Apple Releases ProRes QuickTime Decoder 1.0

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple today released ProRes QuickTime Decoder 1.0, which allows Mac and PC users to view Apple ProRes files through QuickTime. ProRes, released as part of Final Cut Pro 6 in April 2007 (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/15/nab-apple-updates-final-cut-studio/), is a post-production format targeted at video editors and offering uncompressed high-definition quality at standard-definition file sizes.

The Apple ProRes QuickTime Decoder software allows both Mac and Windows users to play Apple ProRes files through QuickTime. Apple ProRes is a visually lossless format that provides uncompressed HD quality at SD data rates.

It is an excellent choice for mastering and can easily be transcoded to distribution formats like H.264. With new support for playback on both Mac and Windows computers, Apple ProRes can also be used for review and approval of Final Cut Studio sequences.

Apple previously published a white paper (PDF) (http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf) detailing the features and benefits of the format.

The update is available in a Mac version (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/appleproresquicktimedecoder10formac.html) weighing in at 369 KB and requiring OS X 10.4 or 10.5 and a Windows version (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/appleproresquicktimedecoder10forwindows.html) weighing in at 273 KB and requiring Windows XP (SP2) or later. Both versions also require QuickTime 7.5 or later.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/28/apple-releases-prores-quicktime-decoder-1-0/)

[tingly]

I like that "visually lossless".

[ZiggyPastorius]

Small updates. I wish I could just create my own file formats. :(

[Rocketman]

I would like to see a player for each of several proprietary camera video formats, starting with Sony.

I already posted Apple should provide file format standardization guidelines and SDK and services for camera vendors so essentially every image ever captured can be ingested seamlessly into Apple.

Rocketman

[Doodledoo]

PREDICTION!

Apple ends up using this format to provide HD downloads through iTunes for Apple TV and eventually everything else, obviously with DRM. Very exciting if you ask me!

[DaftUnion]

Yay. Seriously though, if they use this format for HD downloads in iTunes come September, that would be awesome.

[macshill]

Maybe that's the ace card up Steve's sleeve. That'd rock!

[sam10685]

Well this obviously means Apple is going to refresh every hardware product they make.

[Lordillingworth]

Well this obviously means Apple is going to refresh every hardware product they make.

Brilliant comment! I think it also explains those weird fingers we have seen coming out of apple recently.

[skellener]

PREDICTION!Apple ends up using this format to provide HD downloads through iTunes for Apple TV and eventually everything else, obviously with DRM. Very exciting if you ask me! Nope. This is first and foremost a production format. It is much larger than h.264 and not practical to deliver files with. It's is 6-10 times smaller than uncompressed (we use it at work) but h.264 is much smaller. I don't see Apple moving away from h.264 anytime soon. It is great news for mixed environment studios though. Now Pro-Res can be used on ALL machines even if they are Windows.

[macshill]

Brilliant comment! I think it also explains those weird fingers we have seen coming out of apple recently.

Aw, you're just jealous 'cause you can't do the Vulcan symbol as well as Steve can. :p
http://i33.tinypic.com/2m6rfpu.jpg
"Dup dor a'az Mubster."

[rhett7660]

I would like to see a player for each of several proprietary camera video formats, starting with Sony.

And JVC.............

[MaynardJames]

Nope. This is first and foremost a production format. It is much larger than h.264 and not practical to deliver files with. It's is 6-10 times smaller than uncompressed (we use it at work) but h.264 is much smaller. I don't see Apple moving away from h.264 anytime soon. It is great news for mixed environment studios though. Now Pro-Res can be used on ALL machines even if they are Windows.

Exactly. ProRes is an Intermediate Codec. For HD it uses bitrates in the 100's to 200's of Mbits/s. Using ProRes for downloadable HD content would be completely impractical.

[LethalWolfe]

Finally. Apple not making decoders of all it's codecs available as part of QT Player is just irritating.

PREDICTION!

Apple ends up using this format to provide HD downloads through iTunes for Apple TV and eventually everything else, obviously with DRM. Very exciting if you ask me!
Not likely. 40gig/hr for a 720p24 file. That would go over well.;)


Lethal

[ChrisA]

PREDICTION!

Apple ends up using this format to provide HD downloads through iTunes for Apple TV and eventually everything else, obviously with DRM. Very exciting if you ask me!

I very seriously doubt this will happen. Prores is large. Do you want to wait 6 hours for a movie to down load. This is for mastering shows prior to transcoding to some distribution format.

OK it you like this, then you are likely already sending your video email attachments in DV format and your still photos as 16-bit per channel uncompressed TIFF.

[Analog Kid]

I like that "visually lossless".
I'm sure this was all gone over when ProRes was announced, but I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the weasel words...

Lossless means I can decode an encoded stream and retrieve the original-- if that's not true here then the word lossless shouldn't be anywhere in the description unless preceded by a negative.

[137489]

I would like to see a player for each of several proprietary camera video formats, starting with Sony.

I already posted Apple should provide file format standardization guidelines and SDK and services for camera vendors so essentially every image ever captured can be ingested seamlessly into Apple.

Rocketman


I have yet to hit a format that VLC player cannot handle.

[quadgirl]

I have yet to hit a format that VLC player cannot handle.

You're completely missing the point. This is a production codec to natively plug in to OS X and for windows editing software that can use the quicktime handler. Where exactly does VLC come into this?

[samh004]

You're completely missing the point. This is a production codec to natively plug in to OS X and for windows editing software that can use the quicktime handler. Where exactly does VLC come into this?

I presume he meant that ProRes already works in VLC on windows, so the new codec wasn't needed. Of course I am just assuming, I don't actually know anything, it just seemed the likely point.

[alphaod]

I found the Final Cut update in System Updater; is this included in said update?

[happydude]

PREDICTION!

Apple ends up using this format to provide HD downloads through iTunes for Apple TV and eventually everything else, obviously with DRM. Very exciting if you ask me!

isn't this too large to send over the internets?

[LethalWolfe]

I'm sure this was all gone over when ProRes was announced, but I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the weasel words...

Lossless means I can decode an encoded stream and retrieve the original-- if that's not true here then the word lossless shouldn't be anywhere in the description unless preceded by a negative.
Visually lossless isn't a weasel word. It's a term to describe a codec that, as the name implies, generates a visually indistinguishable copy of the original but at a relatively small file size because the codec is compressed. A mathematically lossless codec creates and exact, bit-for-bit copy of the original but the file sizes tend to be very large.


Lethal

[maproduction]

The reason for this, much needed, release is only for a production workflow. If you edit with ProRes and have windows AfterEffect workstations you could not just send over the footage nor could the AE render out to ProRes unless it was on a Mac system with FCP6 installed.

This has been asked for since ProRes came out.

Virtually Lossless is also a commonly used term and production people know how to take it. Anytime you compress you loss something but this codec gives a lot of space and bandwidth savings with very loss in quality it also holds up very well from one generation to another.

[Tosser]

Visually lossless isn't a weasel word. It's a term to describe a codec that, as the name implies, generates a visually indistinguishable copy of the original but at a relatively small file size because the codec is compressed. A mathematically lossless codec creates and exact, bit-for-bit copy of the original but the file sizes tend to be very large.


Lethal

So, as the Analog Kid said, it is a weasel term, since in audio*, what you just described receives the monicker "lossy format" (i.e. "cd-quality" 128kbps MP3s and the sort where 10/11ths of the audio information is tossed away), as opposed to "lossless", which describes how a the file can be made into a bit-for-bit copy for the original (again).

Edit:

* and still photography (i.e. jpegs are lossy, raw is lossless).

.

Virtually Lossless is also a commonly used term and production people know how to take it.

So does everyone else. The problem is, of course, Apple doesn't use the term "virtually lossless", but rather "visually lossless"

[gnasher729]

PREDICTION!

Apple ends up using this format to provide HD downloads through iTunes for Apple TV and eventually everything else, obviously with DRM. Very exciting if you ask me!

I think you don't quite understand what this is about. This is a file format that is used by professional film editors during the editing process. You can't edit a file in h.264 format, because the decoding/encoding is much too expensive and you cannot edit single frames in h.264 without having to re-encode all the surrounding frames. ProRes is about five times smaller than raw, uncompressed files. That makes it about 18 MByte per second or 144 MBit per second for 1080p at 30 fps. About 24 times bigger than current Apple TV HD movies.

The only people needing this are film editing professionals who want to see what their movie will look like when played by QuickTime without having to go through a long encoding process.

[backdraft]

Just out of curiousity what is the best format/codec for burning DVD's SD and HD. Adobe Encore can burn h264 while DVD Studio Pro can't, and let's not even mention DVD - R vs DVD + R

[bozs13]

about time they released this

I have many co-workers/buddies that don't fcp installed :)

[bozs13]

I have yet to hit a format that VLC player cannot handle.

vlc doesn't support prores422

[hdasmith]

How on earth can they make a smaller file size without compressing the file? It seems to me that the format is compressed, but is not compressed in a lossy fashion... in the same vein that Apple Lossless is a compressed format but not a lossy format.

[lukeypoo]

I use the Apple Intermediate Codec (AIC) for the storage or short clips onto DVD-R media. I see this as a good choice for future access and transcoding to HD1080i clips.

I guess the ProRes422 format overs excellent quality but at larger file sizes to AIC. AIC is ~11MBps. From white paper mentioned in the article, ProRes422 is ~220Mbps, or ~35MBps.

Should I make the switch? Apparently no!

All my source is from the Canon HV20 HDV 1080i Camcorder. I use FCE3.5.1 (and iMovie 6.0.4!)

[Tosser]

How on earth can they make a smaller file size without compressing the file? It seems to me that the format is compressed, but is not compressed in a lossy fashion... in the same vein that Apple Lossless is a compressed format but not a lossy format.
The very short version:
Think "Zip"-files.

ProRes IS lossy, though, so here you have to think MP2/MP3/MP4.
Because of my poor english, I have to think "uncompressed = raw PCM (audio)",
"compressed = depending on who uses the term, it can mean "thinned" (as in mp3s (i.e. lossy) or "lossless", so I tend to use "lossless" if that's what it is"

Noone who pushes lossy formats like's using the monicker "lossy" or "thinned", so they tend to use "compressed", even though it isn't really compressed, if that makes sense.

[The Tall One]

Why would you EVER use Windows to do professional editing? All it does is crash crash and crash again. Trust me, this is what I do for a living. (Crash) :D

[The Tall One]

The very short version:
Think "Zip"-files.

ProRes IS lossy, though, so here you have to think MP2/MP3/MP4.
Because of my poor english, I have to think "uncompressed = raw PCM (audio)",
"compressed = depending on who uses the term, it can mean "thinned" (as in mp3s (i.e. lossy) or "lossless", so I tend to use "lossless" if that's what it is"

Noone who pushes lossy formats like's using the monicker "lossy" or "thinned", so they tend to use "compressed", even though it isn't really compressed, if that makes sense.


Lossy means that your finished file cannot be reversed to its original state mathematically. Loseless means your new file CAN be reversed mathematically to its original quality.

[Tosser]

Lossy means that your finished file cannot be reversed to its original state mathematically. Loseless means your new file CAN be reversed mathematically to its original quality.

Eh, of course – that's what i said. Lossless is compressed (as in zipped) "raw" files.
Lossy is "thinned". Of course "thinned" cannot be reversed to original as parts of the information has been tossed out.

The dude asked how one could make a file smaller without it loosing information. I responded.

I don't know why you figured I said something else.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6130505&postcount=26

[monster620ie]

This is a great release. I use FCP on apple but I do not have After Effects for Apple but I have it for Windows. So this means that I can get my FCP assets in Pro Res and use it in Windows world in After Effects as an example. At least that is what I also understand from this announcement.

[Analog Kid]

Visually lossless isn't a weasel word. It's a term to describe a codec that, as the name implies, generates a visually indistinguishable copy of the original but at a relatively small file size because the codec is compressed. A mathematically lossless codec creates and exact, bit-for-bit copy of the original but the file sizes tend to be very large.


Lethal
As Tosser pointed out, you're drawing a distinction I've never heard made before today. I've heard many people claim that MP3 and such-and-such a bit rate is indistinguishable from the original even to a trained ear. I've never heard anyone put the word "lossless" in a sentence like that and get away with it. Apple is trying to by throwing in the "visually" adverb in an attempt to change the meaning of lossless, and I think that's weasely and will eventually lead to the word lossless carrying no meaning.

If endlessly repeated encode/decode cycles will eventually lead to noise, then I wouldn't even consider the phrase "visually lossless" to apply. Perhaps "visually lossless on the first encoding", but the industry would typically use phrases like "minimum loss" or "undetectable to the human eye".

[eatapc]

Why would you EVER use Windows to do professional editing? All it does is crash crash and crash again. Trust me, this is what I do for a living. (Crash) :D

I know you're joking, but you know that's nonsense. What about broadcasters, news divisions, in-house corporate AV departments and tens of thousands of Avid editors on PCs? What about the tens of thousands of video editors using Premiere and Vegas on PCs? What about all the asset management software running on Windows servers?

I'm a Final Cut Pro editor. This free release by Apple is a real lifesaver for me. I generally work in ProRes, but until now I couldn't hand off those files to anyone (other than other FCP editors) without transcoding. It's about time Apple released this codec!

BTW, the ProRes codec is "visually lossless" in the same way as professional DigiBeta tape, which is broadcast quality but compressed by 2:1. The compression ratio of ProRes varies with the complexity of the video being compressed. Apple's chief competitor, Avid, has their own proprietary compression scheme that Apple matched very closely with ProRes, but Avid's compression has always been cross-platform for Mac and Windows.

[Analog Kid]

I know you're joking, but you know that's nonsense. What about broadcasters, news divisions...
Couldn't help myself: WPXI runs on Windows (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/windows_update_brings_down_newscast/)
BTW, the ProRes codec is "visually lossless" in the same way as professional DigiBeta tape, which is broadcast quality but compressed by 2:1. DigiBeta uses a lossy compression very similar to that used by JPEG.

[Virtuoso]

Why would you EVER use Windows to do professional editing? All it does is crash crash and crash again. Trust me, this is what I do for a living. (Crash) :D
Hmm... I seem to remember a glaring bug in Leopard involving firewire audio. Just changing the sample rate (e.g. from 44.1KHz for CD to 48KHz for DVD) triggered a kernel panic every time. It took Apple months to fix this major issue.

[eatapc]

DigiBeta uses a lossy compression very similar to that used by JPEG.

Right. I didn't mean to imply that ProRes uses the same compression scheme as DigiBeta; I only meant to draw an analogy. ProRes and Digibeta are lossy but "visually lossless" (arguably). I'm hard pressed to see a difference on a reference grade broadcast monitor. A few generations down and the losses will get obvious.

To me the term "visual lossless" isn't an artful bit of weaseling; it's a reasonable claim that needs to be poked and prodded. Video engineers have tested the codec and found both strengths and weakness, but the codec is generally accepted as being visually lossless (first generation).

Just wondering: Is the Apple Lossless audio encoder really lossless (no audible loss or generation loss)? Audiophiles don't think so, but I don't know the facts.

[Tosser]

Right. I didn't mean to imply that ProRes uses the same compression scheme as DigiBeta; I only meant to draw an analogy. ProRes and Digibeta are lossy but "visually lossless" (arguably). I'm hard pressed to see a difference on a reference grade broadcast monitor. A few generations down and the losses will get obvious.

To me the term "visual lossless" isn't an artful bit of weaseling; it's a reasonable claim that needs to be poked and prodded. Video engineers have tested the codec and found both strengths and weakness, but the codec is generally accepted as being visually lossless (first generation).

The problem is, of course, high bit-rate MP4/MP3 could also be argued, even by pros to be audibly lossless(first generation). I mean, that's the whole idea about calling 128kbps MP3/MP4 "CD-quality".



Just wondering: Is the Apple Lossless audio encoder really lossless (no audible loss or generation loss)?
Yes it is.

Audiophiles don't think so, but I don't know the facts.
Has to be some blokes from head-fi or the like – You know: The type who thinks they can hear a difference between a proper dimensioned copper cable and a silver cable.
It IS bit-for-bit accurate and proper lossless.

[skellener]

Why would you EVER use Windows to do professional editing? All it does is crash crash and crash again. Trust me, this is what I do for a living. (Crash) :D I don't use Windows, but plenty of people do. Some people use it for rendering. Whether 2D or 3D they do. Now it allows them to be in the loop by using ProRes. This is a good thing.

[twoodcc]

well this sounds great. not sure if i'd benefit from it though, but maybe one day

[Analog Kid]

A few generations down and the losses will get obvious.
And to me, that's the key feature of anything called "lossless"-- no information loss from generation to generation.

I could almost imagine a "visually lossless" encoder, but it would still need to be generationally stable. Removing data outside of the visible spectrum for example.

[eatapc]

And to me, that's the key feature of anything called "lossless"-- no information loss from generation to generation.
Yes, that's lossless, but practically speaking professionals don't need pure lossless in a codec with "online finishing" potential like ProRes (or DigiBeta tape).

Here's a good test of the codec: http://tinyurl.com/6ok5h6

Conclusion:

"When paused on identical frames and quickly toggling between 1st generation Uncompressed and the 3rd generation ProResSD - levels and chroma are rock solid steady, but there is a oh-so-slight softening of the image. It's slight enough that most my clients won't be able to see it. Heck, I barely see it. Though once I noticed it on the monitor and l looked back at my scopes, I could see a teeny softening of the trace. It wasn't evident in every shot, only those with heavy details (usually in the background). So...

"ProsRes SD is an impressive codec. While only doubling the storage space of DV it gives 98% of the quality of Uncompressed. Good enough for finishing purposes? Yes. I would not use it for heavy compositing where every drop of detail is essential. Unlike the HD variant, which I've heard is rock-solid through (at least) 10 generations, the SD variant's 'lossy-ness' does exist after 3 generations."

[LethalWolfe]

As Tosser pointed out, you're drawing a distinction I've never heard made before today. I've heard many people claim that MP3 and such-and-such a bit rate is indistinguishable from the original even to a trained ear. I've never heard anyone put the word "lossless" in a sentence like that and get away with it. Apple is trying to by throwing in the "visually" adverb in an attempt to change the meaning of lossless, and I think that's weasely and will eventually lead to the word lossless carrying no meaning.
Off the top of my head I know that Apple, Cineform, and RED all have used the term "visually lossless" to describe some of their codecs. In my experience that term is applied to a codec that will go thru typical 'wear and tear' of post production and visually hold up as well as uncompressed. Although if you need to do a lot of image manipulation where every spec of image info counts (like heavy compositing) it will degrade before an uncompressed codec will. It was probably a year or two ago that I first noticed people making a distinction between visual and mathematical losses in codecs.


Lethal

[WindowsGuy]

Then if you aren't either a sports fan (AKA FanBoy) or you don't advertise to the masses.

Flash is as popular for Advertisers as PhotoShop is to Apple Boys.

Apple is pulling a Microsoft and holding out on Adobe and we are the fallout.

Steve, Get off your high horsre and show the rest of the open programming world you can play.

If I can't play anything but Apple MP3's or QuickTime Video then it's not the Interent.

How much video is out now that with WM Or RealMedia that we can't access.
Along with countless other video formats.

YouTube kissed Steve's Ass and we see a portion of YouTube that has been converted for the iPhone.

Safari is a way better browser than we get on the iPhone and the competition is Verizon (which by the way has better 3G than AT&T).

Steve, get off your ass and do something or hire someone that can.

2.1 better be a BIG improvement otherwise the class action lawsuit really will have some impact on your "Global Market".

Fix the problems you have before you put out new products.

At least Microsoft recalled x million XBox's because they were flawed.

Recall the iPhone 3G World Wide until you and the x carriers have worked out the problems.

It's not the internet in my pocket it's a phone I can't get calls on or dropped and the GPS is a joke. Show me a dot on Google. That's your definition of GPS?

The iTunes Application Store is a huge success and yet it has hundreds of uselsess applications.

The FanBoys are saying that Android (Google) will have more Tip Calculators or Flash Lights than Apple.

I'd bet they're wrong.

Get it working Apple or get rid of Steve because he's not the guy he used to be.

[Tosser]

@ windowsguy

I hope you're kidding? You want Apple to focus even more on the iPhone et al?
As if the pro segment and the quality of their computers suffers enough as it is :mad:

[winterspan]

PREDICTION! Apple ends up using this format to provide HD downloads through iTunes for Apple TV and eventually everything else, obviously with DRM. Very exciting if you ask me!
You want to bet money on that prediction? :)

Yay. Seriously though, if they use this format for HD downloads in iTunes come September, that would be awesome.
This is not a distribution format, it's a digital intermediate for post-production. However, doubling the H.264 bitrate on the HD movie rentals wouldn't hurt.

Visually lossless isn't a weasel word. It's a term to describe a codec that, as the name implies, generates a visually indistinguishable copy of the original but at a relatively small file size because the codec is compressed. A mathematically lossless codec creates and exact, bit-for-bit copy of the original but the file sizes tend to be very large.

