Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Yes, pardon me, getting confused with the others saying the same things.

As opposed to FUDers? Again, the three EVA1 shorts were all shot full Vlog in LongGOP. So you could even point to instances where the codec breaks down there.

Right now I'm working with Clog2 footage that is breaking down, which is 400Mbps Intra, so it happens, it's not the panacea.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

As promised, a couple of links to 10bit DCI 4K test clips shot back in early April. These are straight from the GH5 (be sure to download them to see, the Google Drive video is highly compressed). Note the blocky artifacts that can be seen particularly on the white stucco wall to the right. I'd seen similar blocky artifacts on an earlier indoor test, but that was in low light so I assumed low light was the problem.

After these tests in broad daylight I concluded that there was some kind of issue with the codec on either the Panasonic or Apple (FCPX is my NLE) side. All my 8bit tests were clean, so I've shot nothing but 8bit since. I believe both of these were shot using the Cinelike D profile:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...TMzX21SRVdtbGc

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9B...ew?usp=sharing

Also note: I have not had time to test 10bit 150mbps with firmware version 2. I have no intention of using it, in fact, as my 10bit 400mpbs ALL-I testing has gone well. So the above links are essentially academic, but when others complain of issues with the original 10bit 150mbps, these tests are what make me believe them.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Thank you for the clips. That isn't codec breakdown, that looks way more like corruption of the information being written to the card. I would be surprised if these are the same cards that you're using to record the 400Mbps Intra footage too. Would that be incorrect?

What kind of cards were you using to record these clips?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

There is something wrong with that footage.

First of all it is not correct V-Log L footage as the code value ranges are completely off, second the video range is limited instead of full as it should be with V-Log L. Also the video is not 24p but 23.97p.

On further inspection on the metadata using exif tools all the Panasonic specific items are not available and there is a lot of Apple specific data instead.

Are you sure this is straight out of camera?
I am pretty sure it is absolutely not!

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Steven said it was Cinelike D. Also, the GH5 adds the ability to record DCI 4K in 23.98.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I was using fast U3 SanDisk Extreme Pro cards, FWIW, which were more or less the fastest cards available at the time, and never had a problem with them in any use case save for when I tested the new ALL-I last week and the camera balked after 10 seconds or so of recording. I've since moved up to V90 cards.

I disagree about corruption of information written to the card. If that were the case the artifacts should have appeared randomly as opposed to appearing almost exclusively in certain areas like the stucco wall, which the codec seemed to have particular problems with.

These files came out of the "original media" folder of a FCPX library, which I took to be exactly that: the original media. I have no other copies. It is likely Apple tagged the footage with metadata, though it should not have altered it. I didn't write Final Cut though, so not sure. As ever, I have no idea if Apple or Panasonic was the source of those artifacts. I only know that I considered them unacceptable and hence any footage shot in 10-bit mode unusable. All 8-bit modes were artifact-free.

Also, I have never installed the VLog upgrade on my GH5, and usually shoot in Cinelike D, which I'm almost certain is the photo style that was used for these clips, as I was testing the camera for my own indie film use (10-bit, DCI 4K, 23.97, Cinelike D)

One possibility is that internally, Panasonic never tested 10-bit very much using photo styles other than VLog. Maybe if I'd had the VLog upgrade these artifacts would never have appeared. If that's the case it's still a bad experience for the customer, as I briefly considered having the camera serviced as it appeared possibly broken somehow as this was a rather simple test of advertised features.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

But that is not at all what codec breakdown looks like.

You should have mentioned that, as it's very pertinent. I have had Final Cut mess up footage after ingest. So the footage isn't straight off the card then, it came from a drive which it was ingested onto. This doesn't rule out corruption of the footage.

Which version of Final Cut Pro X did you use?

