sensor is 3840 x 2160. The point of a bayered sensor is to debayer it. software is still guessing at what was there, and any other way to debayer is simply preferential, which is your point in #3? that you can decide how it gets debayered?
3.) You've made valid points. carry on while i go and educate myself more.
- TZ

Visual FX and Post Production Artist
Screenscape Studios
Offline
User avatar

Tom

  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:08 am
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 9:32 pm

TZuck wrote:
Tom wrote:
TZuck wrote:ProRes 4444? this would be nice if the sensor was capable of doing 4:4:4 chroma (no)subsampling.
here's an article that explains what I mean:
http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/02/when-is-444-not-really-444/

so to recap, if the BMCC were to record ProRes 4444 (really it should be ProRes 444, unless the camera can film transparency) it would be 99.99% same as ProRes 422 HQ, but eat up more space on drives. But if you really wanted to eat up more drive space then film in RAW, because at least that give you more bit depth to play with in post. If the point is to improve the BMCC I don't see how adding ProRes 4444 does that, same with Cineform RAW, I don't understand why you would film in it.



1: the sensor does not perform any chroma subsampling.
2: Bayer pattern sensors and chroma subsampling are not the same thing and should not be directly compared. Similar ideas, but very different thing with different implications.
3: Cineform RAW would be beneficial because the data is bayer data with very good, visually lossless compression with a high colour bit depth. It means the benefits of not having pre-debayered video footage such as with DNG, the benefits of high colour bit depth such as with DNG, but with much smaller files - and of course all the cool things you can do with cineform such as with their meta data.


1.) It would appear as though i've been mistaken. gone and messed up my words...
2.) correct. that being said ProRes 444 still should not be noticeably better quality coming from the current camera. and if you want a true 4:4:4 image from this camera the resolution would be 1200 x 675. Canon has this on the c300 for 1080p only because the sensor is 3840 x 2160. The point of a bayered sensor is to debayer it. software is still guessing at what was there, and any other way to debayer is simply preferential, which is your point in #3? that you can decide how it gets debayered?
3.) You've made valid points. carry on while i go and educate myself more.



Pretty much bang on,

basically, the effect that applying chroma sub-sampling to video has is fairly uniform, whereas depending on how you debayer the sensor data - the variation and quality of image can vary in massive ways! (http://blog.elphel.com/2010/11/zoom-in-now-enhance/ scroll down to "PRELIMINARY RESULTS")

I agree that Prores 4444 is fairly pointless for the BMCC. I would rather 12 bit compressed video at 4:2:2 than 10bit 4:4:4 from this camera. But really, Cineform RAW would be perfect for this camera, it would be like the best of both worlds.



On a slightly different note,
When John Brawley released both ProRes film and RAW clips from pool shark - I did a quick grade, applied the exact same settings and tried to match the clips perfectly, exported them both as Cineform444 in 1080p - did a blind test with 3 friends (not cinematographers or film people, just your typical joes) and told them that one was from RAW 2.5k and one was shot in HD.

They all thought that the ProRes looked sharper and was probably the Raw one. Go figure! haha

I have also tried encoding 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 clips from Alexa footage, even when pixel peeping, no one could tell the difference. when enlarged to about 400%, we could just notice a slight difference on a strand of hair!


I am not saying that 4:4:4 is pointless, just that there are probably far more important considerations when it comes to the final quality of the video. (not saying anyone has said otherwise)
Tom Majerski
http://tetragrade.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5157752/
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2139
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 9:58 pm

Whilst there might not be a visible or discernible difference between 444 and 422 there is a big difference when you're trying to grade it. ( assume there's 444 worth of info ere to start with )

JB.
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Tom

  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:08 am
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 10:07 pm

John Brawley wrote:Whilst there might not be a visible or discernible difference between 444 and 422 there is a big difference when you're trying to grade it. ( assume there's 444 worth of info ere to start with )

JB.



Very true! thank you for raising that point!
Tom Majerski
http://tetragrade.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5157752/
Offline

Phillip Mortimer

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:36 am

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostWed Mar 27, 2013 3:11 pm

I would love it if the camera could write ProRes 422 at the full resolution of 2400x1350. The extra resolution would still be there for re-framing or stabilisation, but you would have a smaller file size.
Offline

Pierre Reynard

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: ProRes 4444?

PostTue Apr 09, 2013 9:51 am

+1

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dune00z, Ellory Yu, Matt Certa, Uli Plank and 32 guests