Great - thanks guys, that kinda makes sense.
Will stick with DNx145. Definitely much easier to manipulate, almost zero lag time.
Thanks
DB
(any thoughts on where DVCPRO HD 1080i/60 fits in this scenario?)
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> XDCAM HD is long GOP compression. Long GOP means for some frames in the
> sequence, data is needed from frames before and after to correctly display.
> This causes lag.
>
> DNxHD is I-frame compression. Each frame is compressed indiviually and can
> be represented independently.
>
> Long GOP compression is extremely efficient. For that 50 Mbps, you're
> getting the equivalent of 150 Mbps bandwidth (my rough estimation). But for
> it to be realized it must be played in sequence. So the gain doesn't exist
> if you're editing with it. The only gain there is smaller storage
> requirements.
>
> I-frame compression is not as efficient, but is much easier on the
> processors. It requires more space, but you gain performance.
>
> In any case, it's worth trying each, but you'll go with the one that gives
> better performance in an editing environment, and that will generally be an
> I-frame codec like DNxHD.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:18 AM, David <k27usa@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > OK - we've been doing some remote editing using standard MacBookPro 2.53
> > Intel Core Duo w/4BG ram. We have anywhere from 3 to 7 44min eps to pull
> > bites & b-roll from to cover intvw footage. One of our engineers suggested
> > we ingest using the XDCAM HD 50Mbit (1080i/60) codec in order to save drive
> > space. What I'm finding is that the system bogs down & really struggles -
> > spinning beach ball, etc - when trying to access that footage using AMA (I
> > know Avid does not recommend using AMA to edit with) so I ended up
> > re-importing (instead of transcoding) the episodes at DNx145 and while that
> > took considerable time it turned out that the DNx145 is much easier to edit
> > with. Far less spinning beach balls.
> > Is the XDCAM codec more processor intensive because of the compression ?
> >
> > Also - I know more RAM is always good, but does anyone think it would make
> > a really noticeable difference ?
> >
> > Thnx in advance
> >
> > Dave B
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
No comments:
Post a Comment