AMA has higher overhead compared to native MXF codecs.
With AMA, some of the calculations are done outside of Avid - Quicktime for
example. And we know how "efficient" QT 7 is.
Dom Q. Silverio
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Spraker <avid@spraker.tv> wrote:
> David -
>
>
>
> Avid will almost always work best with "native" Avid files. H.264 files
> are
> very compressed so decoding them takes a lot of overhead that is not needed
> with DNX files and accessing them via AMA adds additional complexity.
> Using slow drives gives your system that much less overhead. Imagine
> talking on the phone with someone who is not a native speaker in a loud
> coffee shop. All of those things can slow down the comprehension of even a
> simple topic. AMA is great, but it has it limits.
>
>
>
> Dave Spraker
>
>
>
> <http://www.advancedbroadcastsolutions.com/>
> advancedbroadcastsolutions.com
>
> <http://www.spraker.tv/> spraker.tv
>
> Skype - davespraker
>
>
>
> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of
> David
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 12:53 PM
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: H.264 QT's stutter under AMA - ??
>
>
>
>
>
> OK - update, it seems Job may well be right (not that I doubted him)
> apparently the H.264 is troublesome for AMA. As to why, who knows.
> I could certainly understand RED files be a problem, but H264 ?? Anyway,
> I'm
> a tad miffed at Avid because I feel they were somewhat disingenuous when
> extolling the virtues of AMA (not arguing - just venting) and how it could
> be used.
> Wilson, I hear exactly what you're saying with regards to Seagate drives,
> they don't have a great rep. However, FWIW, this past summer we used the
> exact same drive with Dnx145 media - via USB2 - and were reltively trouble
> free. But I do agree, a RAID array (if we had the $$) would be a more
> efficient, and safer, way to go.
>
> Thanks again to everyone for all for the comments,
>
> DB
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> , Wilson
> Chao <wilsonchao@...> wrote:
> >
> > I bought a couple of those Seagate GoFlex 3TB drives 6 months ago for
> > archival use, simply because they were cheap. As I then cautioned my
> > technically-challenged client:
> >
> > "The drives are perfectly adequate for archiving and screening of our
> > camera original video files and audio files. However, they are not
> > suitable for full-scale editing, which requires higher throughput to
> > allow rapid realtime access to multiple clips in quick succession. For
> > such editing (especially if we choose to edit in HD, rather than with
> > SD downconverts) I would recommend a higher-performance RAID array."
> >
> > BTW, they are 7200 rpm, but I find their real-world performance to be
> > unremarkable. And frankly, I don't have high expectations for the
> > long-term reliability of Seagate's low-end large-capacity drives.
> > YMMV.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David <k27usa@...> wrote:
> > > Thanks folks for all the feedback - I was NOT aware that H.264 files
> were that problematic - I thought they'd be less work than say an Animation
> QT - I guess I should've read the 'Read Me' :-)
> > > Also - we're checking now to see if these Seagate Drives are 7200rpm -
> thought they were but am unable to confirm if the drive is 5400 or 7200.
> > > - taht would definitely make a difference - will update as soon as I
> find out.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [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]
No comments:
Post a Comment