Source dimension - Transcodes the clip at its original resolution.
Source 1/4 - Transcodes the clip at a quarter of its original resolution.
Source 1/16 - Transcodes the clip at 1/16 of its original resolution.
So now I've restarted the transcodes with the Raster Dimensions set to Source Dimension which in the case of Red Epic 5K is 4800x2700 but when I take the resulting .mxf file into Media Info it still lists the dimensions as 4096x2160 which is the project dimensions. In the Avid bin the clip is listed as 4800x2700 so I'm confused as to whether Avid is maintaining all the original pixels or somehow scaling it into 4096x2160 but keeping track of the original dimensions.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <pale.edit@...> wrote :
I just noticed in the Transcode window there is raster dimensions which can be set to project size or source original size. I'm wondering if I should be setting this to Source Original Size to maintain all the pixels? I haven't worked with odd frame sizes very much so I don't have a clear understanding of how these settings effect proper translations of Frame Flex etc... from offline to online.
In my case I'm preprocessing the camera media for later relink so now it's just important to maintain as much quality as possible without distorting the pixels if possible.Yes. You are seeing the original size in the bin. Even if you transcode down to SD it will still say that for raster size.
The first file has processed and in the bin it still lists the raster size at 4800x2700 but when I take the .mxf file into Media Info it lists the file as 4096x2160, which matches the project format. I assume Avid somehow keeps track of the original size dimensions so that any frame flex manipulations will translate properly in the end. Media Info also lists the aspect ratio as 16:9 which is in fact the original aspect ratio of the 5K Red footage but if it is now 4096x2160 that's 1.9:1 not 106:9 ratio. Is Avid somehow creating anamorphic pixels in the transcode process that a program like Media Info and other player software would recognize?
Here is the Media Info specs in the Video category:
Video
ID : 3
Format : VC-3
Format settings, wrapping mode : Clip
Codec ID : 0D01030102110200-0401020271250000
Duration : 1h 26mn
Bit rate : 746 Mbps
Width : 4 096 pixels
Height : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:2
Bit depth : 12 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 3.515
Stream size : 448 GiB (100%)
Title : V1
Matrix coefficients : BT.709On my Red 4K 4096x2160 project of course the second shoot was shot at 5K 16:9 not 1.9 Aspect Ratio. I ama link to the media and I set frame flex to 1.9:1 from the default of 16:9 for the media. I am transcoding to DNxHRHQX using Camera Metadata and a Full Range to Legal Scaler along with the aforementioned Frame Flex setting. I am not baking anything in on the transcode. I just started the process but I'm curious will the resulting DNxHRHQX transcodes be 4096x2160 or will the maintain the original 4800x2700 pixel count. We have done a similar approach on some other odd frame sizes but I haven't seen the results in online yet. I do know on the other clips for offline when we didn't bake in the frame flex the resulting offline DNX 36 clips still displayed the full frame pixels for the odd sized clips. I assume that will allow for a proper online conform as the frame flex parameters they might apply in offline will properly translate to online sequence. My limited experience in this area suggests that if we bake in the frame flex it will lose track of the original medias odd frame sizes.Can anyone clarify the workflow with Red or any other camera that shoots in odd frame sizes?John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@...
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (6) |
No comments:
Post a Comment