DNxHD 145 should be OK, but it's not overkill the way the numbers
might seem to indicate. XDCam long-gop is darn smart; for normal
material it looks far better than you'd expect. Just don't expect
much detail in areas of motion.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Terence Curren <tcurren@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> XDCAM is Long GOP. That is why 35Mbps doesn't really tell you anything. Hard to tell if it would map more to DNxHD 145 or 220.
>
> You could work with XDCAM natively, but....
>
> You would have longer renders. More image degradation through multiple generations of renders. More taxing on your CPU so less performance.
>
> So you need to trade those issues, along with using less storage space, against the transcode time to DNxHD.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Moore <bigfish@...> wrote:
> >
> > Got a show coming up that I'm told is XDCam 35Mbps file based. I don't know yet if this is XDCam EX, XDCam HD or XDCam EX HQ. It seems obvious that DNX 145 should be more than enough when it comes time to online. 145 Mbps is a lot more than 35 Mbps but am I missing something subtle in the digital food chain. DNX 220 is well within my sndx 4.0.5 mac system for storage and data rate but no reason to use more space than is needed. Now for the geek question. Would it make a difference to online with the XDCam in native format? Is there a quality benifit to doing this and if so would it even be noticeable. I'm of the AMS school, which is get it to "Avid Media Stupid." Just curious what others think. TIA
> >
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment