<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic FCP X - &amp;quot;Optimized&amp;quot; Code:  ProRes 422 or ProRes 422HQ - Best Choice? in Camcorders</title>
    <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camcorders/FCP-X-quot-Optimized-quot-Code-ProRes-422-or-ProRes-422HQ-Best/m-p/9639#M184</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Using both Canon XF300 and XF100. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The nub of the question is whether the XF format cameras / MXF media format for clips from these cameras includes enough information that encoding to ProResHQ actually makes a difference. &amp;nbsp; In other words, "a" or "b"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;a) &amp;nbsp;REGULAR: &amp;nbsp;If the image information is not in the data from the camera, than I would rather not increase the size of ProRes files. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;b) &amp;nbsp;HQ: &amp;nbsp;If the XF100 and/or XF300 *can* indeed make use of ProResHQ, then, obviuosly, that will be the better option for projects requiring maximum image quality.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hoping for a response based on real technical knowledge, not just a version of "more is better".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:08:38 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>michaelb</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-01-01T20:08:38Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>FCP X - "Optimized" Code:  ProRes 422 or ProRes 422HQ - Best Choice?</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camcorders/FCP-X-quot-Optimized-quot-Code-ProRes-422-or-ProRes-422HQ-Best/m-p/9639#M184</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Using both Canon XF300 and XF100. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The nub of the question is whether the XF format cameras / MXF media format for clips from these cameras includes enough information that encoding to ProResHQ actually makes a difference. &amp;nbsp; In other words, "a" or "b"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;a) &amp;nbsp;REGULAR: &amp;nbsp;If the image information is not in the data from the camera, than I would rather not increase the size of ProRes files. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;b) &amp;nbsp;HQ: &amp;nbsp;If the XF100 and/or XF300 *can* indeed make use of ProResHQ, then, obviuosly, that will be the better option for projects requiring maximum image quality.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hoping for a response based on real technical knowledge, not just a version of "more is better".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:08:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camcorders/FCP-X-quot-Optimized-quot-Code-ProRes-422-or-ProRes-422HQ-Best/m-p/9639#M184</guid>
      <dc:creator>michaelb</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-01-01T20:08:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FCP X - "Optimized" Code:  ProRes 422 or ProRes 422HQ - Best Choice?</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camcorders/FCP-X-quot-Optimized-quot-Code-ProRes-422-or-ProRes-422HQ-Best/m-p/15079#M185</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We'd better choose the best popres according to the requirement.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Apple ProRes format comes in five versions: Apple ProRes 4444, Apple ProRes 422 (HQ), Apple ProRes 422, Apple ProRes 422 (LT), and Apple ProRes 422 (Proxy).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;To get the best quality, ProRes 422 (HQ) is your best choice. Apple ProRes 422 is the most comfortable for FCP 5/6/7/X. If you want to get a smaller file, you'd better choose ProRes 422 (LT) as the best output.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Learn more about fiveTypes of Apple ProRes Codecs:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://apple-device-tips.over-blog.com/pages/types-of-apple-prores-codecs-8418173.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://apple-device-tips.over-blog.com/pages/types-of-apple-prores-codecs-8418173.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:31:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camcorders/FCP-X-quot-Optimized-quot-Code-ProRes-422-or-ProRes-422HQ-Best/m-p/15079#M185</guid>
      <dc:creator>lisa198754</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-02-21T09:31:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FCP X - "Optimized" Code:  ProRes 422 or ProRes 422HQ - Best Choice?</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camcorders/FCP-X-quot-Optimized-quot-Code-ProRes-422-or-ProRes-422HQ-Best/m-p/128830#M186</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Continued to tshi topic , now the Apple FCP has released a new code for FCPX : Apple ProRes 4444 XQ. &amp;nbsp;If some people want to load their MXF files into FCP , then you can update your FCP to FCPX 10.1.4, which now can support MXF natively and other functions are also good&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:29:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camcorders/FCP-X-quot-Optimized-quot-Code-ProRes-422-or-ProRes-422HQ-Best/m-p/128830#M186</guid>
      <dc:creator>Janekong</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-22T02:29:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

