I haven't been able to preserve the HDR info of the source file with any codec, and tried with FFmpeg and Adobe Media Encoder), but that is an issue for another post. And if I transcode the source file to a file that doesn't have those sync issues (like DNxHR, with DNxHR for proxies too), I lose the HDR data and the video looks like a SDR one (and this happens with any codec, not just DNxHR. I've read what I could regarding these codecs, but I've yet to find a reason for why intra-frame H.264 is not used more extensively for editing.įor the record, I'm asking this because I'm starting an HDR project from a H.264 high 10 UHD 4:2:0 video, and I have two issues: if I try to edit with proxies (with DNxHR or Prores), I get serious sync issues between the source file and proxies, so I can't edit properly.

Besides, H.264 suppports up to 12 bits and 4:4:4 (so it's flexible). Quick question: what are the advantages of using the most common non long-GOP codecs for editing (DNxHD/DNxHR and Prores) vs intra-frame H.264 with a high bitrate? In theory the compression capability, even if is intra-frame only, is better with H.264, and just by being intra-frame the playback performance while editing should be equivalent to the other two codecs. IMPORTANT: ISSUE SOLVED (STILL A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, THOUGH), I POSTED SOME INFO BELOW THE ORIGINAL POST AS AN UPDATE IF SOMEONE FINDS THIS USEFUL:

Ffmpeg h264 to prores