H.265 vs ProRes 422HQ. Sample footage?

[SethB]

Finally, I found a fellow realist not afraid to be honest. Ahh, rum and eggnog, I better colour grade it with my special spoon.

I’m not calling anyone out, or trying to be disrespectful, but I find it hard to believe there are special humans on earth that can distinguish the difference between video that has 16.7 million colours, or 1.07 billion colours. I guess it’s possible but I’d have to witness it to believe it. The human eye isn’t capable of doing such a thing that’s not my opinion it’s a biological fact…

There are not special humans with super-vision that I’m aware of. There are many professional film and video workflows that make good use of larger colorspaces and resolutions. This is not about human vision. It is about what editors, colorists, and visual effects artists can do with the larger colorspaces and resolution. They are absolute requirements in some markets and distributions. Granted that a GoPro can simulate machine vision in Rideley Scott’s “Mars”, and that somebody who got something amazing on their phone can sell it.

You’re right, ProRes and 8k today are not relevant technologies for most hobbyist video. However, I have no issues with people who wish to afford them, who want to learn more about them, who would like their work to look more like “film”. Why not? Hobby means do the things that are rewarding in some way. Collecting cool gear? Why not? Having bragging rights? Why not?

Not everyone posting on this thread is a hobbyist who, like you, sees no difference visually between h.264/h.264/ProRes. Etc. Some of us are working professionals who also don’t see the differences with the naked eye, but can certainly tell the differences when editing, color correcting, color grading, and compositing.

…The manufactures and movie makers are trying to outdo each other, bragging rights. I have an iPhone going on 3 years old, the iPhone 13 won’t do much my 8s won’t do. In 5 years when we all have 8k TV what then?…

That’s certainly true in consumer/prosumer and in pro markets. The manufacturers absolutely want us to throw away what we just got and purchase new stuff that is even more profitable. Welcome to capitalist society!

***************************
On the other hand, the Mavic 3 is, to me, a strange bird. I fly a variety at work, including Mavic 2 and Inspire 2. M3 seems somewhere in between these. If you *must* have some of the i2 qualities in a Mavic-sized package… well, that doesn’t even make sense to me.

Cinematography pros will reach higher than the M3. Well, if they can afford to do so, they’ll want the x7 camera on an i2, giving them a Super35 sensor!

My sense is that, in pro terms, the M3 is more of a videography drone like other Mavics, excepting the Cine version. Which is a head-scratcher!

PS. reading two posts immediately above, ProRes was designed as an editing and intermediate codec. Meaning it plays back well while preserving information through multiple generations (as someone pointed out previously). It was only after it had been around a while that camera & recorder manufacturers went towards “direct-to-edit” workflows by recording ProRes in-camera. It’s great stuff if you need it.

 

[SmilingOgre]

Ya that’s what I’ve been hearing. My MacBook converts 265 to pro res 422 in FCPX for editing. It converts it pretty fast. I don’t think there is any noticeable difference with any of them, some guys here say there is, my opinion is there isn’t. If you have no one forcing you to get the Cine I’d say don’t waist your money. The video the 3 puts out is very good, wether you shoot 264 265 or what ever. Only the computer can tell the difference.

This thread has been great helping me sort out my thoughts on the two. I'm in the camp of preferring the 3 over the 3 cine as well. Having said that, I'm in no rush to replace my 2pro. I have a good number of cameras that will produce 4k which is the largest resolution I'm interested in and each camera has a place. For the aerial footage I have needed so far the 2 pro does a fine job. Time will tell. I do have a lot of respect for a 4/3 sensor but at the end of the day, so far, I'm quite happy with the footage from the 2P. The only camera I have that shoots prores is the BMPCC 4k and it will shoot braw. Obviously to me braw is the preferred choice and it edits just fine.

 

[SmilingOgre]

There are not special humans with super-vision that I’m aware of. There are many professional film and video workflows that make good use of larger colorspaces and resolutions. This is not about human vision. It is about what editors, colorists, and visual effects artists can do with the larger colorspaces and resolution. They are absolute requirements in some markets and distributions. Granted that a GoPro can simulate machine vision in Rideley Scott’s “Mars”, and that somebody who got something amazing on their phone can sell it.

You’re right, ProRes and 8k today are not relevant technologies for most hobbyist video. However, I have no issues with people who wish to afford them, who want to learn more about them, who would like their work to look more like “film”. Why not? Hobby means do the things that are rewarding in some way. Collecting cool gear? Why not? Having bragging rights? Why not?

Not everyone posting on this thread is a hobbyist who, like you, sees no difference visually between h.264/h.264/ProRes. Etc. Some of us are working professionals who also don’t see the differences with the naked eye, but can certainly tell the differences when editing, color correcting, color grading, and compositing.

That’s certainly true in consumer/prosumer and in pro markets. The manufacturers absolutely want us to throw away what we just got and purchase new stuff that is even more profitable. Welcome to capitalist society!

***************************
On the other hand, the Mavic 3 is, to me, a strange bird. I fly a variety at work, including Mavic 2 and Inspire 2. M3 seems somewhere in between these. If you *must* have some of the i2 qualities in a Mavic-sized package… well, that doesn’t even make sense to me.

Cinematography pros will reach higher than the M3. Well, if they can afford to do so, they’ll want the x7 camera on an i2, giving them a Super35 sensor!

My sense is that, in pro terms, the M3 is more of a videography drone like other Mavics, excepting the Cine version. Which is a head-scratcher!

PS. reading two posts immediately above, ProRes was designed as an editing and intermediate codec. Meaning it plays back well while preserving information through multiple generations (as someone pointed out previously). It was only after it had been around a while that camera & recorder manufacturers went towards “direct-to-edit” workflows by recording ProRes in-camera. It’s great stuff if you need it.

Audio has gone a similar direction. I've got gear and software that will support 192khz sampling. Good God! I can barely hear the difference between 44.1 and 48K and that is with some extremally high end gear and speakers/headphones. For casual recreational listening MP3 psycho playback is fine. I noticed the BM mini pro 12k as well. I can't use that for anything. I guess having it there is not problematic but I can't see running that resolution. I'm with you regarding no animosity toward anyone who wants that. Not my concern, not my place. Did you see where Sony released the AirPeak S1? For 9G you can float a mirrorless Sony camera. Imagine the sensation when that things flies off into oblivion.

 

[canadian drone videos]

This thread has been great helping me sort out my thoughts on the two. I'm in the camp of preferring the 3 over the 3 cine as well. Having said that, I'm in no rush to replace my 2pro. I have a good number of cameras that will produce 4k which is the largest resolution I'm interested in and each camera has a place. For the aerial footage I have needed so far the 2 pro does a fine job. Time will tell. I do have a lot of respect for a 4/3 sensor but at the end of the day, so far, I'm quite happy with the footage from the 2P. The only camera I have that shoots prores is the BMPCC 4k and it will shoot braw. Obviously to me braw is the preferred choice and it edits just fine.

I would say the 3 is something we want not something we need. I sold my I2 so I grabbed the M3, I mostly bought it because I really enjoy editing video, I’ve got more money tied up in editing tools then I do drones… well almost lol. I would only buy the 3 if you really like editing video, for small quick edits the 2 will do everything the 3 will. If I wasn’t very good at editing or didn’t like it I doubt I would have bought it.

Most of us who bought the 3 didn’t need it, the P4P or M2pro are quite capable drones, I definitely didn’t need the Inspire 2 lol. I never trusted that drone.

My best advice is buy the M3 only if you want it, chances are like me you will never actually need it. And unless your going to make money off customers who demand pro res do not buy the Cine unless you have money to burn.

 

[SmilingOgre]

I would say the 3 is something we want not something we need. I sold my I2 so I grabbed the M3, I mostly bought it because I really enjoy editing video, I’ve got more money tied up in editing tools then I do drones… well almost lol. I would only buy the 3 if you really like editing video, for small quick edits the 2 will do everything the 3 will. If I wasn’t very good at editing or didn’t like it I doubt I would have bought it.

