I agree with Greg... just edit in XDCAM35 and render to DNxHD, probably DNxHD145. Don't use AMA for editing, though, of course-- consolidate to one of your media drives.
That seems to be pretty much the standard approach, as far as I can tell. DNxHD is a bit easier to work with, but the transcode is a killer!
On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:28 PM, 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> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (8) |
No comments:
Post a Comment