ProRes 4444 XQ is awesome.

Anyone else using it for export? Tried it in 12 and my outputs are significantly cleaner than 422HQ even for material that's source 422HQ. Almost as good as an uprez then down convert for increasing clarity. Files are huge but totally worth it. Toast even likes it for burning Blu-Ray's.

I did notice that in Resolve if you export video levels in 4444 XQ with something that's already video level, it pulls the head and toe in a second time and washes out the blacks. Don't know if that's supposed to happen or not but as long as you're aware before you render, it's brilliant. Yay Apple.

But how does it compare to ProRes 4444 as a finishing codec? I'm not sure if much is being gained, especially if some older boxes won't read it and you end up with a larger file. It's beneficial as an HDR camera source as it provides more information for color correction, but as a delivery format, I'm not sure if much is gained over the usual ProRes 4444.

Kelly took the words out of my mouth. I think 444 XQ is going to be one of those things that's theoretically better, but doesn't have any practical real-world value.

I suspect for 99.9% of us, if you even put up a 4K 444 shot and a 4K 444XQ shot on a 4K screen, nobody would be able to tell the difference.

If this was Rec2020 and SMPTE PQ and all that stuff, sure, go for it if the schedule and budget are there.

Does this post really belong here? Just thinking that it might make it easier for the people at BMC to focus on the feedback of Resolve 12 beta so that they can refine it.

In my defense, I didn't put it here. It was moved by a mod.

I know they say it isn't but 422HQ is visually lossy. Even after one re-encode there's significant degradation in image quality. Went back and switched to a 4444XQ workflow and the difference in the final image is night and day. This enters the realm of voodoo but it also visually 'feels' different. The footage I'm cutting was shot DSLR/Atomos and they all have that same 'look' you can spot a mile away. Switch to XQ and now it 'feels' like a higher end camera. Idk how to describe it but it's like how CBS shows look completely different from NBC shows. XQ changed my perception of the material in a good way. I had no expectation and I'm not tainting my results with rose colored glasses. My understanding was 422HQ and up we're all supposed to look the same but carry more or less information for the sake of various post processing needs. When I tried it initially I didn't think XQ would look any different at all, I was just switching codecs to see if I could get rid of my Filmconvert bug.

I have the hard drive space and the processor speed - I'm never going back!

Cliff, have you tried finishing to ProRes 4444 and comparing it to 4444XQ?

Cliff, have you tried finishing to ProRes 4444 and comparing it to 4444XQ?

I did. If you stick your nose against the screen I found that 4444 is a tick sharper in the details than 4444XQ which I attribute to the standard false sharpening of certain types of compression (which I'm not a fan of). The 4444XQ (for me) is in the goldilocks zone for sharpness. Being slightly sharper, the 4444 also doesn't 'feel' as nice as XQ when the image is moving. Obviously that's all completely subjective and 999 people out of 1000 would never see it, but if you're an OCD nitpick like me, the XQ is glorious. Is it worth the extra 33.4% of space it takes up? Probably not to most but - there's a reason 4444 XQ exists and I'm guessing it's for people like me.

Thanks again Apple.

Yes, CODEC quality is hard to judge. Visually or matcmatically lossless?
444XQ is defineately a step up from 444.
I did a quick CODEC test few days ago that might be interesting to check out


http://io.act3.dk:5000/fbsharing/aEFTJf0D
Its difference checks against the 32 bit float original with an application of a gain and edge enhancement.

Perhaps XQ is worth it for capture, but not so much for mastering?

I used 4444 XQ for my final output and I couldn't ask for anything more. File size wasn't ridiculous, it actually plays back real time from a 7200RPM hard drive, burned some discs and Toast chewed the 300GB source into 13.8GB in about 10 minutes and the Blu-Ray looked fantastic.

I didn't encounter a single downside visually, mathematically or performance-wise. Unless somebody asks for something different, from here on 'ProRes' as an acceptable deliverable means 4444 XQ. Love it!

Yes, CODEC quality is hard to judge. Visually or matcmatically lossless?
444XQ is defineately a step up from 444.
I did a quick CODEC test few days ago that might be interesting to check out


http://io.act3.dk:5000/fbsharing/aEFTJf0D
Its difference checks against the 32 bit float original with an application of a gain and edge enhancement.

Thanks for posting that. I knew I wasn't imagining the difference!

Hey Cliff,
I've been a getting a really strange error message on Quicktime and Premier Pro CC, that says, when I import my ProRes 444 XQ footage, that there is a codec unavailable or missing, on both pieces of software. This is on my Windows machine, whereas on my Macbook everything works fine. I have no idea what to do? I've tried reinstalling Premier Pro and Quicktime to no avail.

Windows does not recognize the CCCC header of the XQ codec, simply change it using something like fourC software and it will play in all your windows apps. Do a quick google and you'll find all you need to know about this.

Assimilate Scratch outputs 4444XQ correctly designated codec 4 C data when installed on Windows, I imagine BM couldn't be bothered to add this small but helpful extra.

Paul

XQ is at the quality level where in real world you can forget about DPX 10bit and use it instead (if you have such a need due to bandwidth and disk space).
There is nothing new there compared to 444, just higher bitrate/quality.

In my defense, I didn't put it here. It was moved by a mod.

I know they say it isn't but 422HQ is visually lossy. Even after one re-encode there's significant degradation in image quality. Went back and switched to a 4444XQ workflow and the difference in the final image is night and day. This enters the realm of voodoo but it also visually 'feels' different. The footage I'm cutting was shot DSLR/Atomos and they all have that same 'look' you can spot a mile away. Switch to XQ and now it 'feels' like a higher end camera. Idk how to describe it but it's like how CBS shows look completely different from NBC shows. XQ changed my perception of the material in a good way. I had no expectation and I'm not tainting my results with rose colored glasses. My understanding was 422HQ and up we're all supposed to look the same but carry more or less information for the sake of various post processing needs. When I tried it initially I didn't think XQ would look any different at all, I was just switching codecs to see if I could get rid of my Filmconvert bug.

I have the hard drive space and the processor speed - I'm never going back!

With HQ you should have this experience:
- if source is already ProRes (straight from camera) then 1st generation should have just small degradation and further ones even smaller
- if source comes from RAW then 1st generation will have bigger degradation (sharpness, noise flattened) and further ones agin only small one

In case of 2nd and further generations you should not be really abel to see difference at 1:1 frame.
In case of 1st gen from RAW (or some uncompressed source) you may see difference- lost sharpness.
"Problem" is that HQ is 422, so it's not good for any keying etc work. It's designed rather as delivery option, not capture or "working" codec, specially for higher end finish.

444 is very similar (it's still about 5.5:1 as HQ) just supports for 444 and alpha channel. Alpha channel can be 8 or 16bit an it's mathematically losslessly encoded.
XQ profile is exactly the same as 444, but takes it to another level of quality (around 4:1 compression) and this should be enough for many projects. It's already on the level of DPX replacement for bandwidth/space savings. Another level would be 3:1 compression which in reality is could be treated as lossless (used in cameras for RAW compression). All profiles use the same core/engine with only difference being data rate (and 422 v 444).
That's why you can cheat and change fourCC tag (which is a short codec descriptor) in XQ, so "old" Windows ProRes decoder will decode it fine thinking it's 444 profile. All what is needed for "normal" support is tiny QT update with added new fourCC tag, so QT can recognise XQ files properly, but Apple being Apple most likely won't do it (specially now with QT for PC being not supported anymore).