Apple’s ProRes codec is great, boasting great images and manageable files sizes, but its wider adoption is hampered by its proprietary distribution model. When Apple got into the editing business at the turn of the century it was a very different company. Avid had threatened to abandon the Mac platform, and Apple wanted to continue selling high end workstations to the professional video market. Few dared to imagine that Final Cut Pro would eventually challenge Avid as the dominant professional NLE.
While I’ve been quite pleased using ProRes 422 as an editing codec, I’ve been hampered in adopting it in a wider range of tasks. Visually, ProRes compares well to Avid’s DNxHD family of codecs, but unlike DNxHD ProRes is Mac-only. I can’t send a ProRes encoded QuickTime file to a PC for encoding, as a source for After Effects work, or import into an Avid or Premiere Pro system. Because Avid’s DNxHD is cross-platform, and Avid has a track record of supporting legacy codecs in later revisions, I have used all manner of Avid codecs for archiving purposes.
Sharing the wealth
Most importantly, Avid allows me to share its codecs with clients and colleagues. By making its codecs available for download, I can be confident that anyone who needs to open my files can. (One notable exception: Avid’s IMX codecs are not publicly available due to licensing issues.)
ProRes only ships with Final Cut Studio 2. There’s no publicly available download. I’m not authorized to zip them up and email them to a client.
While Avid aggressively sought to have its DNxHD codecs declared VC-3 compliant by SMPTE, made the codecs available for third party licensing, and increased their usability to a broad range of post production pros by adding alpha channel support, Apple has clung to its traditionally closed, proprietary model. It’s hard to understand what Apple gains from this approach.
Development of Apple’s ProApps has proceeded at a healthy pace. Extending Apple’s industry reach through ProRes can only be a good thing. Since Apple’s saving all that money passing on NAB, maybe a few development dollars towards a cross-platform, public release of ProRes might be a nice consolation prize.
If Apple remains completely averse to a free, public release, it might consider bundling it with QuickTime Pro (assuming Apple plans on keeping ProApps in the corporate fold).
(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )
Since my editing suit is based on FCP, I decided to go with ProRes. But I would be absolutely willing to work in DNxHD.
What we would need is only a Quicktime Plugin for MXF (and DNxHD) media. Should not be too great of a deal to program that – and no license issues? Gone would be the times of rewrapping P2 and others, FCP could edit Avid media, the world would be a better place.
Apple always was a system-hub, open to a lot of standards. Why not with video codecs?
Posted by on 02/25 at 10:49 PM
I believe ProRes was intended as a finishing and mastering codec. Wouldn’t it be easier to send a client a H.264 compressed file, with all its benefits, a file that the client could share with his associates for approval, instead of having to install codecs on the machines he needs to preview the footage?
Posted by on 02/26 at 03:26 AM
Frank ,
While i agree with you about having ProRes open and how nice it would be for my workflows with cross platform and multiple apps i think there are some key points you are missing on comparing these to codecs.
DNxHD was shown back in 2003 and has been on the market for a long time already vs the 11 months ProRes has been on the market.Apple never stated or marketed that ProRes was a mastering/finishing codec even at NAB last year i remember them using it in all descriptions as a “working” format.
As far as opening it up lets not kid ourselves here about DNxHD being totally open on all ends.
ProRes for being so new has inexpensive 3rd party supported devices like the IOHD . Avid may license the codec but does it license the hardware to encode ?Other then Ikegami is the only one i know of.What is the use if i need a codec(DNxHD) for a workflow when i need proprietary hardware to encode it on?
It seems to me that for ProRes being so new that they are leading in getting 3rd party support out to customers.
ProRes is a very nimble codec letting me send work at near loss-less quality (yes i know ProRes is lossy not loss-less) and small file sizes while with DNxHD colleges/clients would need fast bandwith, a good system for playback and a video board to evaluate on lets say a nice HD plasma we like producers and clients to watch on .... but wait sorry Avid systems dont support inexpensive 3rd party boards .Why ?Because its a closed system.