Most of us who bought the 3 didn’t need it, the P4P or M2pro are quite capable drones, I definitely didn’t need the Inspire 2 lol. I never trusted that drone.

My best advice is buy the M3 only if you want it, chances are like me you will never actually need it. And unless your going to make money off customers who demand pro res do not buy the Cine unless you have money to burn.

I love editing as well but the drone footage I use in videos is very limited. 95% of my editing is done on ground footage. That may change and then the 3 will look more appealing. I love flying and practicing my video capturing skills but my videos are never drone centered. 99% of my drone footage gets deleted. I'll develop most of it in Resolve just to see what I can get out of it but it never gets into any projects. I have a weird workflow for projects. I'll color grade everything in Resolve, render it and then do editing in Premiere. Special effects are done in After effects. Upscaling and serious repair is done in Topez. Thank God I don't try to make money doing this. I'd make ten cents an hour, lol.

 

[canadian drone videos]

There are not special humans with super-vision that I’m aware of. There are many professional film and video workflows that make good use of larger colorspaces and resolutions. This is not about human vision. It is about what editors, colorists, and visual effects artists can do with the larger colorspaces and resolution. They are absolute requirements in some markets and distributions. Granted that a GoPro can simulate machine vision in Rideley Scott’s “Mars”, and that somebody who got something amazing on their phone can sell it.

You’re right, ProRes and 8k today are not relevant technologies for most hobbyist video. However, I have no issues with people who wish to afford them, who want to learn more about them, who would like their work to look more like “film”. Why not? Hobby means do the things that are rewarding in some way. Collecting cool gear? Why not? Having bragging rights? Why not?

Not everyone posting on this thread is a hobbyist who, like you, sees no difference visually between h.264/h.264/ProRes. Etc. Some of us are working professionals who also don’t see the differences with the naked eye, but can certainly tell the differences when editing, color correcting, color grading, and compositing.

That’s certainly true in consumer/prosumer and in pro markets. The manufacturers absolutely want us to throw away what we just got and purchase new stuff that is even more profitable. Welcome to capitalist society!

***************************
On the other hand, the Mavic 3 is, to me, a strange bird. I fly a variety at work, including Mavic 2 and Inspire 2. M3 seems somewhere in between these. If you *must* have some of the i2 qualities in a Mavic-sized package… well, that doesn’t even make sense to me.

Cinematography pros will reach higher than the M3. Well, if they can afford to do so, they’ll want the x7 camera on an i2, giving them a Super35 sensor!

My sense is that, in pro terms, the M3 is more of a videography drone like other Mavics, excepting the Cine version. Which is a head-scratcher!

PS. reading two posts immediately above, ProRes was designed as an editing and intermediate codec. Meaning it plays back well while preserving information through multiple generations (as someone pointed out previously). It was only after it had been around a while that camera & recorder manufacturers went towards “direct-to-edit” workflows by recording ProRes in-camera. It’s great stuff if you need it.

I agree with much of what you said, with one exception, the computer can tell the difference when colour grading, not us. The only difference I can clearly distinguish while editing is when I crop. I think it’s somewhat of a misunderstanding of sorts, ya I can see the difference in colour, how do I put this? Rum and eggnog while talking tech, fun stuff lol. If I adjusted the colour slightly in a video I won’t see any difference, but the computer will. Take 10 bit, 1 billion colours, we can’t see more then say 10 million (some say 1 million some say as many as 10 million), I could adjust the video 10 000 colours either way in 10 bit video and my eye won’t see the difference, but the computer will. I posted an F Stoppers article earlier in this thread that touches on this.

Pros are always going to make all kinds of demands, they want the best tool out there for any specific job, and they should. Is a house built with a $200 hammer better then a house built with a $20 Walmart special, no. Us consumers expect Hollywood to use $400 000 camera packages, do they really need them, after watching the original Star Wars the other night I’d have to say no, movie is 40 years old and looks spectacular. Ya today’s movies are slightly better, but in 40 years the difference is trivial.

