ProRes422, no 1080p???

[TimothyD]

I posted this in another thread which was in OT, but I didn't get any responses, so I thought I'd post this here:

(In regard to ProRes422)

In reading it (white paper) I did notice something troubling though. It looks as if Apple only plans to support 1080i and not 1080p. This is very unfortunate in my opinion because I plan to shoot and edit progressive and only use interlacing when outputting for broadcast (a small portion of what I do).

Is this a problem for anyone else? For me, it ensures that I will only use Prores as a delivery format, not for editing. I will be using Redcode for all editing.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this???

Tim

[martinnoweck]

I think about renting a HD deck when delivering for broadcast and use Redcode for editing.

Martin

[TimothyD]

I just was super excited about ProRes422 and had somehow missed the fact that they left out 1080p. I have no love for interlaced video, and want it to get as far out of my workflow as possible. So this is major for me.

I have to wonder how this might impact my workflow. Will Redcode work as the render codec? Or will we be faced with a half-a** choice of using either 1080i or even 720p to render? If so, this seems like Apple really screwed up here. I realize they made ProRes to provide an efficient codec for editing HD for broadcast. I just wish they had thought about the fact that people really don't want to work in 1080i if they can have 1080p...

Tim

[Chris Kenny]

ProRes supports 1080p. This was reported by folks at NAB. It isn't mentioned explicitly in the white paper, but there is a chart there that mentions ProRes does 1920x1080 @ 23.976 fps. That's pretty unlikely to be an interlaced format!

Update: see screen shot from ProRes movie on Apple's web site.

http://www.indie4k.com/wp-content/uploads/forum/prores.jpg

Everything up to 1080p30.

[martinnoweck]

that sounds like good news - i am no fan of interlaced, too!

[TimothyD]

Ok, I hope I don't sound stupid here, but isn't 1080p 60 going to be required to get good results if outputting 1080i for broadcast? That is my concern. I would be happy to shoot in 1080p 30, but I need to have a finished product that is 1080i for broadcast.

[Michael Schrengohst]

I thought 1080 23.976 is broadcastable????
I know several shows that deliver masters
on HDCAM in that format....
I delivered a 1080 23.976 .TS stream to
a university that plays everyday from
an MPEG server....

[Chris Kenny]

Ok, I hope I don't sound stupid here, but isn't 1080p 60 going to be required to get good results if outputting 1080i for broadcast? That is my concern. I would be happy to shoot in 1080p 30, but I need to have a finished product that is 1080i for broadcast.

It depends. If you're making a feature, you'll probably want acquire at 4K, 24 fps, edit using FCP's REDCODE support (once available), and then add pulldown for 1080i deliverables at the end.

If you're producing something more like regular TV programing with 1080i as the primary deliverable, shoot 1080p60 RGB (once that's available) or 2K RAW at 60 fps, and then convert to 1080i ProRes via REDCINE or FCP's "Log & Transfer", and edit that. Yeah, everyone hates interlaced, but if that's your primary deliverable, you're probably better off editing in it.

[Evin Grant]

If you're shooting 24P for a film look then your footage will have a 3:2 pulldown added for broadcast in 1080i anyway. If your shooting for 1080i video look then 720 60P will cross convert to the 1080i format beautifully.
You can do a conversion from 1080 60P to 60i Redcine but I would be very surprised if there were any appreciable gain in quality. Essentially 720 60P and 1080 60I are the same resolution, one has more temporal resolution (720) the other has a bigger raster but only displays it one field (50%) at a time. Your call.

[TimothyD]

Hi Chris,

*First, before I forget, I won't be doing any features*

While my deliverable will be 1080i when it is for broadcast, most if not all of what I do is also for the web. That means that while only 10 or less of what I do needs to be output as 1080i, the rest will suffer from interlacing unless I go with something that can be shot and edited progressive, and output as 1080i when necessary for broadcast (5% of the time at most).

Therein lies my problem. So the question is, will 1080p30 look as good as 1080i60 when output as such? It seems like I may run into problems, and that is why I assumed that 1080p60 would be my acquisition and edit format of choice???

Tim

[TimothyD]

Interesting Evin...

