This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Brorsoft?

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Re: [Avid-L2] Brorsoft?

From what I can gather, XAVC-S is XAVC but lower data rate, support for compressed audio and no support for 12 bit or 444 sampling. I am unsure about 10 bit video.

Overall, it is the same compression method.

Dom Q. Silverio

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:15 AM, John Pale pale.edit@gmail.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

In my tests, I started to think (but did not spend the time to confirm) that FFmpeg was effectively re-wrapping the files.

That doesn't make sense, unless I am misunderstanding you. If your end result was Avid DNXHD, then it's not rewrapping, it's transcoding. What I am talking about is leaving the essence alone, just changing the container. I could very well be wrong about XAVC-S and XAVC having the same compression in a different container, I have little experience with either one. Documentation that I have read indicates they are the same with XAVC-s being aimed at the consumer market. If the container can be changed to MXF, it's a very trivial and speedy process, then Avid is quite capable of doing a good job of transcoding to a more edit friendly format (DNXHD).

On Thursday, March 12, 2015, blafarm@yahoo.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

In my tests, I started to think (but did not spend the time to confirm) that FFmpeg was effectively re-wrapping the files.

For example, Resolve took 1:19 to render five short test clips having a total duration of 2:02 from XAVC-S (.mp4) to DNxHD (.mov). In case anyone is wondering, it took the exact same amount of time for Resolve to render those same test files to Avid MXF.
FFmpeg, on the other hand, converted the same five short test clips from XAVC-S (.mp4) to DNxHD (.mov) in only 0:34. That's approximately 4x faster -- which is a big deal if you are converting 4+ hours of rushes.
But, to be honest, I quickly walked away from the entire pre-processing workflow -- opting for AMA.