I'm not sure I agree that 100 is 'good enough.' XDCam35 is NOT 'decimated raster, (1440x1080), but rather full raster (1920x1080.) Seems like a pretty serious transcode.
Why not just use XDCam35? Unless you're doing lots of layering, or your CPU is a dog, MXF-wrapped XDCam35 should work well, and you're not really transcoding at all. Yes, XDCam is theoretically not necessarily a good editing format, but we've found it works quite well when re-wrapped and managed as an Avid-native file. I would, definitely, NOT leave it in AMA, but either 'transcode' or import to XDCam35 MXF.
Try it- if you don't like it blame me privately and refuse to ever work with me again.
Probably best NOT to set your renders to XDCam35, though, but rather use 145 (or better.)
Just my opinion. There are others, and I'd love to hear from other L2-ers who've used this strategy and had a BAD experience.
gh
----------------------------------------------------
Greg Huson
Secret Headquarters, Inc
Post Production / Production
Culver City, CA
323 677 2092
www.DigitalServiceStation.com
greg (at) SecretHQ.com
www.SecretHQ.com
On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:39 AM, electropura212 <electropura212@gmail.com> wrote:
> My guess is DNX 100 is aimed at people transcoding from DVCPRO HD, which is
> 100 mb/sec. I would think its plenty sufficient for XDCAM 35.
>
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Curtis Nichols wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> The next project coming in this week will involve XDCAM footage shot at
>> 35mbit. I'm pretty happy that my XDCAM AMA plug-in still works.
>> Poking around the new features of 6.5, I'm considering transcoding to
>> DNxHD100 instead of 145. 145 takes three times as long to transcode, and
>> uses 45% more space.
>> Since the original footage is 35mb, shouldn't DNxHD100 be sufficient? I
>> wouldn't get any benefits from 145, would I?
>>
>> I've done a split screen test. I don't see any difference, but I want to
>> be sure I'm not throwing away something that will help with color grading
>> later. This is a corporate piece with very few, if any, effects; but will
>> be shown in HD projection.
>> Thanks for your advice.
>>
>> Curtis Nichols
>> Señor Editor
>> PCS Production Co.
>> Irving, Tx.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> [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
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment