ProRes LT — is it more than enough?

[Sean Parker]

So ProRes HQ is absolute overkill and standard ProRes triples the filesizes, and I've heard positive things about ProRes LT for 5D and 7D footage. I've been using it for a feature I recently started up and so far can't complain. However, does anyone have some definitive answers about this ProRes variant in regards to our coveted Canon cameras? Am I losing anything by using LT over a different flavor? Would standard ProRes give me an edge anywhere, or is that higher bitrate completely superfluous (any color space benefits)?

I still have all my original footage, so reconverting it to a different format isn't out of the question, although it would be a massive time-sink and eat up a lot of space. In advance, thanks a million.

[Christopher Drews]

For 23.98 @ 1920:
ProRes 422 is 101 Mb/s
ProRes 422 (LT) will be 82 Mb/s

I've attached a comparison chart from the whitepaper.

Your 7D should average 45-48 Mb/s (not to be confused with MB/s).

Now on to the savings: If you are going to have massive SFX, green screen or heavy grading, you'll benefit from a higher data rate (ie Standard or HQ), although the camera already has a hard limit on the data stream- so essentially, LT's data rate is overkill.

-C

[Sean Parker]

So, let's say I'm going to go all-out with massive amounts of greenscreening and color grading — if I leave my footage at LT and set the FCP project timeline settings to something else (like ProRes HQ or 4444) for rendering all additional elements (such as effects), would that be maximizing the visual potential, or would the footage need to be at a higher-quality setting from the get-go?

Thanks for the chart and the insight.

[Christopher Drews]

That depends entirely on your computer stats. You'll have a green bar (needs render) at the least. It's always better to cut in your final output format- even if the file sizes are larger.

-C