Exactly what I was going to mention. At this stage DNX strikes me as being a much better alternative, especially when considering all the strange gamma idiocy one runs into with QuickTime.
Best, Chris Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:04 AM, chris <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/29/13 at 5:37 PM, (Martin Winkler) wrote: >> Prores444 isn't lossless. >> I'm not sure what makes people think that it was in the first place. > > i don't think that many people think it is, but it's a *very* good tradeoff > of quality vs file size with the conveniences (and annoyances) of a quicktime > file. > > and while it's not lossless, the degradation i've seen so far are virtually > invisible and nowhere near the stuff in the current case. > > but how about contacting arri directly about the artifacts? > > i'd assume they'll have a clue what caused it, and if they haven't i'm sure > they'd be very interested to find out. > > ++ chris > > > ps: as a side note, i did some tests recently with DNxHD185X for a > greenscreen shoot, both in hardware (blackmagic shuttle) capture and in > software conversions, and had very visible block artifacts in both when > pulling the matte and despill. ProRes422 on the other hand was very usable. > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users _______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