Just as Analog kid and others pointed out, it most definitely IS a weasel word. "Lossless" should NEVER be used when a codec is not mathematically lossless. Just because I could rip a CD track into a 1024kbps AAC file and not be able to ever tell the difference even If I encode it a 1000 times doesn't mean I can say it "sounds lossless". If it throws away any amount of information, then it's a LOSSY codec.

Here's a even better argument. ProRes uses intraframe only compression based upon DCT, which is the same underlying principle as JPEG compression. Again, Just because I can't tell the difference between a RAW image from my DSLR and a 100% quality JPEG counterpart doesn't mean I can call low-compression JPEG format "visually lossles".

How on earth can they make a smaller file size without compressing the file? It seems to me that the format is compressed, but is not compressed in a lossy fashion... in the same vein that Apple Lossless is a compressed format but not a lossy format.
They can't. ProRes is a LOSSY compression format. They use the strained term "visually lossless" to mean that for all intents and purposes (aka running a stream through multiple encodes) it will look the same as a Lossless or uncompressed format because it retains so much detail. That part may be true, but it is still not right in my opinion to call it "Lossless" if it loses ANY amount of original image data.

[ccuk]

Just as Analog kid and others pointed out, it most definitely IS a weasel word. "Lossless" should NEVER be used when a codec is not mathematically lossless. Just because I could rip a CD track into a 1024kbps AAC file and not be able to ever tell the difference even If I encode it a 1000 times doesn't mean I can say it "sounds lossless". If it throws away any amount of information, then it's a LOSSY codec.

Here's a even better argument. ProRes uses intraframe only compression based upon DCT, which is the same underlying principle as JPEG compression. Again, Just because I can't tell the difference between a RAW image from my DSLR and a 100% quality JPEG counterpart doesn't mean I can call low-compression JPEG format "visually lossles".


They can't. ProRes is a LOSSY compression format. They use the strained term "visually lossless" to mean that for all intents and purposes (aka running a stream through multiple encodes) it will look the same as a Lossless or uncompressed format because it retains so much detail. That part may be true, but it is still not right in my opinion to call it "Lossless" if it loses ANY amount of original image data.


Totally agree with all of this... I am disliking the spin put on lossy codecs to make them sound as though they are lossless...

However, I think its great that Windows users will be able to view and or work with ProRes encoded material.

[LethalWolfe]

Just as Analog kid and others pointed out, it most definitely IS a weasel word. "Lossless" should NEVER be used when a codec is not mathematically lossless. Just because I could rip a CD track into a 1024kbps AAC file and not be able to ever tell the difference even If I encode it a 1000 times doesn't mean I can say it "sounds lossless". If it throws away any amount of information, then it's a LOSSY codec.
Why can't you say it 'sounds lossless'? 'Sounding lossless' and 'being lossless' aren't the same thing but they both still exist. Thanks to improving encoding technology and CPU power we have robust, compressions that while mathematically lossy they are able to retain their quality similar to uncompressed codecs for practical purposes. So why not make a distinction for this kind of codec? There is uncompressed, lossy that looks and acts like uncompressed in all but extreme uses, and lossy that looks and acts lossy. You say weasel word, I say a distinction that makes my life a little easier when trying to develop post production workflows.

And if we really want to get picky every recorded image is compressed from the start because nothing can record an infinite amount of information.


Lethal

[Tosser]

Why can't you say it 'sounds lossless'? 'Sounding lossless' and 'being lossless' aren't the same thing but they both still exist. Thanks to improving encoding technology and CPU power we have robust, compressions that while mathematically lossy they are able to retain their quality similar to uncompressed codecs for practical purposes. So why not make a distinction for this kind of codec? There is uncompressed, lossy that looks and acts like uncompressed in all but extreme uses, and lossy that looks and acts lossy. You say weasel word, I say a distinction that makes my life a little easier when trying to develop post production workflows.

I have a better idea, since it's lossy, let's call it lossy. If you want to differentiate between low bitrate mp3 and so forth, let's call this a high bitrate lossy format, because that is what it is. No more, no less.

Since it's not lossless, there's no need to use the term "lossless" as a marketing term, watering it down with preemptions, only to polute the waters.


And if we really want to get picky every recorded image is compressed from the start because nothing can record an infinite amount of information.
I don't think you know what compressed means.

