• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Favorite Edit of the Year (FEOTY) Nominations for 2020 are now open! Submit your entries here.

Prometheus: Giftbearer

Severian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
Thanks again for the reviews, guys! It's incredibly gratifying to hear that the edit seems to work both for people who were frustrated by the original and for people who liked the original as-is.

geminigod said:
DominicCobb said:
But the movie, as a whole, is a lot less mysterious.

Funny, I thought this edit made things more mysterious, but maybe my opinion is tainted because of interviews with Ridley Scott that I have seen.

Is there a difference between mysterious and confusing? I think so...

The dream of the engineer, for example, makes it less likely IMO that we are seeing actual history vs. just something in her imagination.

Yeah, in the original the engineer-sacrifice scene is presented as objective history, but in the edit it's in the subjective space of Elizabeth's dream -- so it could be just her imagination's reaction to what she's found out/what she's undergoing, or it could be a vision of the truth (spicediver brought up the interesting possibility of 'racial memory') -- I wanted to leave that open to interpretation. So I agree that part is made more mysterious, and I also wanted to make 'what will be discovered by the crew' more mysterious (even though any Prometheus viewer will know it) since, as mentioned in in a post above, in this edit your discover the engineers along with the crew, instead of being set-up to expect them by the engineer-sacrifice scene.

But I do understand Dominic's comment about the tone of the edit overall being less mysterious. I still haven't listened to Scott's commentary (I kind of didn't want it to affect me during editing ), but I did listen to Lindelof's, and from what he said about his and Scott's decisions, it sounded like they both got wrapped up on making Prometheus have a mysterious vibe a) to continue the tone of mystery set by that initial sacrifice-scene b) as a function of having a sequel in mind - how much to reveal now/how much to withhold?

My own take is they got *too* wrapped up in the pursuit of that, to the point of chopping things (seen in the deleted/alternate footage) that gave needed character motivation and context of the overall situation, but which did not, IMO, take away from some central mysteries (though they may take away from some of the mysterious tone).

Even with all the extra footage, we still don't know why the Engineers made us, anything about their civilization (did they seed other planets? was this particular installation once a research lab that got converted into a bio-weapon lab?), or (outside of Scott comments in interviews) why they turned against us, not to mention how did that *other* Engineer ship ended up on LV-426, to be discoverd in Alien. Plenty of mystery to still go around! (and for Shaw to presumably explore in the sequel)
Scott and Lindelof got mystery-happy (and Lindelhof added his additional issue of sacrificing character intelligence/motivation on the altar of Notice-My-Big-Theme).

Now, I love films that are mysterious, and puzzle-films that make the audience work to put the pieces together. And I really do love the engineer-sacrifice as the start of the original film - it's breathtaking, and sets up a great expectation for something amazing to unfold in the rest of the film. And an example of where the original did a good job of seeding clues that explain something that seems to come out of the blue when you watch the first time:

Weyland being asleep on the ship -- well, I mean David speaking to his sleeping form is more or less a giveaway, but there are some nice touches that make more sense upon multiple viewings: 1) When Vickers first wakes up, she asks David, "Has anyone died?" - she's wondering about Weyland (Lindelof talks about this in his commentary). Given her distaste for the mission in general, I assume if Weyland had perished during the voyage, she'd keep everyone asleep and turn the ship right back towards Earth. 2) The med-pod is calibrated for male patients only, which seems stupid at first, but makes sense if it's meant for Weyland (Shaw asks Vickers, "It does bypass surgery, what do you need it for?"). In fact, my suspicion is the entire "lifeboat" was intended for Weyland, given that he's surprised to see Vickers when he's awoken - this would also add more meaning to her "please don't touch that" comments to people when they're in the lifeboat module - she's not warning them off her stuff, she's warning them off her dad's stuff. Along these lines: Weyland being Vickers' dad, which can seem out-of-the-blue in the original, is foreshadowed by her discomfort when hologram-Weyland talks about David being close to a "son" of his.
But for me, there are those other (oft-complained-about) elements of the original that get worse with multiple viewings, making it hard to fully enjoy the original as mystery or puzzle, despite all that's beguiling about it. When I first watched the deleted footage I realized there *was* more thought behind several things that bothered me in the original, and I got inspired to tackle an edit...
 

