Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases ProRes QuickTime Decoder 1.0
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
What is the relationship between AIC and ProRes422?
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!)
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!)
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.
Why Windows?
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)
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)
Reversible
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.
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.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6130505/
This is great
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.
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.
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".
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)
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.
Couldn't help myself: WPXI runs on Windows
DigiBeta uses a lossy compression very similar to that used by JPEG.
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.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)
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.
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".
Yes it is.
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.
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.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)
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.
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."
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
Steve Get off Your Ass and fix the iPhone
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.
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.
You want to bet money on that prediction?
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.
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.