What is DNxHD HQ and SQ? Where is DNxHD 145?

[JackATCP]

In the Premiere CC 2015 there was a codec called DNxHD145.  I used this to export a TV series for PBS.

Now I am exporting season 2 in CC 2017 and the codec doesn't exist.  Instead there is a HQ and SQ.  I assume one of these is really 220 and the other is 145 and they are just mislabeled. DNxHR (notice the R and not a D) HQ and SQ are new codec for UHD and I assume that is where the confusion came into play. I was in a chat with an Adobe Rep who basically told me to try my luck on here to see if anyone could help.  After doing some tests I think SQ might be the 145 equivalent but I would like to know for sure before wasting my time on exporting and shipping the wrong codec. Maybe DNxHD SQ isn't even the same codec as Avid's DNxHD codec.

Here is a link to the Current DNxHD whitepaper as of the writing of this post.

http://www.avid.com/~/media/avid/files/whitepaper-pdf/dnxhd.pdf?la=en

Michael

[Wiley Visuals]

I'm not on CC2017 yet, but can't you just go into the export settings and look at what the bitrate is for each one?

[BNC10a]

Thsi is tricky but i think deltoidproductions is right.

From this page: DNxHR & DNxHD | Avid

it states:"DNxHR is completely backwards compatible with DNxHD."

From the wikipedia listing of DNxHD/DNxHR codecs. DNxHD 145 is a 1920x1080 frame , 4:2:2 chroma at 8bits and 29.97 fps.

so my guess is to use the DNxHQ 8 bit codec in Premiere and just set the frame size to 1920x1080 and the frame rate to 29.97, since the chroma and bits match.

But you're right Michael, I haven't found a DNxHQ listing that exactly cross references the DNxHD145 setting, so I can't say for certain the bit rates are identical.

[JackATCP]

I did not see the bit rate listed in the export settings.  I did find a file that I exported last year.  The DNxHD 145 file had a bit rate right around 149mbps(video +audio).  I exported DNxHD HQ and it was around 224mbps and then I exported DNxHD SQ and it was around 224mbps. So I believe that DNxHD HQ is DNxHD 220 and DNxHD SQ is DNxHD 145 and Adobe just has them labeled incorrectly. DNxHR is there new UHD codec and it uses HQ and SQ as labels but the DNxHD still uses 220 and 145 as labels.  I hope everything is compatible because this is going to be played off a Grass Valley server that can only play a limited amount of formats.

[BNC10a]

You may be right. DNxHR SQ is a legitimate label it (means standard quality) and can be used for delivery. So it probably is the equivalent ot DNxHD 145 and DNxHR-HQ is the higher definition version (220).

It would have been helpful if Adobe had updated the presets. I had to rebuild all of my DNxHD using these new presets and had to figure this all out on my own. That's the only reason I posted here.

(BTW, I wouldn't go any lower. I just looked it up and DNxHR LB means low bandwidth and is used for offline work.)

[davescm · Accepted solution]

Hi
I'm glad I'm not the only one that was scratching my head over this one - I was trying to find this out a couple of weeks ago.

I used the white paper :

and matched it against the codecs in Adobe Media Encoder preset browser :

There are six in the Avid list (2bit depths for 220)  - and four in the AME list. Between the 24 frame and 29.97 frame information there is a match of sorts for all except DNxHD100.

So I think you assumption looks correct

Dave

[JackATCP]

Nicely done Dave.  I didn't even think to look in AME.  I was just looking in the Premiere export window.  That would have saved me a few test renders. I am going to assume that our hunches are correct.  I'll post back here if my media gets rejected.  It should be sometime next week.

[BNC10a]

Yes, nice find Dave.

I was actually using AME but never thought to twirl open the built in presets since it was listed as "MXF op1a." (I was thinking .mov) Didn't even notice the target bitrate column.

[R Neil Haugen]

No, Adobe has not incorrectly labeled the DNxHD/R codecs ... Avid has changed their nomenclature, and requested that all vendors using their codecs update the names for the various codec options accordingly. Adobe has simply followed Avid's instructions.

I think it is a royally stupid change in naming, as the old process was so clear ... a glance at the codec "name" and you knew exactly what it was. Avid feels that with frame-sizes being all over the place anymore, and other options also being "fluid", that the new naming scheme better reflects current needs & practices of the video professional.

I think they spend too much time on White Papers and star-gazing, and not enough time working with editors.

They didn't ask me, for some silly reason I don't understand.

As yes, I spent a few hours trying to puzzle this all out myself when 2017 first rolled-out last November.

Neil