I should mention that I had planned to shoot in 2k and then edit as 1080p60. However, shooting 2k and then editing at 720p60 will give me even more room to pan and scan, do image stabilization and zoom in post (a lot if needed).

That is sounding pretty swank. So do you see any drawbacks to the up-rezzing to 1080i from 720p solution??? It almost sounds too good to be true:)

[Nick Shaw]

Tim

I wouldn't think you would be outputing to 60p web movies any time soon, and even if that was required, at a web resolution, the difference between 60p derived from 60i and 60p would be pretty hard to see. 30p from 60i for web delivery is what is usually done at the moment, so that won't change.

Does that make sense?

[Jim Arthurs]

So the question is, will 1080p30 look as good as 1080i60 when output as such?

I use the HVX recording 1080 30p all the time for work that winds up as web files, and also the same stuff winds up on DVD. 30p is a fine format for NTSC video... it's a little less strobe prone than 24p, yet still more film-like than interlaced footage.

It is NOT the best format for trying to go back to film (24fps) or PAL, but in all other cases is quite nice.

[TimothyD]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the feedback. I suppose I should have mentioned that I will definitely not be outputting at 60p for the web. I just planned to shoot 60p so that it looks good when I output as 60i for broadcast.

I might even drop the frame rate to below 30 for the web in some cases:)

Photo-Jpeg at 15fps looks pretty damn sweet to me:)

I'll also definitely be scaling waaaaay down... I plan to keep most of it in the 16:9 aspect ratio, but will be reducing it to about 50% or less of the original frame size. And yes, I know that shooting HD for web delivery is total overkill... But since I have to shoot HD for the broadcast stuff I do, I might as well kill two birds with one stone, and be able to share b-roll and other assets between all projects...

[Evin Grant]

Interesting Evin...
So do you see any drawbacks to the up-rezzing to 1080i from 720p solution??? It almost sounds too good to be true:)

It's actually not an UP-rez, it's a cross convert. And no, I don't see any drawbacks, other than the fact that you need to go to an interlace format at all.

[Lucas Wilson]

It's actually not an UP-rez, it's a cross convert. And no, I don't see any drawbacks, other than the fact that you need to go to an interlace format at all.

Hi Evin!

How do ya figure? 1080i/p is 1920x1080. 720p is 1280x720. Ain't that an uprez?

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Graeme Nattress]

Because to do proper compatible 1080i you've got to filter the vertical resolution to about 70%, which makes it about 700 pixels real vertical detail, or else you get interlace twitter. Hence 720p which being what it is, doesn't need any vertical filtering has a full 720p vertical resolution, so yes, it's a cross convert to 1080i. Yes, you're going from 1280 to 1440 (realistically speaking) on the horizontal. But it's near enough.

Graeme

[TimothyD]

That's quite interesting indeed.

Why 1440? Is 720p non-square in the horizontal direction?

It seems like it would still be best to shoot 2k and edit 1080p though.

Could you Red guys pressure Apple on that? It seems like an odd thing to neglect on their part, despite the fact that ProRes is meant to help deal with the broadcast workflow.

The fact that I want to edit in 1080p60 and output in 1080i60 should be a pretty common thing... Doesn't seem like they should have missed this and left it out:(

[TimothyD]

Or more importantly Graeme,

Will it work just as well for me to do my editing and post in 2k Redcode Raw but output the stuff for broadcast as ProRes422 1080i? That would be just as good IMO as using ProRes, or am I missing something? Processor overhead, etc???

Thanks,

Tim

[Chris Kenny]

Why 1440?

ProRes 720p is 1280x720, square pixels. 1080i is basically always broadcast 1440x1080, non-square pixels.

[TimothyD]

ProRes 720p is 1280x720, square pixels. 1080i is basically always broadcast 1440x1080, non-square pixels.

Interesting,

I did not know that, and it explains why they would make HDV 1440.

It still seems like a scam on the consumers, but whatever. I just need to be able to deliver something that looks as good as the rest of the stuff they are watching.

Is there anything out there that is actually 1920 x 1080? TV sets, signals, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD???

[Graeme Nattress]

It shouldn't be broadcast as 1440, but for long enough, even though the HD format was 1920x1080, some people in their infinite wisdom thought that 1440x1080 was good enough. Others thought 1280x1080 was good enough. SO there was no point in broadcasting HD at greater resolution. Daft really as anything decently telecined from 35mm film would be the full 1920x1080 (if they had a deck that supported that rate to telecine to, which for long enough, they didn't).

Graeme

[TimothyD]

So let me see if I can get this straight,

HDTV is broadcast at 1920 x 1080, but they usually only provide 1440 x 1080 content?

*EDIT*Radio reference removed so as not to insult the overly sensitive:)

[Graeme Nattress]

Nope, it's usually broadcast as 1440x1080.

[TimothyD]

That's too bad.

Do you know if that is true of all broadcast? And what about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray?

Is there a reason I should care about full raster if it will never see the light of day???

By the way, I plan to use this camera for at least 5 and hopefully more like 10 years...

Thanks,

Tim

[Simon Blackledge]

Ok so in Apples wisdom is prores 1080p 1440 really?

When I export to 720 16:9 in Quicktime its not 1280.. :-/ confused...
s

[Graeme Nattress]

No, Apple are wise and ProRes is full raster, ie 1920x1080.

Sony's HDCAM is 1440x1080, Panasonic's DVCproHD is 1280x1080 (or 1440x1080 in PAL) and 960x720 in 720p. None of which are full raster.

Graeme

[TimothyD]

Ok, so just for the sake of argument, what benefit is there by going with full raster 1920 x 1080 if the only thing that consumers will ever see is 1440 x 1080? Going below it makes no sense of course, and obviously higher rez means good down-rezzing when you are talking about 4k scaled down to 2k or HD, but what about 1920 down-rezzed to 1440? Any benefits???

Thanks,

Tim

[Anders Holck]

All (or close to all) Blu-ray and HD DVD's are full raster 1920x1080p23.97 4:2:0 8 bit.

[Häakon]

All (or close to all) Blu-ray and HD DVD's are full raster 1920x1080p23.97 4:2:0 8 bit.
Mmmm.... gotta love that 4:2:0 :)

[Jonathan Smiles]

UK HD
1920x1080 50i for Sky HD
1440x1080 50i for BBC HD test channel

[Anders Holck]

Mmmm.... gotta love that 4:2:0 :)

Yeah, compared to 4:1:1 it rocks :-)

[TimothyD]

Thanks for the info Anders...

Tim

[Stuart English]

At least CBS insists that all their prime time material is broadcast as 1920 x 1080, hence they will only accept material delivered on D-5 HD or HDCAM SR. i.e DVCPRO HD and HDCAM are not acceptable.

Of course once their 22Mbps MPEG-2 1920 x 1080 HD signal hits your local cable company all bets are off.... but I guess the point is CBS are more likely to be buying or commissioning your content than the cable company.

[Cail Young]

We have one local over-the-air broadcaster in 1920x1080, and two others at 1440x1080.

[Jeremy Newmark]

Yeah, compared to 4:1:1 it rocks :-)


If we are talking about it, let's please not forget the lovely 3:1:1 of HDCAM.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, 480x1080 chroma. Yummy. Don't you just love it. Not that they were upfront and told people about HDCAM's little "secret" though. Nice of them.

Graeme

[Damien Molineaux]

If we are talking about it, let's please not forget the lovely 3:1:1 of HDCAM.

Isn't 3:1:1 the same as 4:1.33:1.33 , and therefore superior to 4:1:1 ?

Damien

[Damien Molineaux]

All (or close to all) Blu-ray and HD DVD's are full raster 1920x1080p23.97 4:2:0 8 bit.

Are you sure about that ? Aren't mpeg-2 HD specs 1440x1080 ?

I don't know about H.264 or VC1, are they 1920x1080 ?

Damien

[Chris Kenny]

Are you sure about that ? Aren't mpeg-2 HD specs 1440x1080 ?


For over the air broadcast, usually, but there's no technical barrier to 1920x1080 MPEG-2.

[sander kamp]

Two questions:

1. What happens when an interlaced video hits a tv? I thought that no flat-panel tv is interlaced, so does a HD-tv de-interlace to separate frames?

2. Why the 1366x768 resolution of HD-ready (who makes these things up...) tv's since nothing is broadcasted in that resolution?