[Analog Kid]

...
Thanks to improving encoding technology and CPU power we have robust, compressions that while mathematically lossy they are able to retain their quality similar to uncompressed codecs for practical purposes. So why not make a distinction for this kind of codec? There is uncompressed, lossy that looks and acts like uncompressed in all but extreme uses, and lossy that looks and acts lossy.
...
Distinctions are made where they make sense. In this case, the distinction is made between codecs that can be reversed without loss of information, and those that can't. Those that can are called lossless, and those that can't are called lossy.

What you are describing isn't a distinction, it's a continuum. There is more or less similar to uncompressed, there are different quality metrics for different uses. Breaking codecs into categories based on continuous parameters such as these require an arbitrary threshold rather than being inherent in the codec itself.

ProRes is a lossy codec suitable for *insert use*. If the industry wants to attach a word to codecs that a trained professional can't distinguish from raw on a given display after x encoding generations, that's fine too. Just don't call it lossless if it isn't.
And if we really want to get picky every recorded image is compressed from the start because nothing can record an infinite amount of information.
You're confusing image capture with image compression, and to get even more pedantic you're confusing compression with transformation.

Image capture will almost always be lossy for the reasons you state.

[yoak]

Nitpicking (is that even a word?) aside, this is great news to me/us as we have one MP, but my partner uses Premiere on a PC. Finally we can exchange files in an easy way (although I won´t belive it until I see it;))
There always seems to be a glitch somewhere in a process like this, but I´m hoping and I´m quite exited.
It will make life much easier and hopefully free up some of the time we spend on moving footage back and forth

[Virtuoso]

this is great news to me/us as we have one MP, but my partner uses Premiere on a PC. Finally we can exchange files in an easy way
There is a catch - if you make any changes in Premiere, you won't be able to stay using ProRes. The codec is only a decoder, not an encoder, so whilst you can read the files on a PC, you will need to use another codec (or uncompressed) if you send the files back to the Mac.

[winterspan]

I have a better idea, since it's lossy, let's call it lossy. If you want to differentiate between low bitrate mp3 and so forth, let's call this a high bitrate lossy format, because that is what it is. No more, no less. *snip*


Distinctions are made where they make sense. In this case, the distinction is made between codecs that can be reversed without loss of information, and those that can't. Those that can are called lossless, and those that can't are called lossy.

What you are describing isn't a distinction, it's a continuum. There is more or less similar to uncompressed, there are different quality metrics for different uses. Breaking codecs into categories based on continuous parameters such as these require an arbitrary threshold rather than being inherent in the codec itself. *snip*


Both great posts. Perhaps someone needs to come up with a more suitable term for the industry to use, and sooner rather than later lest we start seeing every company using some inane variant of "visually lossless".

[yoak]

There is a catch - if you make any changes in Premiere, you won't be able to stay using ProRes. The codec is only a decoder, not an encoder, so whilst you can read the files on a PC, you will need to use another codec (or uncompressed) if you send the files back to the Mac.

Guess I should have read more about it, but I was too excited.
Still have to figure out workarounds then.

[netdog]

And if we really want to get picky every recorded image is compressed from the start because nothing can record an infinite amount of information.

Lethal

Lossless is generally applied to the acquisition and compression of digital sources and means that from the compressed file, an original can be recreated that matches that file bit for bit. Nobody talks about Lossless archiving of LPs or analog photographs.

As for DVD and CD conversion, yes, lossless means lossless in regards to the original source, though indeed films are compressed to make DVDs (substantially compressed in fact) and music played in a studio is dramatically compressed as well, starting with the microphones or other devices used to capture sound.

[ThePhage]

I'm not a compression expert, but I am a video editor and a phrase such as "visually lossless" speaks to me (it has since I read a description of Cineform's codec 2 years ago). It doesn't mislead me. I immediately understand that it refers to a compressed format, otherwise it would be termed "Uncompressed." I know that this compression scheme will be throwing away information, but the "visual" prefix is an indicator of how important that information is (or isn't).

Today lossless compression isn't used for video in any serious degree. Video is commonly either uncompressed or compressed in a lossy fashion. Uncompressed video requires large amount of storage capacity (especially at HD resolution, high sample depth, and with no color subsampling). So the question becomes, does a lossy compression scheme hold enough visual quality after x number of render generations before losing the benefit of smaller file sizes.

However, I can understand how audiophiles who are used to slinging around the "lossless/lossy" terms in endless online debates could be misled. Perhaps the marketing people decided that "Almost Lossless" didn't quit fit the bill.

