<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Flip on WELLINGTON ROAD Pictures</title>
    <link>https://wellys.org/wellysblog/tags/flip/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Flip on WELLINGTON ROAD Pictures</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:59:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://wellys.org/wellysblog/tags/flip/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>FCP 7 and ProRes</title>
      <link>https://wellys.org/wellysblog/posts/fcp-7-and-prores/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
       <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wellys.org/wellysblog/?p=146</guid> 
      <description>&lt;p&gt;FCP 7 introduces a 3 new HD codecs for production work, ProRes 4444, ProRes 422 (LT) and ProRes 422 (Proxy). With these additions, this brings to five versions of HD codecs Â available for production work. I did a simple comparison of Flip H.264 transcoding to all 5 versions, knowing full well that I wasn&amp;rsquo;t starting with the best source material.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The only version where I could see a difference was with ProRes 422 (Proxy). There were artifacts and a loss of detail. LT looked great, with no perceptible differences on up to 4444. Which means given the source, the best I could use is LT. That said, I did have striking differences in gamma between the new codecs looking identical to the source material and the &amp;ldquo;older&amp;rdquo; codecs, 422 and 422 (HQ) being much darker and losing details in the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