I don't live in a country with HD broadcasting so I am really confused.

[Anders Holck]

Almost all Flat screens are truly progressive, usually they update at 60fps.
A deinterlace and framerate conversion is used on all of them.
How good that process is tends to follow the price of the panel.

Lately 48, 72, 75, 100 and 120hz screens have come to the market to support the native framerate instead. 120hz supports both 24p, 30p, 60p just by doubling the incoming frames

Note this is the framerate of the imageprocessor/buffer not the blanking of the screen which is very high frequency.

Allmost all 768 panels has 3% overscan, so even a 720p panel wont be 1:1 pixelmapped from a 720p source.

[TimothyD]

Allmost all 768 panels has 3% overscan, so even a 720p panel wont be 1:1 pixelmapped from a 720p source.

Which I believe is the only thing more asinine than the fact that they don't broadcast HD at a 1:1 ratio...:sick:

[GlennChan]

Isn't 3:1:1 the same as 4:1.33:1.33 , and therefore superior to 4:1:1 ?

No.
Full raster is 1920. HDCAM has 1440 luma samples, and 480 chroma samples (though I've heard 640 too so... I'm unsure).

*The exact meaning of the numbers is sometimes very ambiguous. For example, 4:2:2 DVCPRO is NOT the same as 4:2:2 Dbeta (or D-5). In DVCPRO, there are 1280luma samples and 640 chroma I believe.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, and now they're trying to mandate a fixed overscan region too, which although I can see why you'd want an overscan, it really means that your pixels have been treated sloppily somewhere in the process.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

AFAIK, the correct definition of chroma sampling notation, according to Graeme and Poynton, is that the first number represents the recorded number of luma samples, and hence the 3 and 3:1:1 does not mean that the luma is 3/4 of the full amount, but that the 3:1:1 means that whatever the luma is, the chroma is 1/3 the resolution of it.

Graeme

[Nick Shaw]

I thought the x:y:z notation was to do with the ratio of the sampling frequency to the analogue luma bandwidth, ie 4:2:2 means that the luma is sampled at 4 times the luma bandwidth (2 x Nyquist) and the chroma at twice the luma bandwidth (as per Nyquist).

This is just from memory though. I am too lazy to look it up!

[Graeme Nattress]

Originally the 4 did stand for the 4fs sampling system for luma bandwidth, but then they had the silly notion that therefor 4:2:2 in HD would be 22:11:11, and that was soon dropped. Quite frankly as there's no chroma subsampling notation governing body, there's no officialy definition.

For 3:1:1, I agree with Poynton who says that the 3 does not refer to 1440 being 3/4 of 1920, but that 480 is 1/3 of 1440.

Graeme

[Cail Young]

2. Why the 1366x768 resolution of HD-ready (who makes these things up...) tv's since nothing is broadcasted in that resolution?

Because 1280x720 isn't a "megapixel".

[Damien Molineaux]

<cut>

For 3:1:1, I agree with Poynton who says that the 3 does not refer to 1440 being 3/4 of 1920, but that 480 is 1/3 of 1440.

Graeme

Which is what I was saying, 3:1:1 could also be written as 4:1.33:1.33:1.33

So 3:1:1 is not only higher quality than 4:1:1 but also than 4:2:0, which is used when refering to HDV for example, which is also 1440x1080.

Of course 1920x1080, compression or chroma subsampling aside, is superior to 1440x1080.

Cheers,
Damien

[Graeme Nattress]

Sure you could write as 4:1.33 etc. So yes, it's a slightly higer chroma rate than DV's 4:1:1, but to declare it better, is like saying bad is slightly better than worse :-) 4:2:0 is fine for progressive, but horrible for interlace. Depends with which you're comparing.

Graeme

[Anders Holck]

And if you think about it, 3:1:1 in 1440x1080 is actually pretty much equal to the chroma resolution of a 4:1:1 1920x1080 signal, when you compare the Chroma channels of the original HD-SDI input.
with the HD-SDI output.
I believe this was the reason Sony settled on 3:1:1 in the first place. 3x1.333333333 is very close to 4.
So the input subsampler would do a 1.3333333:1 reduction on the Y channel, and a a 2:1 reduction on the Chroma channels.