My camera (Sony PXW-X70) has a paid upgrade to 4k and I see is finally scheduled to have a reasonable bitrate at 4k with a firmware update that is due soon.

I'd like to contribute 4k footage going forwards, but need to be a bit realistic about the file sizes.

Since moving to Mac and taking video a bit more seriously, I've been aiming for maximum quality and submitting ProRes 422 files. But now I'm really tempted to submit footage, especially 4k footage, using the H.264 codec.

The way I'm starting to see it is that the ProRes 422 codec is a bit like a 16bit Tiff file. Great for about 1% of the population, but for everyone else an 8bit jpg will do just fine.

Is there any real difference from a quality perspective that a buyer may consider important and impact sales?

Thanks for the explanation. So would a reasonable workflow or explanation look like this . . .

- Files from a camera shooting H.264 like many DSLRs. There is no point to supply Apple Pro Res since this is an 8bit format and it was never recorded at a higher bit in the first place. Feel free to supply in H.264.

- Time lapse sequence shot on 8bit jpg files. H.264 for the same reason as above.

- Time lapse from RAW with no jpg process in-between. Maximum quality for the buyer can be provided in one of the ProRes formats, HQ being optimum.

- Files from a "better" codec such as a RAW format or the 10Bit XAVC of my particular Sony in HD. ProRes as it handles higher bit.

- The same files from my Sony in 4k that is not in 10bit. Reading up I think it's only spitting out 8bit 4k in the XAVC format natively. Well, since it's not 10bit, there is no point to the larger file size of the ProRes. H.264 would suffice technically. Although you may still want to supply the ProRes files because they may want to see it, even if there is no real technical advantage?

- 4k from my Sony that is recorded on an external 4k Atmos device via HDMI in 4k at 10 bit. One of the ProRes codecs provides maximum quality for the buyer and enables better post processing.

Thanks.

Noted.

ProRes 422HQ, no question about it.

Cool, just give me an idea of what the average file size look like for a 15-20sec clip

Cool, just give me an idea of what the average file size look like for a 15-20sec clip

1 to 2GB

Wow...  That is an insane lot

So the issue is that my NEX6 outputs AVHD files. That comes to about 150MB for a 20sec shot. Now even if a format outputs files of more size the base quality is the same. So why not maintain the size.

Also my net connection is capped, 10GB per clip will kill that and my disks in no time

Help with what?

If your connection is capped, obviously go for lower file sizes (native compression works).

If it's fast and not capped, go for what professional buyers want, which is ProRes 422 (HQ).

To find out any bitrate all you need to do is go here: www.google.com.

If you change colors, brightness, contrast, add a gradient etc., then yes, it is better to re-encode to a 10-bit ProRes file. You now have more information than what your camera captured.

If you don't change ANYTHING, then re-encoding won't make a difference. The only thing would be that sites want certain standard formats, and customers like to see what they are used to seeing.

Just find a good compromise. Estimate how many clips and sites you need to upload every month and use the best option that fits within your internet data cap.

I upload everything in Prores 422 HQ. File are huge but it's doable. We don't have data limits here. What are the data caps you have?

The pros and cons of Prores vs H264 have been discussed here often. Basically, H264 is a great delivery codec, but sucks as an intermediary codec. (ie, quality deteriorates quickly when doing color correction and/or vfx on H264 files)