[Tosser]

I'm not a compression expert, but I am a video editor and a phrase such as "visually lossless" speaks to me (it has since I read a description of Cineform's codec 2 years ago). It doesn't mislead me. I immediately understand that it refers to a compressed format, otherwise it would be termed "Uncompressed." I know that this compression scheme will be throwing away information, but the "visual" prefix is an indicator of how important that information is (or isn't).
Funny. On one hand you agree that it isn't lossless, and that you don't get the "lossless" part from the monicker. Then why on earth do you think that "lossless" is even a part of the name?
You also agree that this is a lossy format, so why on earth not call it what it is?
The reason is of course, that what you claim - or infer, if you will - isn't true as a whole. It IS a marketing term to make it sound like it is something it isn't all the while covering their respective arses.


Today lossless compression isn't used for video in any serious degree. Video is commonly either uncompressed or compressed in a lossy fashion. Uncompressed video requires large amount of storage capacity (especially at HD resolution, high sample depth, and with no color subsampling). So the question becomes, does a lossy compression scheme hold enough visual quality after x number of render generations before losing the benefit of smaller file sizes.
As mentioned, it IS a lossy format (YOU even mention it), and thus the only reason for including the term "lossless" is to make belief it is something it isn't.


However, I can understand how audiophiles who are used to slinging around the "lossless/lossy" terms in endless online debates could be misled. Perhaps the marketing people decided that "Almost Lossless" didn't quit fit the bill.

I, for one, am not an audiophile. Your put-down really is misplaced and ignorant.

I get that you don't care either way, but I really don't see the need to muddy the waters by introducing a lossy format, but calling it "[virtually] lossless". It's a high bit rate lossy format. That's it.
On principle, I wouldn't like cameras which crops to be called "visually full frame" either. It 's a matter of using the correct terms. Oh, and in short - with regards to the last paragraph of yours: Don't be daft.

[jimis83]

hello i have a mac and i have movies that support subtitles that you can download from different websites. but when i open the movie and watch they appear like chinese/greek.if i choose english subs all is ok.what is wrong??i use the vlc player!!!!

[LethalWolfe]

I have a better idea, since it's lossy, let's call it lossy. If you want to differentiate between low bitrate mp3 and so forth, let's call this a high bitrate lossy format, because that is what it is. No more, no less.
But when the next logical question is "How well does the image compare to the original?" and the answer is "visually there is no loss of image info" why give these kinds of codecs an obtuse, generic moniker? For practical purposes, IMO, "visually lossless" is a better name than "high bit rate lossy format" because "visually lossless" tells me two things. First, it tells me that the codec is lossy. Second, it tells me that the codec, even though lossy, shouldn't degrade the visual quality of the image compared to an uncompressed codec under typical use. There is a difference between visually lossy and mathematically lossy so I don't see the problem using a term that takes that difference into account.

Some posters are saying they've never heard of "visually lossless" before the start of this thread and think it is an inaccurate, marketing term. I'm saying I've seen the term for around two years now and I find it a helpful term to use when discussing codecs. To each their own. In the end though I'm more interested in what the image really looks like than what an engineer in a lab w/a calculator says it should look like. For example, I know some guys that go HDV->DVCPro HD->HDCAM SR (for final delivery to the network) because their shop is built around a DVCPro HD workflow. On paper this doesn't look like a good workflow. In practice though it works w/o a hitch for these guys as they've never had a show fail quality control due to that additional transcode. I attempt to stay on top of the general aspects of codecs so I can remain aware of what's happening to the footage as it moves along from production to post to final delivery, but I don't let semantics get in the way of a viable workflow. The proof is in the pudding and if the final product looks solid I consider it a good workflow even if 'on paper' it doesn't look like the best way to do things.

The reason I brought up compression during acquisitions was just an attempt to illustrate that in practice both "uncompressed" and "compressed" are moving targets in terms of quality. For example, given comparable cameras a compressed DV signal is on par w/an 'uncompressed' signal captured from a BetaSP tape (Link-scroll down slightly) (http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html). As technology keeps getting bigger, faster, and cheaper the traditional off-line (lossy/compressed) and on-line (uncompressed) workflow, necessitated by technological limitations, will keep getting blurred and 'compressed' isn't the four letter word it used to be.


Lethal