Star Wars was filmed using film, no colourist no this that and the other thing. What you see is what you get, looked good. For all I know these guys that colour grade movies make them worse, just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Take HDR drone photos, 90% look like crap because they were over processed, a good HDR photo shouldn’t look like an HDR photo, so to speak. When we watched Star Wars in 77 we didn’t leave the theatre saying wow that movie looked like crap all the colours were off, we were amazed.

It’s not that I’m just a hobbies guy, I’m an old school realist. Digital is better sure, can’t imagine a DJI drone using a VCR video tape to gather the sights, hey guys check this new drone out, it rewinds the tape automatically, or hey, check out my flying VCR lol

In the end we need new technology, digital cameras are peaking. They need to work on making a fluid sensor, maybe using silicone? Water/fluid gives an exact replica of light. Imagine a fluid camera sensor with no lines of resolution and no pixels. That’s the future, a quantum processor will collect the data as it captures each photon separately. In the end it will be a more perfect version of video tape, which also has no lines of res or pixels.

The data is carried on the surface of the photon, after all the photon is the messenger carrier for electromagnetism. We’re transfixed on the mega pixel, which records the message the light brings it. That technology has its limitations. Water also records the message within the light, thus, it shows us our perfect reflection under perfect circumstances, and water can be an electrical conductor. All the ingredients are there.

Imagine the power of a surveillance satellite with a fluid/water camera sensor, you could zoom in 1000 times, the days of optical zoom lenses end. 22,711,267,606 photons per second hit the 1” sensor, darn near infinite zoom, at 24 fps that’s almost 1 billion photons per frame. About 1/2 billion photons enter the human eye every second, so if the eye was a camera it needs only 20 million per frame for 24 frames per second video, so to speak. But a one inch sensor could record about a billion per frame. So, a one inch fluid sensor would offer absolute perfect clarity at 50 times zoom! The M3 would be 100. That’s all without factoring in any special enhancements.

So nature says a 1” sensor should be capable of replicating the ability of the eye at 50 times zoom using no optical lens at all.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[kodiak]

Mavics were literally worthless for me until the M3C. ProRes is absolutely critical for a professional workflow.

 

[canadian drone videos]

I love editing as well but the drone footage I use in videos is very limited. 95% of my editing is done on ground footage. That may change and then the 3 will look more appealing. I love flying and practicing my video capturing skills but my videos are never drone centered. 99% of my drone footage gets deleted. I'll develop most of it in Resolve just to see what I can get out of it but it never gets into any projects. I have a weird workflow for projects. I'll color grade everything in Resolve, render it and then do editing in Premiere. Special effects are done in After effects. Upscaling and serious repair is done in Topez. Thank God I don't try to make money doing this. I'd make ten cents an hour, lol.

Ya I hear ya 10 cents an hour lol. I have the Carmel Suite for special effects but haven’t used it in a while, it’s fun to mess around with. Well, maybe wait to get your hands on a refurbished M3 from a DJI dealer, that’s an option. Since you do like editing you will enjoy how much more you can crop and manipulate the footage from the bigger sensor.

I could crop x5s 4k footage way more then I could the P4P 4k footage, that sold me on the 4/3rds sensor. That’s why I knew I wanted this M3, exact same x5s sensor, not crazy about the drone they put it in but it’s fine, I’m getting more familiar with it.

 

[SmilingOgre]

Ya I hear ya 10 cents an hour lol. I have the Carmel Suite for special effects but haven’t used it in a while, it’s fun to mess around with. Well, maybe wait to get your hands on a refurbished M3 from a DJI dealer, that’s an option. Since you do like editing you will enjoy how much more you can crop and manipulate the footage from the bigger sensor.

I could crop x5s 4k footage way more then I could the P4P 4k footage, that sold me on the 4/3rds sensor. That’s why I knew I wanted this M3, exact same x5s sensor, not crazy about the drone they put it in but it’s fine, I’m getting more familiar with it.

Maybe in the spring. I'll feel more like taking it out and hopefully they will have fixed some of the incomplete software/firmware issues.

