1.8.2 ProRes Comparison Video - HQ - 422 - LT - Proxy

Hi guys,

I've ran a test with my BMCC 2.5 to see how noticeable are the new 1.8.2 firmware update ProRes modes.

I've shot in RAW, ProRes HQ, ProRes 422, ProRes LT and ProRes Proxy normal and color corrected and then magnified by 300% of the original size

Here is the video:

Gabriele

Great, thank you!

Who's that nice music btw?

I have been playing with the different formats. 200ASA 7500K. Apologies but no tripod to hand...

Thanks for the video gabrielev .

ProRes Proxy is surprisingly good - especially considering the bitrate and the fact that ProRes isn't particularly efficient as a codec. It seems to sacrifice mostly fine detail rather than colour fidelity.

Thank you Blackmagic Design for this wonderful addition!

Thanks for the samples guys,
but I can´t say I am any wiser about the true
advantages and disadvantages of these new formats.

i get the idea of compression advantages
but what about loosing image/cinematic quality?

put it this way, when would one use which format and why?

anyone want to shed some light?

thanks

If you see the first video in this post, when the image is magnified of 300% you'll see some compression artifacts that became more noticeable with lower compression quality (HQ > 422 > LT > Proxy).

For what I can see, even ProRes LT is very good. I would suggest to use it when shooting documentaries or footage where an excellent quality is not a must like conferences.

I think you could get away with proxy for conferences...

I think you could get away with proxy for conferences...

For web distribution? Sure. But really, the size penalty to move up to LT isn't really that great. Unless you're trying to record 20 hours onto a 4GB, slow SD card

Proxy is great as, um, a proxy because when you're editing with a few hundred clips with multiple layers, etc...it doesn't bog down your computer.

For capture though, I don't see a point to go "lower" than LT.

I see this more as a Studio Camera feature. I can't imagine using anything less that 422 HQ on a "Cinema Camera."

great video, but would have loved some side by side comparisons

I think you could get away with proxy for conferences...

For web distribution? Sure. But really, the size penalty to move up to LT isn't really that great. Unless you're trying to record 20 hours onto a 4GB, slow SD card

Proxy is great as, um, a proxy because when you're editing with a few hundred clips with multiple layers, etc...it doesn't bog down your computer.

For capture though, I don't see a point to go "lower" than LT.

Totally agree.

I think a dual recording feature is coming out in the near future.

For those wanting to know a little more - https://documentation.apple.com/en/fina ... tasks=true

If you see the first video in this post, when the image is magnified of 300% you'll see some compression artifacts that became more noticeable with lower compression quality (HQ > 422 > LT > Proxy).

For what I can see, even ProRes LT is very good. I would suggest to use it when shooting documentaries or footage where an excellent quality is not a must like conferences.

I've uploaded some footage zoomed around 300% and I agree the artefacts are there.



All the clips have had the FCPX BM Log applied (apart from the 4444 clip which was converted from RAW in Resolve).

I think I will be using mainly ProRes LT as I don't do much grading, but may step up to ProRes 422 if I plan on doing more of this.

I did a quick comparison with an overcast, high dynamic range and high detail scene from my balcony and tested how they fared with some quick processing in Photoshop using the Camera RAW filter. I took screenshots to easily see how the detail fell apart in the different compression modes. Screenshots saved in 8 bit jpeg (yeah) 12 quality. No the shot isn't very interesting in itself.

These test shots were taken with the BMPCC in Prores HQ, 422, LT and Proxy. I never use RAW with the pocket cam. For this test I used an F mount Tamron 17-50 with a Speedbooster BMCC and Genustech Eclipse Variable ND.

I believe that for this type of high detail image I'd prefer HQ and not go lower than 422. LT starts to fall apart quite a lot in the grass and proxy looks like poo.

422 HQ version
422
LT
Proxy
Original HQ

ProRes Proxie gets a bit blocky and shows compression artifacts on some fine details. Look at this quick image from a quick test I did. Check out the power lines. There are compression artifacts around them.

Still, LT looks good and the other ProRes modes look fantastic.

A lot of the choice should depend on how much post you are going to do on the footage:

Proxy is just that, a proxy. Never use it for anything where you care about picture quality. At all.

LT is fine if you are recording an event that you are simply going to lay some titles on and put to the web, but it won't survive color grading very well, and it won't give you clean keys. Also, never use LT for any scene that contains in-focus trees, grass, or rippling bodies of water. The codec will fall apart with all that detail.

For Chroma-key or serious color grading HQ will give you much better results. If you need to blow the footage up, HQ is going to give you much better results. If your scene contains grass, trees, or water, HQ will make a visible difference in quality.

422 is the corporate shooter's friend. It will give you longer run times than HQ, but is plenty of bits to resolve faces (ideal for talking heads) and allow moderate grading.

@ John Bartman Larry Jordan's piece may address some of the issues you are interested in

http://www.larryjordan.biz/picking-the- ... of-prores/

@ John Bartman Larry Jordan's piece may address some of the issues you are interested in

http://www.larryjordan.biz/picking-the- ... of-prores/

Many thank everyone, esp. prwiley

@ John Bartman Larry Jordan's piece may address some of the issues you are interested in

http://www.larryjordan.biz/picking-the- ... of-prores/

This article is great from an editorial perspective. (Though I would disagree with Larry that transcoding lossy material to a codec with "about the same quality" is a good idea.) But if we're talking about original capture, the content of the picture is really what's important. Does what's in the picture stress the codec? Is there a lot of fine detail in the scene that will require greater bit depth to record? For a camera, the choice really depends on what's in front of the camera and how much you care about the quality of the image.