Re: [Avid-L2] 100 v 145

I've had horrible multicam performance with XDCAM. If you are doings
straight editing, it's generally fine to do what you suggested.

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Greg Huson wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'electropura212%40gmail.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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


[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/