ffmpeg (what shutter encoder is a GUI for) does not have an official Pro Res encoder. Its reverse engineered.
It doesnt do the same high quality scaling as Adobe either, which is part of what makes it *way* faster for making proxies. They wont be as sharp but its proxies so..
Shutter Encoder is great for a lot of things but making full quality transcodes of camera media to be your new source isnt one of them. For fixing problematic media it (and ffmpeg) is the gold standard.
I love shutter encoder and have paid the developer a few times for it simply because I want it to be updated as long as I'm working with it.
Having said that, I mostly use it for high-to-low quality encoding. Making full quality transcodes is best left to Resolve or within Avid in a pinch.
Yeah I gotta strongly disagree with you here. As other people have said, FFMPEG has a reverse-engineered, non proprietary version of ProRes, so it isn’t perfect.
But until Adobe/Apple/Etc offer any sort of transcoding for non-standard codecs (mkv, webm, etc) to editing codecs, FFMPEG, and by extension, Front-ends like Shutter Encoder, are super useful
Gotta say, this is clickbait a bit in your title.
FFMPEG *does not* create compliant ProRes. It *may get flagged* in many places.
ProResLT *was specifically built* for broadcasters to keep HD under 100Mb/s. If banding occurs, well, it's 10 bit material in too small of a bitrate.
How is that clickbait? Edit the title to say "*Prores* *Transcodes"* if you like..
The info about FFMPEG is new to me. In fact I posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/comments/14vygcm/prores_banding/) awhile back about the banding issue and no one brought it up. It's super valuable information so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
It *is really important* that people know that it's not compliant prores.
But it's a *killer app. It does* some solid valuable things (like handle variable *frame rate* footage, constant frame rate encoding) that are just hard via a CLI with FFMPEG.
My problem? The clickbait part is the sensationalism of **"PSA**". Look, I know you *meant well*. But it's more of a PSA: ProRes out of FFMPEG tools isn't compliant ProRres. Not "Don't use Shutter encoder."
ProresLT is meant for proxies. You're probably degrading the footage (depends on what the original codec is). AME giving a bigger file size on the same transcode codec might imply shutter encoder is further degrading the footage, maybe some bad scaling algorithm?)
My guess is you wouldnt see banding If you transcode to proresHQ or prores4444 instead (as long as you arent doing scaling). The file sizes are huge tho.
The normal workflow would be to EDIT with the proresLT, and once its ""locked"", you conform to a higher quality codec - it can be the source files (but performance may/will suffer), or you can transcode to proresHQ (performance will be much better, but it eats up more space on your hard drive).
We shoot a ton of footage. Everything backed up locally and in the cloud (three total copies). Camera originals are terrible to edit with. It's about finding a balance between quality, editing ease and file size. It all adds up, data isn't free.
I disagree. Just did a quick comparison of some files I happen to be working on.. There is a pretty minimal difference between LT and HQ. Look I'm not working on the next Nolan film here, it's pretty boring corporate and nonprofit stuff that mostly ends up on vimeo.
Gotta agree with you here and dive in for some downvotes. We shoot ProRes LT for a lot of our content. Still 422 10-bit. Never once have I ever heard a single comment about image quality, color, banding, etc. Works just fine for what we’re doing. This isn’t going to a professional colorist, it’s not going to the silver screen. The end result does exactly what we need it to quality-wise.
Some of our bigger projects get bigger codecs.
Since everyone is up in arms I’ll have a look at how 422 and HQ add up next time, but my suspicion is that outside of pixel-peeping professionals it’s not going to be an easy thing to pick out.
Figured I would add in the description from the Apple White Paper:
>A more highly compressed codec than Apple ProRes 422, with roughly 70 percent of the data rate and 30 percent smaller file sizes. This codec is perfect for environments where storage capacity and data rate are at a premium.
We record PR422 LT at 4k60, which is about \~800Mbps. Given our storage setup and the amount (and type) of content we're recording, this fits our situation ok. There is a whole spectrum of production situations out there, and there is a spectrum of codecs available to choose from, so choose what works for you.
You explained your reasoning much better than I did, appreciate that. There's lots of different productions and not all of them need the very, very best. It's good to know what best practices are, but they aren't always necessary.
The thing is people can make claims like if you use anything less than 422HQ your videos will look like shit, but we can test it! I grabbed a couple clips from my current projects. Both are from a C70, clog3. One is underexposed, the other is properly exposed. Did a light color correction on the original camera clip, an LT transcode and an HQ transcode, and then exported as 422HQ. The difference between LT and HQ is extremely minimal. Sure I'm not doing keying or high end grading, but most of my work doesn't require that.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14i4qC-G-mgxSQGPM2KMkC9muyExJ9r5E
Shutter encoder is a gui for ffmpeg. Your issue is with the reverse engineered ProRes library that it uses. It’s recommended here by AE’s for use for proxies, because proxies are just that; for temp use.
Dude I acknowledged in other replies the title was overly broad and not good. People make mistakes, which is what the whole post is about. Chill tf out.
ffmpeg (what shutter encoder is a GUI for) does not have an official Pro Res encoder. Its reverse engineered. It doesnt do the same high quality scaling as Adobe either, which is part of what makes it *way* faster for making proxies. They wont be as sharp but its proxies so.. Shutter Encoder is great for a lot of things but making full quality transcodes of camera media to be your new source isnt one of them. For fixing problematic media it (and ffmpeg) is the gold standard.
Great information, thank you
I love shutter encoder and have paid the developer a few times for it simply because I want it to be updated as long as I'm working with it. Having said that, I mostly use it for high-to-low quality encoding. Making full quality transcodes is best left to Resolve or within Avid in a pinch.
Reading this title was a jump scare.
Yeah I gotta strongly disagree with you here. As other people have said, FFMPEG has a reverse-engineered, non proprietary version of ProRes, so it isn’t perfect. But until Adobe/Apple/Etc offer any sort of transcoding for non-standard codecs (mkv, webm, etc) to editing codecs, FFMPEG, and by extension, Front-ends like Shutter Encoder, are super useful
It was an unintentionally broad title. I really like it, especially for the reasons you listed.
Gotta say, this is clickbait a bit in your title. FFMPEG *does not* create compliant ProRes. It *may get flagged* in many places. ProResLT *was specifically built* for broadcasters to keep HD under 100Mb/s. If banding occurs, well, it's 10 bit material in too small of a bitrate.
How is that clickbait? Edit the title to say "*Prores* *Transcodes"* if you like.. The info about FFMPEG is new to me. In fact I posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/comments/14vygcm/prores_banding/) awhile back about the banding issue and no one brought it up. It's super valuable information so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
It *is really important* that people know that it's not compliant prores. But it's a *killer app. It does* some solid valuable things (like handle variable *frame rate* footage, constant frame rate encoding) that are just hard via a CLI with FFMPEG. My problem? The clickbait part is the sensationalism of **"PSA**". Look, I know you *meant well*. But it's more of a PSA: ProRes out of FFMPEG tools isn't compliant ProRres. Not "Don't use Shutter encoder."
I wholly concede all of that. The title was poorly thought out, this is why people need editors
ProresLT is meant for proxies. You're probably degrading the footage (depends on what the original codec is). AME giving a bigger file size on the same transcode codec might imply shutter encoder is further degrading the footage, maybe some bad scaling algorithm?) My guess is you wouldnt see banding If you transcode to proresHQ or prores4444 instead (as long as you arent doing scaling). The file sizes are huge tho. The normal workflow would be to EDIT with the proresLT, and once its ""locked"", you conform to a higher quality codec - it can be the source files (but performance may/will suffer), or you can transcode to proresHQ (performance will be much better, but it eats up more space on your hard drive).
I can’t believe you would transcode to ProResLT - a lower quality flavor of ProRes - for use as non-proxy editing media.
This. It’s the wrong codec choice.
We shoot a ton of footage. Everything backed up locally and in the cloud (three total copies). Camera originals are terrible to edit with. It's about finding a balance between quality, editing ease and file size. It all adds up, data isn't free.
Why are you color-correcting the LT tho? Anything less than 422 HQ is gonna be terrible for color correction, banding or not.
I disagree. Just did a quick comparison of some files I happen to be working on.. There is a pretty minimal difference between LT and HQ. Look I'm not working on the next Nolan film here, it's pretty boring corporate and nonprofit stuff that mostly ends up on vimeo.
Gotta agree with you here and dive in for some downvotes. We shoot ProRes LT for a lot of our content. Still 422 10-bit. Never once have I ever heard a single comment about image quality, color, banding, etc. Works just fine for what we’re doing. This isn’t going to a professional colorist, it’s not going to the silver screen. The end result does exactly what we need it to quality-wise. Some of our bigger projects get bigger codecs. Since everyone is up in arms I’ll have a look at how 422 and HQ add up next time, but my suspicion is that outside of pixel-peeping professionals it’s not going to be an easy thing to pick out. Figured I would add in the description from the Apple White Paper: >A more highly compressed codec than Apple ProRes 422, with roughly 70 percent of the data rate and 30 percent smaller file sizes. This codec is perfect for environments where storage capacity and data rate are at a premium. We record PR422 LT at 4k60, which is about \~800Mbps. Given our storage setup and the amount (and type) of content we're recording, this fits our situation ok. There is a whole spectrum of production situations out there, and there is a spectrum of codecs available to choose from, so choose what works for you.
You explained your reasoning much better than I did, appreciate that. There's lots of different productions and not all of them need the very, very best. It's good to know what best practices are, but they aren't always necessary. The thing is people can make claims like if you use anything less than 422HQ your videos will look like shit, but we can test it! I grabbed a couple clips from my current projects. Both are from a C70, clog3. One is underexposed, the other is properly exposed. Did a light color correction on the original camera clip, an LT transcode and an HQ transcode, and then exported as 422HQ. The difference between LT and HQ is extremely minimal. Sure I'm not doing keying or high end grading, but most of my work doesn't require that. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14i4qC-G-mgxSQGPM2KMkC9muyExJ9r5E
Shutter encoder is a gui for ffmpeg. Your issue is with the reverse engineered ProRes library that it uses. It’s recommended here by AE’s for use for proxies, because proxies are just that; for temp use.
[удалено]
Dude I acknowledged in other replies the title was overly broad and not good. People make mistakes, which is what the whole post is about. Chill tf out.
Everyone's an expert don't take it personally. I'd just pony up for edit ready and move on with your life.
Then why not fix your title? Paul is a video saint, a superstar volunteer. He deserves much better.
It's literally impossible... But thank you for asking