ProRes 422 not fit for broadcast?

Having a run in with my online editor. We're in post on a kids show that is a combination of ProRes HQ Cam and AVC Diary cams and GOPros.

I've suggested going all ProRes 422 for the main cameras and ProRes LT for the low quality media that will be used sporadically.

Online editor claims that ProRes 422 is not fit for broadcast and that LT should never be used.

Here's what he says:

LT should not be used at all. It will cause more problems than it saves. It introduces visible compression and noise.

Prores is also not broadcast standard and is visually lossy.

Have I been living under a rock for the last 7 years? Do you guys broadcast 422 or LT?

I've been editing & delivering for broadcast in ProRes 422 (HQ) since its inception. Never had a tech check issue from the boffins at the networks. Is HQ an option? Standard ProRes 422 is what I'm cutting with now in FCPX but mainly for web. I agree with your editor about LT though.

Sorry I should have been clearer. Definitely going to MASTER in HQ but transcoding rushes to ProRes 422 and LT.

I've been delivering Broadcast TV and commercial material in ProRes422HQ for god knows how many years.

He's on glue.

What NLE is he onlining with?

I have delivered many spots to DG (Fastchannel) for broadcast in ProRes HQ 1080/23.976. They still like MPEG for SD (last I checked) but HD content can be ProRes.

Hi Seanus,

ProRes 422 is one of the most transparent editing codecs I know. It withstands multiple generations without any visual loss. It can easily be compared with the old Animation codec which used to be a gold standard for file transfers between systems. It is definitely a solid broadcast editing and delivery format.

ProRes LT does add some visual noise but only after many generations. When you work with LT clips on a ProRes 422 timeline your LT footage gets automatically converted to 422 whenever you render or share anyway. So that should not be a problem. For broadcast delivery I would not advise editing in a ProRes LT timeline, especially if you will be using multiple stacked effects or if you will be going back and forth between applications for finishing the program.

- Ronny

I use ProRes 422 or HQ and stay clear of LT. I used to use it for AVCHD or SD footage but started noticing visible degradation so stopped using it.

Unless you absolutely need to go to LT for storage reasons I'd stick with 422 or HQ.

Thanks guys. Ok I'll abandon LT for the low res stuff and go with 422 across the board.
I'll tell the onliner to get off the junk.

Please educate me. The gopro gives you original video at up to 35 Mbit/s (2.7k w/protune). PRORES (LT) LT is good for up to 100 MBit/s. How is using PRORES instead of PRORES (LT) going to make any difference? I was under the impression that for most POV cameras and DSLRs that PRORES (LT) was more than adequate. No?

Trying to learn new stuff.

marchyman wrote: Please educate me. The gopro gives you original video at up to 35 Mbit/s (2.7k w/protune). PRORES (LT) LT is good for up to 100 MBit/s. How is using PRORES instead of PRORES (LT) going to make any difference? I was under the impression that for most POV cameras and DSLRs that PRORES (LT) was more than adequate. No?

Trying to learn new stuff.

Realise that the source codec is fairly irrelevant when it's being transcoded because it's being totally decoded (uncompressed), and then re-encoded in to the target codec from an uncompressed buffer.

At the point of re-encoding the source codec could just as easily have been ProRes 422 (HQ).

When Apple launched ProRes 422 (LT) they did indeed suggest it may be good enough for AVCHD and DSLR footage and save some space at the same time, essentially a compromise.

The reality is that the vast majority of the population won't be able to tell the difference between 422 and 422 (LT) when played back on their TV screens and especially not web videos, so in that sense it is good enough.

Having said that, when playing back on a broadcast monitor I noticed subtle differences, a little more noise and it looked that little bit 'rougher' than 422 or 422 (HQ).

If what you have and what you are seeing is good enough for the intended delivery format then there is not reason not to use it. No one needs to get snobby about these things really. For some footage and delivery types LT may be perfectly adequate.