Re: [Avid-L2] Re: DNx145 or XDCAM HD 50Mbit - which is easier to cut with ?

DVCProHD is an I-frame codec, but is thin raster. Your box may spend
valuable cycles stretching the raster out (from 1280x1080 to 1920x1080).
It's pretty lightweight though, and I'd guess you'd have comparable
performance to DNxHD, but for me, once DNxHD arrived, I left DVCProHD in
the dust.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:05 PM, David <k27usa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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]
> >
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/