apple pro res vs. apple pro res (HQ) at DVinfo.net

John Cambell · April 26th, 2009, 12:33 AM

Whats the difference and how much of a difference is there. Is it worth using (HQ).

Christopher Drews · April 26th, 2009, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cambell

Whats the difference and how much of a difference is there. Is it worth using (HQ).

Data Rate is the major difference. It is worth using if your workflow necessitates it. Google ProRes 422 whitepaper.

-C

Aric Mannion · April 27th, 2009, 01:22 PM

I've been wondering this myself. I looked up the whitepaper, but what I am wondering is if I have HDV footage does the ProRes (HQ) do any good -as opposed to regular ProRes? Is the (HQ) only for the true HD stuff, or would it even make my HDV better looking or easier to chroma key?

Mitchell Lewis · April 27th, 2009, 03:07 PM

I find it very difficult to tell the difference between the quality of the two codecs. I normally use ProRes for most stuff to save on disc space. But if I'm rendering graphics, then I use ProRes HQ.

Christopher Drews · April 28th, 2009, 12:06 AM

I could be wrong but:

Pro-Res 422 HQ is equivalent to Avid's DNxHD 220 (mbs).
Pro-Res 422 is equivalent to Avid's DNxHD 175 (mbs).

So, again, data rate is major difference.
-C

Gary Nattrass · April 28th, 2009, 02:53 AM

I edit in HDV 1080i 50i but then master in pro res at 1080i 25p, I havent found the HQ to be any better quality when coming from HDV but the use of pro res as a master file seems to be a good workflow as it then transcodes for web and DVD use a lot better.

April 26th, 2009, 12:33 AM	#1
John Cambell Regular Crew Join Date: May 2008 Location: Haiku Hawaii Posts: 83	apple pro res vs. apple pro res (HQ) Whats the difference and how much of a difference is there. Is it worth using (HQ).

April 27th, 2009, 03:07 PM	#4
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	I find it very difficult to tell the difference between the quality of the two codecs. I normally use ProRes for most stuff to save on disc space. But if I'm rendering graphics, then I use ProRes HQ. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

April 28th, 2009, 02:53 AM	#6
Gary Nattrass Trustee Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Cornsay Durham UK Posts: 1,992	I edit in HDV 1080i 50i but then master in pro res at 1080i 25p, I havent found the HQ to be any better quality when coming from HDV but the use of pro res as a master file seems to be a good workflow as it then transcodes for web and DVD use a lot better. __________________ Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/

April 27th, 2009, 01:22 PM	#3
Aric Mannion Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 616	I've been wondering this myself. I looked up the whitepaper, but what I am wondering is if I have HDV footage does the ProRes (HQ) do any good -as opposed to regular ProRes? Is the (HQ) only for the true HD stuff, or would it even make my HDV better looking or easier to chroma key?

April 28th, 2009, 12:06 AM	#5
Christopher Drews Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 628	I could be wrong but: Pro-Res 422 HQ is equivalent to Avid's DNxHD 220 (mbs). Pro-Res 422 is equivalent to Avid's DNxHD 175 (mbs). So, again, data rate is major difference. -C