 

[SethB]

I agree with much of what you said, with one exception, the computer can tell the difference when colour grading, not us. The only difference I can clearly distinguish while editing is when I crop. I think it’s somewhat of a misunderstanding of sorts, ya I can see the difference in colour, how do I put this? Rum and eggnog while talking tech, fun stuff lol. If I adjusted the colour slightly in a video I won’t see any difference, but the computer will. Take 10 bit, 1 billion colours, we can’t see more then say 10 million (some say 1 million some say as many as 10 million), I could adjust the video 10 000 colours either way in 10 bit video and my eye won’t see the difference, but the computer will. I posted an F Stoppers article earlier in this thread that touches on this…

My perceptions are quite different. I look at the screen. I color correct. I can see a substantial difference between what I can do with properly exposed 8-bit 4:2:0 footage and properly exposed 10 or 12-bit 4:2:2 or 4:4:4. That difference I see with my own eyes is how far I can push and pull colors or a color and still get a visually pleasing result. How clean an edge I can easily get when keying for compositing. 8-bit footage is highly limiting on some shots, or on many/all shots on some projects. I see it. Me. With my eyes. In my personal experience.

…after watching the original Star Wars the other night I’d have to say no, movie is 40 years old and looks spectacular. Ya today’s movies are slightly better, but in 40 years the difference is trivial.

Star Wars was filmed using film, no colourist no this that and the other thing. What you see is what you get, looked good. For all I know these guys that colour grade movies make them worse, just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Take HDR drone photos, 90% look like crap because they were over processed, a good HDR photo shouldn’t look like an HDR photo, so to speak. When we watched Star Wars in 77 we didn’t leave the theatre saying wow that movie looked like crap all the colours were off, we were amazed.

It’s not that I’m just a hobbies guy, I’m an old school realist….

a) You’re watching Star Wars today? You’re watching highly processed digitally re-graded film. This is very much part of the feature film to digital distribution workflow.

That film would have had about 13 stops of exposure latitude as film. To convert to the MPEG2 files of (arguably) 8 or 9 stops digital color correction & grading would have been used to preserve highlight and shadow detail.

Highlight & shadow detail enables color correction. You can’t bring something out that isn’t in the original recording. This is more than color resolution.

b) Realist? Yes HDR and expanded bit-depths can be used to create something that we wouldn’t perceive with the naked eye. Some might call that artistic expression. It can also be used to create something that surpasses the typical limitations of digital imaging to look more like how the eye does perceive the scene.

For example, in real estate sales photography there’s a frequent challenge to portray an interior with a window on a sunny day. Without expanded bit-depth / HDR and color correction these shots can’t be processed to contemporary standards. They can’t look like the human perception of the scene without the extensive corrections possible with HDR or other high bit-depth recording.

For all you know colorists are making films worse? Is there a vast conspiracy to waste money on things viewers will never see? I don’t even know how to respond to that, so I’ll stop there. The answers are out there.

 

[canadian drone videos]

My perceptions are quite different. I look at the screen. I color correct. I can see a substantial difference between what I can do with properly exposed 8-bit 4:2:0 footage and properly exposed 10 or 12-bit 4:2:2 or 4:4:4. That difference I see with my own eyes is how far I can push and pull colors or a color and still get a visually pleasing result. How clean an edge I can easily get when keying for compositing. 8-bit footage is highly limiting on some shots, or on many/all shots on some projects. I see it. Me. With my eyes. In my personal experience.


a) You’re watching Star Wars today? You’re watching highly processed digitally re-graded film. This is very much part of the feature film to digital distribution workflow.

That film would have had about 13 stops of exposure latitude as film. To convert to the MPEG2 files of (arguably) 8 or 9 stops digital color correction & grading would have been used to preserve highlight and shadow detail.

Highlight & shadow detail enables color correction. You can’t bring something out that isn’t in the original recording. This is more than color resolution.

b) Realist? Yes HDR and expanded bit-depths can be used to create something that we wouldn’t perceive with the naked eye. Some might call that artistic expression. It can also be used to create something that surpasses the typical limitations of digital imaging to look more like how the eye does perceive the scene.

For example, in real estate sales photography there’s a frequent challenge to portray an interior with a window on a sunny day. Without expanded bit-depth / HDR and color correction these shots can’t be processed to contemporary standards. They can’t look like the human perception of the scene without the extensive corrections possible with HDR or other high bit-depth recording.

