Microstock Footage Forum > Video Equipment / Sofware / Technique

Apple Pro Res 422 or H.264 for 4k final files?

(1/5) > >>

CommuniCat:
My camera (Sony PXW-X70) has a paid upgrade to 4k and I see is finally scheduled to have a reasonable bitrate at 4k with a firmware update that is due soon.

I'd like to contribute 4k footage going forwards, but need to be a bit realistic about the file sizes.

Since moving to Mac and taking video a bit more seriously, I've been aiming for maximum quality and submitting ProRes 422 files. But now I'm really tempted to submit footage, especially 4k footage, using the H.264 codec.

The way I'm starting to see it is that the ProRes 422 codec is a bit like a 16bit Tiff file. Great for about 1% of the population, but for everyone else an 8bit jpg will do just fine.

Is there any real difference from a quality perspective that a buyer may consider important and impact sales?

increasingdifficulty:
Well, as always, it depends. A lot of the more professional aerials that sell like hotcakes for $400 are uploaded in ProRes 422 HQ. I think they are bought by small-big TV Shows, lots and lots of trailers and even Hollywood movies.

For me, the question is 422 vs. 422 HQ... Some clips answer the question for me as they get too big if they're in HQ.

I think it's more of a mystery that the sites convert to h264 when they make HD versions... ProRes is a very good format that withstands multiple compressions very well.

When you buy a picture you often want something that's already perfect in every way without the need to change much, which means a jpg makes sense.

When you buy a video you basically NEVER just use it on its own - it is to be included in a bigger project and it might be necessary to tweak the colors a bit.

Especially for timelapses, where you start with a 12-14-bit clip, a 10-bit ProRes delivery seems reasonable instead of an 8-bit h264. Just make sure you don't go to jpg in between...

CommuniCat:
Thanks for the explanation. So would a reasonable workflow or explanation look like this . . .

- Files from a camera shooting H.264 like many DSLRs. There is no point to supply Apple Pro Res since this is an 8bit format and it was never recorded at a higher bit in the first place. Feel free to supply in H.264.

- Time lapse sequence shot on 8bit jpg files. H.264 for the same reason as above.

- Time lapse from RAW with no jpg process in-between. Maximum quality for the buyer can be provided in one of the ProRes formats, HQ being optimum.

- Files from a "better" codec such as a RAW format or the 10Bit XAVC of my particular Sony in HD. ProRes as it handles higher bit.

- The same files from my Sony in 4k that is not in 10bit. Reading up I think it's only spitting out 8bit 4k in the XAVC format natively. Well, since it's not 10bit, there is no point to the larger file size of the ProRes. H.264 would suffice technically. Although you may still want to supply the ProRes files because they may want to see it, even if there is no real technical advantage?

- 4k from my Sony that is recorded on an external 4k Atmos device via HDMI in 4k at 10 bit. One of the ProRes codecs provides maximum quality for the buyer and enables better post processing.

increasingdifficulty:
Well, I would never use h264 unless space or internet connection was a serious issue.

It only makes sense to use h264 if you upload STRAIGHT from a camera that records in it. As soon as you tweak something and export you re-encode the clip and you lose quality. By the way, there is a 10-bit h264 codec.

If you're using FCPX you're working in ProRes as soon as you make any changes and you will re-encode on export. ProRes withstands multiple compressions better than most.

CommuniCat:
Thanks.

Noted.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page