Apple has only marketed ProRes as an intermediate codec not an archive or mastering one just to clear that up.If your destination if Tape or web then what does it matter what codec is used to get you there as long as it gives you the most amount of real time response and quality throughout.
How many streams of RT effects can you get on Xpress or Adrenaline like you can with a stock Mac Pro with FCS?
Oh wait need Nitris to get that same quality RT as the stock Mac Pro.
As an editor,effects artist and integrator ill take RT performance over being a SMPTE standard any-day.
And the Apple ProApps scare tactic is a little old and childish.
Posted by on 02/26 at 01:54 PM
I am going to laugh so hard when Apple sells off its ProApps.
I don’t think Frank was saying one codec is better than the other, his main point is that Avid has been pretty open with the codec and that it is Cross Platform, which makes life easier for everyone using it. Availability of hardware supported boards is irrelevant to this discussion.
Can I play DNxHD files on a Mac and PC - Yes
Can I download the codec and install it in AFX on Mac and PC - Yes
Can I do the same things with ProRes - No
Would it be great if I could - Yes
Will it happen - No
Mostly because we all know that Creative work only happens on the Mac. Right?
Posted by on 02/26 at 05:58 PM
I think ProRes installers will be available on PC when Final Cut Server ships. Shouldn’t be too long. ProRes is just a baby, give it a few months.
Posted by on 02/26 at 08:55 PM
What is the point, in this day and age, or releasing a single platform Codec? Where is the business logic? Editing is happening on Apple, XP, Vista, Linux, etc.
Frankly, Apple just angers me more and more with these asinine decisions. The AIC codec is another one. I had someone send me some work for posting that was encoded with AIC. I can’t read it.
Is it really asking too much to have a codec released in at LEAST Apple and Windows flavors since they are the dominant platforms?
Posted by on 02/28 at 01:01 PM
Frank,
I just wanted to apologize for slightly misrepresenting your argument on the latest edition of This Week in Media, a show I’m on.
I tend to speak slowly and thoughtfully and we had 7 guests on this week, so I wasn’t able to complete my argument and made it sound like you wanted Apple to move to DNxHD instead of free the Apple ProRes CODEC to be multi-platform and open.
I do understand your argument and while I may not agree with it, I don’t want to be thought of as a person who misrepresents what you’ve proposed.
Thanks.
Posted by John Flowers on 02/29 at 11:02 PM
This is great example of a well balanced and professional article.
However judging by a few of the comments its a great shame there are still many Apple zealots who refuse to accept anything other than Apple-Is-Always-Right.
If you people continue to look at everything in black and white you will miss out on many opportunities in life. Accept that there are many good and not so good products from all companies; no one company is perfect.
Thats the point of this article, to point out where one company could look to help its customers more.
If you don’t agree with what Frank suggests, fine, but you need to do better than just saying Avid is proprietary and FCP gives you more streams in RT in explaining that difference of view.
Just be objective to the article in question and truthful - “...while with DNxHD colleges/clients would need fast bandwith, a good system for playback...” - this is not helpful since its untrue.
When comparing HD codecs, DNxHD goes as low as 36 mbit/sec which is significantly lower than ProRes can. The other DNxHD codecs are about the same data rate as their ProRes counterparts. In terms of system playback, I’ve not run any side by side comparisons, so all I can say is I’ve not had any playback issues with DNxHD on any of the systems I use - MacBook Pro, G5 2.0 and HP XW8200. Please be more specific and informative.
Something Apple have done that Avid would do well to add would be a DNxSD version of their codec for SD work. A DNxSD replacement for 14:1p might be quite useful for example.
Posted by on 03/01 at 04:35 AM
Interesting development…
First licensing of ProRes 422 outside the AJA/Apple alliance.
Posted by Martin Baker on 03/17 at 01:53 AM
hmm thats look intresting
Posted by CasCad on 05/13 at 05:40 AM
Lets it go pro, i agree!
Posted by Laptoper on 05/14 at 07:43 PM
mxazuilr http://ttxyuxcc.com pmbubjlm cpmodmxb lkaubdki ldzdojzd
Posted by pxgdbzmw on 07/02 at 08:02 PM