That wouldn't make any difference, but you've already indicated you don't know what visual artifacts a stressed codec produces, so this surmising isn't surprising.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

What exactly do you think are you defending here? Panasonic's honor? I already said I had no idea if this was an Apple or a Panasonic problem. Desperate claims about "stressed codecs" and problems with perfectly fine capture cards are worth less than nothing, help nothing, illuminate nothing, achieve nothing, other than to demonstrate what a petty, weird jerk you are.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

What exactly do you think you're attacking here? You don't know what codec breakdown looks like, so you're spreading FUD via ignorance. Does that not concern you in the slightest?

Not until after you conveniently left out the fact that this was a file ingested from FCPX.

Since you left out the fact that this clip was not straight off the card, and instead from a drive where it had been ingested with FCPX, I had to resort to eliminating potential causes. If you had been truthful from the get-go, I wouldn't have had to ask, now would I?

You're the one claiming the LongGOP codec was worthless, which isn't true. Thus, you're contributing nothing of value. If it was something to consider as a general rule, then you should be able to point out the issues with the EVA1 shorts in a way that demonstrates where LongGOP broke down on those visuals, yet you haven't done that yet, nor will you.

If you really want to put the nail in the coffin, I can emulate exactly what you shot, and share the footage straight off the card, and it won't have those issues at all. Care to put some money down on that test beforehand? Let's say, $100 says that I can shoot similar stucco apartments on a sunny day in DCI 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 LongGOP using the same settings and lens and it won't have the corruption on it. Deal?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

PUH-LEEZE keep it civil. Some posts edited for language. Thread stays open but argue the topic, not each other. Thanks in advance.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I've had much success with both codecs. I haven't found either to be an issue.
I shot this review with 10 bit UHD All-Intra. Edited so much better on my older Mac Pro. With Long GOP I have to use proxy mode.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

No problems here either.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

This EVA1 short (granted, 16:9 UHD instead of DCI 4K) was shot with the same exact LongGOP codec (150Mbps) in full Vlog (not the 12-stop constrained Vlog-L variety), *and* uses a hazer for the radio station scenes. If anything is going to break LongGOP, this is it.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Im really not sure why Panasonic chose these 150Mbp/s specs for this 10bit 4:2:2 CODEC.

Campared to the 8bit 100mbp/s 4:2:0 cousin, the 150 has the burden of TWICE the chroma resolution and arround 40 times larger color palette....and all it was given was 50 additional megabits?

Ironically, the compression ratio is WORSE on the 150 than it is on the 100. ( strictly mathematically speaking)

I did some of my own blue sky tests using the 150 and VLog. I graded it to 709 and let me tell you, it didnt just "band" in any way, it downright "macro-blocked" badly in the gradient blue shades. For me, that 150 broke like a cheap wine glass. The same exact shot with ProRes over HDMI was bulletproof. I pushed that ProRes WAY harder and got ZERO artifacts.

Its being said that all three Panasonic demo videos used the 150 CODEC. And people wonder why there are so many issues with it? Mitch Gross of Panasonic of all people, fully understands the value of shooting ProRes over massively compressed long GOP. He spent years ar Convergent Design explaining this to everybody.

For me, after what I have seen that 150 do?...im never using it with VLog. Im OK with 100, 8bit for CineD or Natural 709-ish profiles and will only shoot VLog on ProRes or internal 400 All-I.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

What issues are those exactly?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Check the comments under every video. You will see quite a huge number of negative observations from a wide range of people. Its important to note that of the few EVA1's in circulation right now, Panasonic has recently placed a mandatory halt on anybody releasing footage from their evaluation unit. It seems that maybe Panasonic has taken the high amount of negative feedback to heart and are making changes to answer the critics? I have a slight "wild" hunch that the EVA1 might be delayed to rework some of the noise reduction processing? I dont know, we'll see. If I were Panasonic, I REALLY would not release this camera without the 400mbp/s All-I CODEC on day 1.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

The extra 50 mbps should pretty much cover it.

Each UHD 10 bit 4:2:2 frame before encoding requires only 1.667 times the space compared to an 8 bit 4:2:0 frame. The ratio between 150/100 is only 1.5 but a 10 bit resolution actually compresses better than an 8 bit resolution.

Also 4:2:2 should compress fine because remember that the original pre de-Bayered data from the sensor only requires half the space compared to the de-Bayered data.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I have. The Vimeo versions. The versions that didn't get screwed up with the encoding like what happened on YouTube. Do you subscribe to the idea that YouTube is the best representation of uploaded material? It was explicitly stated in the roadshow last night that the YouTube versions didn't looks as nice as the Vimeo. Have you checked the comments on the Vimeo versions? Which comment are you referring to exactly?

That change would be introducing Intra earlier than next year. That's not the case.

I'll be you $50 that the camera will be shipping at the end of this month.

But it will be and people will shoot some nice content in LongGOP.

So far, the only sample showing LongGOP issues didn't actually show issues with LongGOP. It showed corruption on the clip, after being ingested via FCPX. How about we see your clip that "breaks like glass"?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Right!

Or use 200Mbps H.265 using 4992 X 3744 in 10 bit!

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I'll do you one better.

From "Radio 88" on YouTube.

Here's a helpful tidbit: LongGOP doesn't make more noise. In fact, if LongGOP wasn't up to snuff, the noise would break it.

"Motion echoes" is not a real thing. Noise is, once more for emphasis, not a codec breaking. Image doesn't look soft, I saw it both projected and on an HDR 4K display.

Not the right comments? Then find one yourself and point it out. This is from Radio 88, the short I was most impressed with. Also, the hazer, as I have mentioned before, should stress the LongGOP codec. So I have linked to the short on Vimeo, and here it is on YouTube:


Can you point out directly where the LongGOP 150Mbps codec causes problems?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

OK,..just to make sure that nobody thinks I'm bashing the EVA1...

#1. I difenetely expect to love the EVA1 and I'm completely on track to buy it Q1 2018.
#2. I've been Sony guy my whole life and my GH5 has given me new respect for Panasonic today.
#3. YouTube or Vimeo video's are a terrible way to do a CRITICAL review of image quality. Nobody has to convince me of that!
#4. I do see sensor noise that is not from YouTube's crappy compression.
#5 . I dont feel like copy/pasting all the good and bad comments on this thread. We all know that opinions are like @ss holes, we all got one and they all stink. ;-)

However, I will say that I generally love all three of the videos there were made with Radio 88 being the best.. I can say that the western one, during the camp fire scene, there easily looks to have nasty temporal noise reduction artifacts in between each of the heavy flickering. (Frame 1 is clean, frame 3 or 4 changes so fast that the noise processing cant adapt quickly enough)

So, I see issues like that. I ignore the expected YouTube macro blocking and pixel clustering in the shadows. We all know that is not the camera's fault. However, there is clear fixed pattern sensor readout noise that is captured and displayed on some scenes and not at all on others.

Again, Panasonic has put a full and immediate block on any new footage being released from anybody with a sample camera while they continue to modify the camera processing today. I think we can see that Panasonic is clearly concerned about what they see and are moving fast to improve on what the complaints are about.

I'm confident that they will be able to deliver a great EVA1 to the public. Part of their tweaking might be them debating just how good they want the EVA1 to actually be. They want it good....but not "too good". They need to leave an acceptable "gap" between the EVA1 and the Varicam LT. There needs to be a noticeable "divide" between these models to justify each price point. Today, Panasonic might just be trying to find what that difference needs to be for marketing purposes.

One concern that I have is, although I'm sure they can deBayer and process a good clean video signal to the CODEC and the HDMI port, I'm wondering how the 5.7 raw sensor data output will look without the benefit of the in-camera processing and noise reduction processing.

As far as that 150 CODEC goes. If you own a GH5, shoot a deep blue sky in VLog, do a slow pan and grade it. You will probably see it,...not "band" like 8bit...but "macroblock" in perfect squares and clustered cubes between the shades of blue.

I think the 150 CODEC will look OK in the normal rec709-ish profiles even with the higher compression ratios.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I really don't care if you are. If you're bashing the EVA1 for legitimate reasons, that's totally cool. If you're complaining about issues you don't understand and can't elaborate on, that's when I'm going to ask you to back it up. And if you can't, then you should just let that stand, and perhaps think about that if you have a similar post in the future.

I don't understand why this is a point. No one is upset if you say the EVA1's released videos so far are noisy. I think that was the whole point (shooting some scenes at 5000 ISO). Your comment that is in contention is that LongGOP "breaks like glass" and is worthless, something you have yet to demonstrate.

You're the one who, instead of pointing out specifically what *you* saw (because you hadn't seen anything at that point is my assumption) you brought up YouTube comments. So you decided to do that even though you agree that YouTube/Vimeo are terrible places to judge how the original codec behaved. Why did you make that call then?

And, also, is the most stressful on the codec because of the hazer. You do realize that, right?

I have seen these shorts both projected digitally in a theater and on an HDR screen. There was no noise reduction that I can tell, hence why they look noisy (seriously, you bring up the noise, and now what to say there is NR being applied? So is the NR not working at all EXCEPT for one small part of the frame?)

Something else you don't seem to understand is that noise is terrible for uploading to services like YouTube and Vimeo because their compression doesn't deal well with it. What you're seeing is that failure. That's why adding grain to something that is going up on one of those services is a huge mistake.

I am very aware of what FPN looks like, and I haven't noticed that yet. What exact moment are you referring to?

What concerns are those exactly besides noise? That's all I have seen so far.

And I'm seeing that in bright red hair shot in Clog2 at 400Mbps Intra when saturation is applied. So your point is?

EDIT: Also, how am I grading this? With a LUT? LUTs can cause weird things to happen, especially in highlights. Are you talking about grading by hand?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Ugggg...c'mon Gary, I dont want to get dragged into deeper detail on this ;-)


______________________________________________

OK. [sigh].....So look at the camp fire scene at 6:00 minutes


This screams of struggling temporal noise reduction. Dont know if this is in camera or post. This is pretty ugly and I dont blame YouTube VP9 compression for this one. No way.
______________________________________________


0:13 seconds - True sensor noise in the shadows at 800 ISO
1:56 - True, ugly sensor noise in the shadows.

Dual 800/2500 native ISO is supposed to be about the same noise amount. Supposedly?
_______________________________________________

I thought Radio88 looked the best but again, we dont know how much post processing was used. It was stated that the editors DID use it on some scenes.

As far as comments from people, there are plenty of good an bad to read on all three YouTube videos.

Yes, YouTube VP9 is a very low bitrate. Yes, you will see macro blocking and clustering in the shadows of ALL videos. However, it "can" reveal sensor noise, no doubt....and it clearly does in my opinion.

WAIT!.....Now Gary, you can say that everything I write here is 100% false. If you think it is, than let me just take back everything I said so we dont have to keep this "back and forth" stuff going.

YouTube is terrible and the noise we see is NOT from the EVA1 but 100% YouTube's fault.

YouTube's VP9 compression is incapable of revealing camera sensor noise.

The EVA1 pre-production sample bodies are not noisy in any way.

The 150mbp/s CODEC is perfectly fine and is not highly compressed at all and does not macro-block when pushed. My GH5 150 testing was an anomaly and it really holds up perfectly with 10bit ProRes.

People's comments are positive about the EVA1 and anybody with negative comments is clearly ignorant.

So, there. I retract everything I said for you. In reality, non of this really matters anyway until we see the the true and FINAL production EVA1's hit the street. None of this back and forth debate will matter in the future.

I think the final tweaked product will look good.

OK Gary, does all this now wrap up the discussion nicely?

Awesome,...whew,...OK! ;-)

CT

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

I just did that, don't see those blocks you are talking about.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xofsa0519...OaIIhzEva?dl=0

"sky.mp4" is an out of camera v-log video and "sky graded.mp4" is a Rec.709 graded version with a bitrate of about 32Mbps!

So let's talk about those blocks. :)

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Did you compare it with the Vimeo version? You didn't compare it with the Vimeo version. Why didn't you compare it with the Vimeo version?

I think you're also confusing the natural motion of the fire on the group of ladies with bad NR. It's not, and it's very clear in the Vimeo version that it's the way the light from the fire is casting out onto the talent.

It's already been explained that VP9 compression struggles with noise, because it's fine random detail. It can cause all sorts of problems. That's what I meant when I said that's why it's a bad idea to add grain for a film look for something going to YouTube or Vimeo.

Cary has done a test. So you can respond to that.

Didn't you say that? Now you're saying that their critical reviews ARE not a terrible way? So which one is it?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

OK,...lemme take a look at it when I get home. I suppose I will do another test of my own too. My original test was done on the original firmware. I'm guessing you on 2.0?

Should be interesting....

Thanks!

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

To sum up everything I'm trying to say:

In my opinion;

The EVA1 looks like it's going to be a nice camera.

YouTube is a terrible way to judge a camera....however,...it still does reveal some the noise problems of the camera. This is not a contradiction. YouTube is not necessarily completely "worthless". It's good enough to show some of that sensor noise but you need to understand what is the camera and what is YouTube.

This could all be solved by Panasonic releasing a high bit rate download for people to analyze properly.

150 10bit is highly compressed h.264 and has shown me reasons not to use it in VLog

The EVA1 is still being worked on by Panasonic.

That's it. This sums up everything I'm saying in a nutshell. If I have said anything more to make you think something else, than just disregard it. I'm not building and extensive forensic, legal case here for the EVA1 or YouTube to be tried in a court of video engineering law here! Relax...lol

My observations are similar to others and maybe yours too.

Yes, I will look at the Vimeo versions as well as look at Cary's videos and I'll revisit the 150 10bit compression test too. It's time I compare 150 Long GOP with the new 400 All-I anyway too.

I really dont know why all of this back and forth quoting thing keeps happening.

CT

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Which is not an argument a single person in this thread has made. Why did you bring that up?

It is because you have moved the goalposts. Now it's about noise. Before it was about LongGOP not working well. You need to stay on topic.

No one made that argument either, you're the only one to say anything close to that. What you're doing is confusing VP9 compression artifacting and confusing it with AVC 10-bit 422 LongGOP breakdown. That's been the point for the entirety of this thread. Why do you not understand this?

What is probably operator error has driven you to an erroneous conclusion.

And I bet you $50 (you haven't taken a single one of my bets) that it will ship with the same LongGOP AVC codec at launch that you're talking about, and no Intra will be available until 2018.

You're spreading FUD about an issue which is stemming from what is probably going to work out to be a workflow issue on your part.

We'll find out soon enough. By the way, Steven, who claimed to have seen similar issues to yours? His video doesn't show that at all.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Who made Huff a Trustee?

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

My God man....are you a lawyer or something? You are litigating this stuff way too seriously! Ease up dude, everything is cool. I'll get into the 150 testing soon with Cary. Lets see what happens.

Untill then, just try to ignore everytjing I wrote. Dont worry about it. Carry on,...as you were. Nothing to see here. ;-)

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

That's just the way Gary is. I just sit back and enjoy the show.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Depending on the footage Long GOP compression is 2 to 3 times as efficient in compressing video with the same quality as All-Intra. So overall I suspect you will not see any significant difference between 150Mbps Long GOP and 400Mbps All-Intra.

Of course All-Intra edits much more snappy on slower computers but that has nothing to do with the quality of the uncompressed video.

Regular Crew, Major Player, Trustee etc. are just the titles that get assigned once a member reaches a certain post count. In other words, it's just a designation the forum software system makes automatically and over time a member gets "promoted" by the changing titles. It's a function of post count and nothing more.

I'll be the first one to admit that those designations, now more than 17 years old, are pretty much irrelevant and I've been considering changing that space below the member name to show that person's business / company info / network affiliation / favorite My Little Pony character / or something.

The forum thread page layout can be somewhat confusing. The button at the bottom right will quote the previous post in full. The button at the bottom left will NOT quote the previous post.

