Thursday, November 14, 2013

Re: [Avid-L2] transcode of dnxhd quicktime seems faster than import

 

Bouke is the Video ToolShed.



On 11/14/2013 6:42 PM, White, Steve wrote:

I didn't know this... interesting.  Job should know. 

He's the video toolshed guy.

 

Steve White  |  P: (864) 370-1800 ext. 2741  | M: (864) 907-3055 | E: sjwhite@bju.edu
Editor  |  Unusual Films

Bob Jones University  |  Build Faith. Challenge Potential. Follow Christ.


From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Job ter Burg (L2B) [Job_L2@terburg.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:53 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] transcode of dnxhd quicktime seems faster than import

 


Also, if you AMA, then TRANSCODE from DNxHD175 to DNxHD175 you are losing a generation. If you AMA, then CONSOLIDATE the DNxHD175 source, it stays in the same generation.
If you Fast Import, you also stay in the same generation. Fast Import should be just as fast as a consolidate, AFAIK.


On 14 nov. 2013, at 21:04, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:



Link AMA and transcode always burns importing. Importing is slow and old.




On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2: 44 PM, owen <owen@thenowcorporation.com> wrote:
 

Hi,
I tested importing a dnxhd 175x yc 709 quicktime mov to dnxhd same colorspace vs
transcode of a dnxhd 175x 709 quicktime mov to 175x same colorspace as mov and the transcode seems faster.
What is your experience with this?
thanks,
owen



__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (9)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment