ProRes vs. DNxHR vs alternative?

Wondering what the difference is and why DNxHR only allows 8-bit until up to HQX while ProRes has 10-bit even in its proxy codec. Seems like ProRes is better? Except that I work on both Windows and Mac so that throws a wrench into things. I wish DNxHR had a comparable result to ProRes 422 LT but it only seems to have an equivalent to 422 HQ.

Could there be an alternative as well that doesn't have such massive file sizes as 422 HQ/HQX that is 10-bit so I can keep HDR? There seem to be some interesting alternatives like Cineform which I know nothing about.

NOTE: I am completely new to intermediate codecs and am very used to braw and H.264/5.

DNxHR and ProRes are comparable in quality at the same bitrate.
You won't want less than ProRes 422 HQ for final results anyway. Cineform is an excellent alternative, but a bit slower on Macs.

DNxHR and ProRes are comparable in quality at the same bitrate.
You won't want less than ProRes 422 HQ for final results anyway. Cineform is an excellent alternative, but a bit slower on Macs.

Why do codecs like PR 422 and 422 LT exist as well as DNxHR HQ and SQ?

I understand why ProRes 422 Proxy and DNxHR LB exist, as proxy type files but don't much understand the point of the other ones if they aren't good enough for finishing quality.

Why do codecs like PR 422 and 422 LT exist as well as DNxHR HQ and SQ? I understand why ProRes 422 Proxy and DNxHR LB exist, as proxy type files but don't much understand the point of the other ones if they aren't good enough for finishing quality.

I think at the time ProRes was invented by Apple, they wanted to provide at least the same number of codec "flavors" as Avid DNx, only with more options. We only use ProRes 444 (delivery), ProRes 422HQ (some deliveries), and ProRes 422LT (reference videos and undemanding checks and so on). In the real world, though, I doubt there's a difference between H.264 transcoded to ProRes 422 vs. 422HQ. If space was a premium, then you could always go to 422.

DNxHR and ProRes are comparable in quality at the same bitrate.
You won't want less than ProRes 422 HQ for final results anyway. Cineform is an excellent alternative, but a bit slower on Macs.

Why do codecs like PR 422 and 422 LT exist as well as DNxHR HQ and SQ?

I understand why ProRes 422 Proxy and DNxHR LB exist, as proxy type files but don't much understand the point of the other ones if they aren't good enough for finishing quality.

They exist because 444 12 bit is not always the smart format to use. More bandwidth means more time and money. In a shared project with dozens of participants, shot in multi cam and would never go through an extensive color correction, 8 bit 422 works just fine.

ProRes has 10-bit even in its proxy codec

I thought only HQ and up was 10 bit?

ProRes has 10-bit even in its proxy codec

I thought only HQ and up was 10 bit?

All prores flavors are 10bit 422 unless higher.

Good to know.