Their labels, "quote" and "post reply," respectively, are not that well delineated graphically. The "post reply" button at the bottom left can be easily overlooked. I'm aware of that problem.

Meanwhile, for the broader audience:

If there's ever another member here whose posts you'd rather not see, just go to Controls > Edit Ignore List (direct link is http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist) and put in their name.

Some meta-discursive posts in this thread have been edited or completely withdrawn from public view. Please keep it civil and on-topic. Thanks,

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

And Cary was kind enough to shoot his own test.

And now I have one of my own. DCI 4K 24p, Vlog-L, 10-bit 4:2:2 in both LongGOP and Intra. Brought into DaVinci Resolve Studio 14 and corrected (no LUT). I used the color wheels, adjusted Lift and Gain values (didn't touch the mids because it didn't really need it), and did hue transforms for the sky, both hue and luminance in the blues.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx...URxNkxvTTJXX28

The clips are randomly placed in the timeline between the Intra and LongGOP versions. So which are which? According to Cliff, the LongGOP version will "'macroblock' in perfect squares and clustered cubes between the shades of blue." So it should be easy to tell. Make sure to download the original QuickTime ProRes version.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

Cary, I grabbed your file and tossed a VLOG to Rec709 800% LUT on it I made form LutCalc.

I think it looks OK. I'm not seeing any blocking. Here is your file that I tested. It was done in a 32bit color space.

part 1 - was your clip ungraded
part 2 - is my 709-800% LUT added
part 3 - is a color canceled luma grayscvale filter. This is "looking under the hood" of the CODEC. You can see the Long GOP IPB cadence at work. Oddly enough, there are some straight line and block artifacts on the left side of the image but it's fully covered up under normal RGB viewing.

It's looks OK!

Now, I tested my camera on the original GH5 firmware a while back. I did it twice on two different days and got some ugly blocking artifacts. I have not tried it since then and we have gotten two firmware revision since. I'm guessing you are 2.0 today?

I'm bringing my GH5 to work tomorrow and shooting some new 150 CODEC footage and run it through the ringer. Thanks for the upload.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6...0JaUnFHMzFvWlk

CT

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

1.0 definitely had some issues (ghosting) with v-log, issues that were fixed in 1.1

I don't know if any things were fixed (under the covers) for 2.0, but I do like the colors coming from the 4992 x 3744 10 bit 4:2:0 V-Log encoded with H.265.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

This is not actually a thing. You can use a channel splitter which takes YUV and splits it into what the RGB components are, but you will not see the LongGOP IPB "cadence" (again, not a thing). In fact, I'd say what you're calling the "banding" (it's not banding), is actually some kind of render error from whatever filter your adding to that. Something in AVISynth?

EDIT: Yes, when I split out the signal into individual RGB components, the lines from that rendered aren't there for me in Resolve Studio 14. I'm going to say that since you're trying to concoct a LUT via LUTCalc, that your issues are stemming from that.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

The ghosting was at high ISOs, which was probably some kind of software error involving high ISO NR.

None of the release notes mentions touching any modes that already existed, simply unlocking new ones, so I highly doubt there are any changes to the original recording modes.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

4992 x 3744 10 bit 4:2:0 V-Log encoded with H.265 is new.

Re: Gh5 firmware 2,0
 

So that gray scale effect happens from a mixture of the 6 primary and secondary colors. (red, yellow, green, cyan, blue and magenta) The unsaturated parts are also included. This phase cancels out the color and brakes the CODEC in a neat way.

When I say you can see the IPB, what I mean is that you can actually see MPEG working long GOP calculations and plotting all around the image. This kind of phase cancellation reveals elements you cant normally see easily. This stuff is always somewhat hidden under normal circumstances. It's kind of useless but when you do this to ProRes HQ, you dont get artifacts like this. This is where complete I frames are superior. They dont need any data from previous frames to assemble a solid image. It's interesting to note that ProRes is a DCT-type system and is actually a relative of JPEG!

LutCalc wouldn't do those line artifacts to the image.

CT