I'm not at all surprised. The Canon h.264 implementation is terrible. At
~50mb/s it should be awesome, but it's rubbish. Compare the 24mb/s AVCHD
from AF100 or FS100, much better, same basic codec.
On Sep 14, 2011 1:56 PM, "Greg Huson" <Greg@secrethq.com> wrote:
> further - and rather ironically, we're also using some Canon H264 in the
same show- and that gets converted via Mpeg Streamclip to DNxHD.
>
> Can you guess which one looks better in the final sequence - especially
after color correction? The sony stuff. Too bad canon doesn't use XDCam EX.
>
> gh
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Greg Huson
> Secret Headquarters, Inc
> Post Production / Production
> Culver City, CA
> 323 677 2092
> www.DigitalServiceStation.com
> greg (at) SecretHQ.com
> facebook.com/greg.huson
> www.SecretHQ.com
>
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Greg Huson wrote:
>
>> We're using XDCam EX consolidated from AMA- works great. Very happy with
the results, works great- functionally, can't really tell the difference
between that and native media.
>>
>> gh
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Greg Huson
>> Secret Headquarters, Inc
>> Post Production / Production
>> Culver City, CA
>> 323 677 2092
>> www.DigitalServiceStation.com
>> greg (at) SecretHQ.com
>> facebook.com/greg.huson
>> www.SecretHQ.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Dylan Reeve wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I'm seeking some opinions on workflow for XDCAM EX material...
>>>
>>> Editing episodes that have up to 25 hours of XDCAM EX footage per
episode,
>>> and trying to decide the best workflow.
>>>
>>> Initially we'd decided to transcode all the camera footage to DNxHD 185,
but
>>> obviously this is taking a lot of space and we now feel it may be
overkill.
>>> The alternative is that we Consolidate all the AMA media, which still
>>> achieves our main aim of getting the source files out of the AMA
management
>>> and into Avid's own MediaFiles structure but keeps the actual media as
>>> native 35Mb/s XDCAM EX.
>>>
>>> Obviously there is a slight processor overhead in editing with the
highly
>>> compressed XDCAM EX rather than native DNxHD, but is that significant
enough
>>> to worry about? Are there any pitfalls I'm not considering? In testing
with
>>> a couple of card's worth of media the system appears to have no
difficulty
>>> dealing with the media.
>>>
>>> In the past they have used roughly the same process with upwards of 200
>>> hours of footage in a single project and ran into instability, but in
>>> retrospect that was likely a combination of unpatched Media Composer
>>> versions (5.0 without subsequent updates) and a system that was in need
of a
>>> reinstall.
>>>
>>> In this case each episode will be handled individually, and the source
AMA
>>> material will be taken offline once the footage has been ingested.
>>>
>>> Any multi-pass process (eg. Transcode to DNxHD 36, edit, relink to AMA,
>>> transcode to DNxHD 185) is not acceptable for our purposes.
>>>
>>> Dylan Reeve
>>> http://dylanreeve.com/
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>>
>> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment