5 Replies Latest reply on Aug 2, 2013 10:11 AM by Rick Gerard

    Prores 4444 vs. Prores 422 (HQ)

    fredoviolawoodstock

      Hi there, folks

       

      I'm working on a project using footage shot with my Canon 5D at the highest quality setting.  The footage will be ultimately used in an installation, and I'd obviously like to keep it at the highest quality.  What is the difference between Prores 4444 and 422 HQ when working with DSLR footage?  I've read disenting views online and would love some help!

       

      Many thanks,

      Fredo Viola

        • 1. Re: Prores 4444 vs. Prores 422 (HQ)
          Todd_Kopriva Level 8

          Exactly what do you intend to do with the ProRes footage? Are you intending to export your work from After Effects in ProRes format for work in an NLE?

           

          You aren't thinking that you need to traqnscode your DSLR footage into ProRes just to work with it in After Effects, are you?

          • 2. Re: Prores 4444 vs. Prores 422 (HQ)
            fredoviolawoodstock Level 1

            Yes, I am transcoding to work in AE CS6.  Is that silly?  Will the native Canon 5D h264 run smoothly in AE?  After I do my work with the footage, I will be exporting to another artist who will be implementing afterwards in FCP7.  So what do you suggest?

             

            Many thanks, Todd_Kopriva!

            • 3. Re: Prores 4444 vs. Prores 422 (HQ)
              Szalam Adobe Community Professional & MVP

              If you have AE 11.0.2 (the latest update to CS6), native h.264 footage should work in After Effects without issue.

              • 4. Re: Prores 4444 vs. Prores 422 (HQ)
                fredoviolawoodstock Level 1

                Many thanks, folks!    Onwards!

                • 5. Re: Prores 4444 vs. Prores 422 (HQ)
                  Rick Gerard Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                  ProRez 444 will support alpha channels, ProRez 422 HQ will not. Both are 10 bit. If you are doing some serious color correcting or doing some keying you'll have better results transcoding with something like Magic Bullet to ProREZ and working at higher bit depth. If your workflow does not involve serious pixel crunching then the difference between using camera original and transcoded footage is negligable.

                   

                  If you are rendering your AE projects for further processing or use in an NLE DO NOT render to h.264 or other compressed codecs. Rendering to a delivery format like h.264, mpeg, or any other highly compressed lossy codec from a NLE or a compositing program like AE or Motion for anything but final delivery is a huge production faux pas that most hobbyists and many semi pro's do all the time. Don't put yourself in that crowd.

                   

                  FYI, since most of my DSLR footage is combined with footage from Pro Cameras I use MB Grinder or BulletProof to transcode to ProRez 422 HQ for all the footage and I archive the camera original in case I need it later. In the long run this ends up being a time saver because of the metadata and timecode that I can add to the footage. If you're doing a lot of this I suggest that you also look at Magic Bullet Bullet Proof as a useful tool for managing your footage.