For all you know colorists are making films worse? Is there a vast conspiracy to waste money on things viewers will never see? I don’t even know how to respond to that, so I’ll stop there. The answers are out there

No one I ever went to any movie with in any year ever complained about the colour in the movie, that goes back well before digital cameras even existed. We complained about parts of the movie, but not anything to do with colour. The average movie goer doesn’t care if they spent 600 hours colour grading, go ahead knock yourself out. Show me a piece video straight out of a decent camera, I won’t know if you colour graded it or not... well that’s not actually true, I saw a video on here a month ago that had bright orange dead oak leaves still on the tree, problem was, I knew that was impossible lol. Show me a red orange or blue banana and ya I’ll know you coloured it. How did they ever make a movie in 1980, it’s not coloured we can’t have that.

The guy IBM hired to take drone video of the IMB Mayflower didn’t use pro res, he used an Inspire 2 with x5s, stock h265. Got 220 000 000 million views. IBM was really pleased, guy did nothing to the video. Guys talk like the x5s is garbage, can’t shoot proper colour straight out of the camera, needs to be colour graded... go ahead have at it. Your simply showing us your interpretation of reality, not the image the camera actually shot. That x5s is an excellent true camera, camera makers spend big bucks on RandD so colour grading isn’t necessary. Teams of people work on those cameras, for long periods of time, but still we have guys who think they can fix the problems that don’t exist, and when you bring this up they get all bent out of shape.

The only reason colour grading really has a use is when your using entirely different cameras, or cameras from different manufacturers in one project. If I shoot an entire project with the same camera I’m all good because there is nothing I need to match.

Anyways I’ve learned by now your going to disagree with anything I say, for example, you say we need 24fps to get motion blur, not true at all. The last scene of this video has serious motion blur, I shot that at 60fps.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2428002094147069

 

[SmilingOgre]

I've got the cold from hell right now but as soon as it calms down I'm going to dive into prores 4:2:2 just to see for myself what it can do. I've only used b-raw so far on the Black Magic but now I just have to see what I can get out of prores.

 

[SethB]

…Anyways I’ve learned by now your going to disagree with anything I say, for example, you say we need 24fps to get motion blur, not true at all….

Not me, I did not say that. Hmm… there I go, disagreeing with you again. But that’s a fact.

Not sure we’ve talked framerates in this thread. I myself tend towards higher framerates. To each their own. Good luck with your video/film work. Keep going for the color you like. Keep learning. I know I learn something new every day - highly recommended!

 

[SmilingOgre]

Ok, just tried prores hq. I was able to do a little more color grading than standard h.265 but not as much b-raw.

 

[canadian drone videos]

Not me, I did not say that. Hmm… there I go, disagreeing with you again. But that’s a fact.

Not sure we’ve talked framerates in this thread. I myself tend towards higher framerates. To each their own. Good luck with your video/film work. Keep going for the color you like. Keep learning. I know I learn something new every day - highly recommended!

My apologies I mistook you for someone else eh, I have a fly in my truck, in January lol.

My only point is colour grading isn’t necessary, unless you want to maybe set the mood, match different scenes, stuff of that sort. I watched Blitz last night, one of the opening scenes was pretty badly colour graded, I would rarely notice anything like that in a movie. I notice only when I see something that doesn’t appear natural.

When I do a video I want it to look natural, I’m less concerned about mood and matching scenes. The only piece of video I ever spent considerable time on colour grading was when I was up in the Northwest Territories filming the bridge over the Mackenzie river during sunset in Providence. It was x5s video and it didn’t look natural, that’s because sunsets that far north at that time of year don’t look natural to begin with.

We all have different preferences, I prefer a picture that’s only a little touched up, but only a little, and only if it needs it. A sunset picture using a polarizer should need nothing, colours are already popping. I user polarizer filters to bring up the highlights, it works for me, I don’t even touch the colour.

To each their own, I read a piece from a professional videographer yesterday and he said so long as you nail the settings in the camera there shouldn’t be anything to colour, I agree with his ideology.