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Interesting comments. Lots of little things I didn't ever catch or think about. Thanks for the insight.
 

njvc

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
51
Severian, your thoughtful comments and considered points of view are very refreshing. Your edit is a true replacement disk for me. Or it will be at least, once you finish the bluray ;)
 

Sunarep

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,634
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Agreed!
It's good to know that Severian put so much effort in this!
Have yet to write a review but i enjoyed this edit quite a deal! Well done especially for a Firstling, I would be surprised if Giftbearer won't wind up in the top fanedits race of 2013
 

semontrax

Member
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
1
Apologies for this, I feel extremely foolish, I asked a question, but then realised I was in the wrong place, now I can't seem to delete this post.
 

njvc

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
51
semontrax said:
Apologies for this, I feel extremely foolish, I asked a question, but then realised I was in the wrong place, now I can't seem to delete this post.

Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who quotes him? ;)
 

Severian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
geminigod said:
Did somebody say bluray?!?

:p I'm working on it, but it's been frustrating. With both Apple Compressor and Adobe Encoder, I've had to make the Blu-ray compliant render quite huge (33+ GB) to get the overall quality I want, but the renders still have specific issues that the released, non-BD-compliant x264 MP4 DOESN'T have - particularly constant banding in bright light sources like the flashlights, and the dot patterns in Elizabeth's dream of her father turning into ugly flickery, grid-like sheets. I don't think those issues fully ruin the experience, but they're kind of ridiculous to have present on a BD50. I've tried both H264 and MP2 blu-ray settings in both encoders.

I think I'm next going to try throwing the non-BD-compliant x264 MP4 (that I know looks good) (and made with Compressor) into Adobe Encore, let it transcode it for the BD, and see how that looks.
 

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Hmm, sounds concerning. My two cents. I don't think BD is worth it for a bad transcode. This defeats the purpose. You are making a larger file size for worse quality. I also don't think it is a good idea to release it as a BD50. If done properly there shouldn't be a need for more than 25GB. More than that is prohibitively large for downloading and prohibitively expensive for burning.

Something in your workflow isn't right if you can't get good BD output that is <25GB. Seek help,

Another thought. Maybe try going the other direction initially and work on a DVD release? This has a few technical hurdles but is overall easier to work with and would allow you to play with menus and artwork. Then people have at least one non-computer option.
 

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Ok, I am of limited help with mac technical issues, but I am procrastinating on school work so I pulled up your edit. Here are the specs for your mp4 you released:

Code:
GeneralComplete name                            : D:\Fanedits\Prometheus-Giftbearer\Prometheus-Giftbearer-fanedit-v1_2-1280x534-x264.mp4
Format                                   : MPEG-4
Format profile                           : QuickTime
Codec ID                                 : qt  
File size                                : 7.23 GiB
Duration                                 : 2h 17mn
Overall bit rate                         : 7 500 Kbps
Movie name                               : Prometheus-Giftbearer
Description                              :  Prometheus-Giftbearer
Encoded date                             : UTC 2013-02-07 15:15:12
Tagged date                              : UTC 2013-02-07 21:53:54
Writing library                          : Apple QuickTime
com.apple.quicktime.keywords             : Prometheus fanedit
com.apple.quicktime.author               :  Severian
com.apple.quicktime.title                : Prometheus-Giftbearer
Media/UUID                               : BF672853-4788-4F68-8A8D-4C64C92CCEC0
©TSC                                     : 24000
©TSZ                                     : 1001


Video
ID                                       : 1
Format                                   : AVC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                           : High@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC                   : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames                : 4 frames
Format settings, GOP                     : M=4, N=30
Codec ID                                 : avc1
Codec ID/Info                            : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                                 : 2h 17mn
Bit rate                                 : 7 301 Kbps
Width                                    : 1 280 pixels
Height                                   : 533 pixels
Original height                          : 534 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 2.40:1
Original display aspect ratio            : 2.40:1
Frame rate mode                          : Constant
Frame rate                               : 23.976 fps
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 0.446
Stream size                              : 7.04 GiB (97%)
Language                                 : English
Encoded date                             : UTC 2013-02-07 19:14:50
Tagged date                              : UTC 2013-02-07 21:53:54
Color primaries                          : BT.601 NTSC
Transfer characteristics                 : BT.709
Matrix coefficients                      : BT.601


Audio
ID                                       : 2
Format                                   : AAC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile                           : LC
Codec ID                                 : 40
Duration                                 : 2h 17mn
Source duration                          : 2h 18mn
Bit rate mode                            : Constant
Bit rate                                 : 192 Kbps
Channel(s)                               : 2 channels
Channel positions                        : Front: L R
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 KHz
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 192 MiB (3%)
Source stream size                       : 192 MiB (3%)
Language                                 : English
Encoded date                             : UTC 2013-02-07 19:14:58
Tagged date                              : UTC 2013-02-07 21:53:54


Other
ID                                       : 3
Type                                     : Time code
Format                                   : QuickTime TC
Duration                                 : 2h 17mn
Time code of first frame                 : 00:00:00:00
Time code settings                       : Striped
Language                                 : English
Encoded date                             : UTC 2013-02-07 21:53:53
Tagged date                              : UTC 2013-02-07 21:53:54

For starters, this isn't a x264 encode. I believe what you mean to say is H.264, which is a more general description for the AVC video format. X264 refers to a specific GNU freeware codec that was developed to encode H.264. I doubt that is what Quicktime uses. Interestingly, Handbrake for Mac appears to use x264, but rest assured, Apple will never use a general public codec if they can avoid it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264.

Now that said, x264 with the correct settings can make a BD compatible H.264 video file quite well. Handbrake might be worth looking into?? On the PC I use a free x264 program called MeGUI and love it.

As for the other video settings jumping out at me that are definitely not BD compatible:
1) Format profile should be High@4.1
2) GOP should probably something more along the lines of minimum=2 and max number of frames=24. (I actually use 18 because of the dumb authoring program I use called DVD Architect).
3) Height needs to have black borders added to up it to 720 pixels (93 pixels each side).
4) Something funky is going on with your colorimetry. Primaries are BT.601, transfer is BT.709, and matrix is Bt.601. For HD video this should all be BT.709.

The bigger question though is what is your workflow so we can figure out where you are going wrong, starting with the editing program and source files that this MP4 was made from. This MP4 file should NOT be used to try to make a BD with!!

This might be worth a quick read as well. http://www.fanedit.org/forums/announcement.php?f=202&a=6
 

Severian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
geminigod said:
Ok, I am of limited help with mac technical issues, but I am procrastinating on school work so I pulled up your edit. Here are the specs for your mp4 you released:

(specs)

For starters, this isn't a x264 encode. I believe what you mean to say is H.264, which is a more general description for the AVC video format. X264 refers to a specific GNU freeware codec that was developed to encode H.264. I doubt that is what Quicktime uses. Interestingly, Handbrake for Mac appears to use x264, but rest assured, Apple will never use a general public codec if they can avoid it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264.

Now that said, x264 with the correct settings can make a BD compatible H.264 video file quite well. Handbrake might be worth looking into?? On the PC I use a free x264 program called MeGUI and love it.

As for the other video settings jumping out at me that are definitely not BD compatible:
1) Format profile should be High@4.1
2) GOP should probably something more along the lines of minimum=2 and max number of frames=24. (I actually use 18 because of the dumb authoring program I use called DVD Architect).
3) Height needs to have black borders added to up it to 480 pixels (93 pixels each side).
4) Something funky is going on with your colorimetry. Primaries are BT.601, transfer is BT.709, and matrix is Bt.601. For HD video this should all be BT.709.

The bigger question though is what is your workflow so we can figure out where you are going wrong, starting with the editing program and source files that this MP4 was made from. This MP4 file should NOT be used to try to make a BD with!!

This might be worth a quick read as well. http://www.fanedit.org/forums/announcement.php?f=202&a=6

Ah, thanks for that! Yes, I think you're right the the released MP4 is H.264 instead of x264.

Note that that released MP4 is *not* what I've previously tried to create compliant BD-video with - I was just considering experimenting with throwing that MP4 into Abode Encoder to see what the transcoding results will be like, since the other 'correct' ways have not worked out well so far - but I agree that all the points you raise definitely make that sound like a bad idea! :)

Here are two main two encoding 1080p for BD approaches I've used so far:

1. Rendering from Final Cut X (the project) with its 'Send to Compressor' option. Compressor gives you much more fine control over the settings than the available render templates in Final Cut. I've tried various settings in Compressor, including its built-in defaults for BD authoring (with various bitrates), and using settings generated by this program's output for BD (it spits out a Compressor setting file based on what you've chosen. Its set to almost max bitrates by default which I dialed back, and then back up in successive tests). I'm not at home, so I can't post the exact specs of those various settings right now, but I will add some specs to this post later.

2) Exporting from Final Cut X, using its 'Master file' setting (its recommended template for a final file render). This produces a Quicktime-wrapper .mov around a ProPres422-encode of the video. (ProRes422 is the format of the source files used in the project as well). This ProRes422 .mov file is what I've been feeding Abode Media Encoder, as the source to render out separate BD-compliant video and audio tracks. I have fooled around with various of Encoder's built-in bluray tempates. I will post their specs as well.

As a failed experiment, on Windows, I tried feeding the ProPres422 .mov file to MultiAVCHD (MultiAVCHD was reommended earlier in this thread) to see if I could render smaller and better looking BD-compliant files that way, but it refused - "incompatible" message (MultiAVCHD lists .mov as supported, but it likely does not like the ProRes).

About DVD, I may end up doing that, but I'd really like to solve the BD equation, because I've got the authoring down with Adobe Encore (made test BDs using renders from the above experiments), it's just the encoding of the video that's the issue right now. And yes, even if the other issues weren't happening, I agree that BD50 would only be practical for personal use, not distribution, so I'd like to get to BD25.

Edit: Oh, and I did look at Handbrake, and while it seems excllent for producing viewing-on-computer final files, it BD-compliant output had worse issues (additional banding and artificating, etc) than Compressor or Encoder (and it has less settings to fiddle with than either of those.)

I realize I have not tried out PavTube Video Converter, which I have, for conversion-to-BD-compliant. It sucks for rendering viewing-on-computer final files, but was excellent for the intial conversion of ripped-from-BD files to ProPres422 so they could be used in Final Cut. I would doubt its BD-compatabile results would be better than the above program's, but I'll try it.

There'a also the option from Compressor to export completely uncompressed - and maybe, say, Encoder and MultiAVCHD would produce better results with that non-ProRes file as the source - but that seems insane, because that file would be IMMENSE, more than 1TB as opposed to the about 120GB ProPres...I'd need to get a new external HD, basically.

But maybe there's some other, non-ProRes422 but still high quality export I should do instead, that would work better with Encoder or some Windows program?

I will take a look at MeGUI - maybe that will solve these woes!

EDIT for TL;DR: I'm able to author BD successfully, but getting a BD-compliant 1080p encode that is a) good-looking b) small enough for BD25 and c) does not have banding/father-dream-sequence-pattern issues is the issue.
 

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Severian said:
There'a also the option from Compressor to export completely uncompressed - and maybe, say, Encoder and MultiAVCHD would produce better results with that non-ProRes file as the source - but that seems insane, because that file would be IMMENSE, more than 1TB as opposed to the about 120GB ProPres...I'd need to get a new external HD, basically.

But maybe there's some other, non-ProRes422 but still high quality export I should do instead, that would work better with Encoder or some Windows program?

You have a number of options given that you appear to have access to Mac and PC.

Before I forget, multiavchd is more useful for disc authoring than video encoding. The only thing I have ever used multiavchd for is to change some stuff around on a BD without having to re-author the whole thing from scratch (specifically I have used it to swap out audio tracks).

It is time to seek out some proper guides. I think there is a HD authoring guide somewhere here for mac??? If not hopefully a mac user will chime in and tell you how to correct your workflow. You definitely have some issues going on here that are causing your problems. Probably related to this Prores422 thing you have going on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProRes_422. Oh yeah, screw that. That is some BS proprietary Apple lossy format bullshit. If you can't render direct to an avc/H.264 file from Final Cut, then you need to render to a lossless intermediate file. The files still wind up being 100-200 GB, but better than fully uncompressed. Editing in HD requires lots of hard drive space. Unfortunately the main lossless compression formats we use in the PC world aren't available on mac.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/compressor/specs/. But based on what you said, you have a "Send to Compressor" option, and it appears that Compressor is theoretically capable of making a BD H.264 file for you. Give that a shot and report back.
 

Severian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
geminigod said:
You have a number of options given that you appear to have access to Mac and PC.

Before I forget, multiavchd is more useful for disc authoring than video encoding. The only thing I have ever used multiavchd for is to change some stuff around on a BD without having to re-author the whole thing from scratch (specifically I have used it to swap out audio tracks).

Ah, good to know!

It is time to seek out some proper guides. I think there is a HD authoring guide somewhere here for mac??? If not hopefully a mac user will chime in and tell you how to correct your workflow. You definitely have some issues going on here that are causing your problems. Probably related to this Prores422 thing you have going on? [URL said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProRes_422[/URL]. Oh yeah, screw that. That is some BS proprietary Apple lossy format bullshit.

With those earlier attempts, I was following some guides on setting Compressor to make a .m2v or .m4v that Encore wouldn't want to transcode. But Encore-not-transcoding only worked part of that time, and with or without transcoding the issues I mentioned earlier remained, so yes, I need to dig around more.

But I wouldn't be too quick to completely pooh-pooh ProRes422 - all the source files for this edit are in ProRes422, so ProRes422 --> edit --> 720p computer-viewable MP4 (the release) worked well, and the 200GB ProRes422 mov exported from Compressor looks great, it's only once I feed that source through Adobe Encoder that the issues occur. But I agree that it's likely just not going to play with the Encoder, and is likely worthless as source for any windows encoders I may end up trying.

geminigod said:
If you can't render direct to an avc/H.264 file from Final Cut, then you need to render to a lossless intermediate file. The files still wind up being 100-200 GB, but better than fully uncompressed. Editing in HD requires lots of hard drive space. Unfortunately the main lossless compression formats we use in the PC world aren't available on mac.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/compressor/specs/. But based on what you said, you have a "Send to Compressor" option, and it appears that Compressor is theoretically capable of making a BD H.264 file for you. Give that a shot and report back.

So the partial good news is that I tried this out - using Compressor's 'H.264 for Bluray' setting, I did get a smaller file (20 GB) that looks great in general. The bad news is it still has some banding issues (not as bad, but still inexcusable enough given a 20GB file), and the father-dream-sequence still doesn't look as good as the rest of the render. What's weird is some of these issues I can see when doing a preview monitor of the video timeline in Encore, but others only appear when viewing the burned BD. This would point to evil transcoding on Encore's part, and though it shows the H.264 file from Compressor as 'Untranscoded' in the media list, when I actually build the BD image, it only takes several minutes to 'import' that H.264 file -- when Encore has transcoded video before, it's taken many hours, so I don't think it's actually transcoding it, but SOMEthing weird is obviously happening.

Anyway, it seems the only step in Compressor between ProRes422 and uncompressed is ProRes4444, so I'll try a render of that, to go ProRes4444 --> BD-H.264 via Encoder --> Encore and see if that goes any better. If that doesn't work, guess I'll wait til next paycheck, get a new external drive and try an uncompressed render to be used as a source for Encoder (or some Windows encoders).

Thanks for your suggestions, geminigod, and if anyone with secret Compressor knowledge can chime in, please halp! :)

In other news, thinking of trying to upload the released MP4 to RS again, for the usenet-phobic...
 

Neglify

Well-known member
Messages
13,970
Reaction score
5
Trophy Points
123
Severian said:
In other news, thinking of trying to upload the released MP4 to RS again, for the usenet-phobic...

Skip RS. Upload to Mega.
 

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Severian said:
But I wouldn't be too quick to completely pooh-pooh ProRes422 - all the source files for this edit are in ProRes422, so ProRes422 --> edit --> 720p computer-viewable MP4 (the release) worked well, and the 200GB ProRes422 mov exported from Compressor looks great

Maybe... Honestly I didn't get past the first wiki sentence: "ProRes is a lossy video format developed by apple" And you say your file is 200GB?? On the PC side I edit with a lossless compression format called Lagarith, which results in no data loss and a fle size of ~120-150GB for a 2 hour movie.

Either way, at a file size that large you should be pretty much near-lossless, but I'm still putting my money on Prores editing files being to blame. Because it is proprietary apple bullshit, it could explain why re-encoding to some formats work and others don't.

Or maybe it is a project properties problem?

Definitely isn't a problem with Encore if it is only taking a couple minutes to build your BD.

20GB for the final format sounds like the right size. Shouldn't need to be any larger than that.

Regarding switching to ProRes 4444, according to the comparison on that wiki link, the only difference between the two is that 4444 can support higher colorspace bit depths. 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4. They are both still technically lossy codecs. Furthermore, colorspace conversions of this kind might also potentially relate to your problem (though I doubt it). Your original BD source was 4:2:0, also known as YV12. You probably changed this to 4:2:2 when making your ProRes editing files, which could explain why your file size is 200GB instead of closer to 100GB.

Screenshots of your project property settings and your H.264/AVC rendering settings might shed some light here, but...

It's really time for some apple people to step up. L8wrtr njvc, get in there!

 

Severian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
geminigod said:
Maybe... Honestly I didn't get past the first wiki sentence: "ProRes is a lossy video format developed by apple" And you say your file is 200GB?? On the PC side I edit with a lossless compression format called Lagarith, which results in no data loss and a fle size of ~120-150GB for a 2 hour movie.

Ah, sorry, I was thinking of a different attempt - the ProRes422 "Master File" .mov is 115GB, not 200GB.

geminigod said:
Either way, at a file size that large you should be pretty much near-lossless, but I'm still putting my money on Prores editing files being to blame. Because it is proprietary apple bullshit, it could explain why re-encoding to some formats work and others don't.

Or maybe it is a project properties problem?

Definitely isn't a problem with Encore if it is only taking a couple minutes to build your BD.

Well the total takes longer than that, but the part I watched closely, its 'Importing' of the H.264, took maybe 5-7 minutes? As opposed to hours when before I think it showed a "Transcoding" task as part of the total build. I'll watch closely when I try again.

geminigod said:
20GB for the final format sounds like the right size. Shouldn't need to be any larger than that.

Regarding switching to ProRes 4444, according to the comparison on that wiki link, the only difference between the two is that 4444 can support higher colorspace bit depths. 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4. They are both still technically lossy codecs. Furthermore, colorspace conversions of this kind might also potentially relate to your problem (though I doubt it). Your original BD source was 4:2:0, also known as YV12. You probably changed this to 4:2:2 when making your ProRes editing files, which could explain why your file size is 200GB instead of closer to 100GB.

Yeah I was wondering if colorspace (which I don't have a strong grasp of) is causing some issue. It looks like you're right that ProRes 4444 won't don't add anything useful, as VLC reports that both the ProRes422 source files for the edit and the ProRes422 'master file' render are both 'Planar 4:2:2 YUV 10-bit LE'.

Screenshots of your project property settings and your H.264/AVC rendering settings might shed some light here, but...

The FCPX project settings are very bare-bones - it seems to setup a bunch of things under-the-hood based on your choice of resolution (1080p in this case) and the media you import. All I get is:

Screen_Shot_2013_03_03_at_9_29_29_AM.png


For Compressor's 'H.264 for Blu-ray' setting, we at least have more data:

Code:
Name: H.264 for Blu-ray
Description: H.264 elementary stream for Blu-ray and AVCHD authoring
File Extension: 264
Estimated size: 22.84 GB
Video Encoder
    Width and Height: Automatic
        Selected: 1920 x 1080
    Pixel aspect ratio: Square
    Crop: None
    Padding: Preserve source aspect ratio
        (L: 0, T: 0, R: 0, B: 0)
    Frame rate: (100% of source)
        Selected: 23.976
    Frame Controls: Automatically selected: Off
    Stream usage: Blu-ray
    Multi-pass: Off
    Average bit rate: 22.066523 (Mbps)
        Maximum bit rate: 30.013089 (Mbps)

Well, one thing I just noticed posting that, is that multi-pass is off by default! :-? I'll try again with that checked!

It's really time for some apple people to step up. L8wrtr njvc, get in there!

Yes, any words of advice welcome! :)
 

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Out of curiosity, can you post a picture of the "banding" going on?
 

njvc

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
51
Sorry, I'm a pc man and not so great on the tech side. I've already suggested to [MENTION=21856]Severian[/MENTION] what works for me, and so far no dice. Perhaps this looks like a job for the captain?
 

Severian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
geminigod said:
Out of curiosity, can you post a picture of the "banding" going on?

Sure -

Screenshot from project - the flashlight light is nicely diffused

Screenshot from H264 BD - the color banding in beam on the right behind Shaw, and in background colors b/w Holloway and Shaw - that's what's often happening with the flashlight light. In motion, all that's less noticeable, but you notice banding more around Holloway's light as it moves.

In the melee scene, with the lights flickering on and off, there's actually some banding in my source clips:

Screenshot from project

But it becomes much more pronounced in the BD (on the right):

Screenshot from H264 BD

The H264 render that's multi- instead of single-pass is about to finish, to I'll see if that helps...
 
Top Bottom