PDA

View Full Version : Anyone transcoding 5D MKII to DVCPro HD?



puredrifting
04-16-2009, 07:16 PM
If you are integrating 5d MKII footage with HPX170 footage, wouldn't it make more sense to transcode 5D MKII footage to DVCPro HD instead of Pro Res 422?

Dan

mule ferguson
04-17-2009, 09:07 AM
My work around with 5 D MKll footage. I bring the footage into timeline of Edius 4.61 on my laptop. Export back to P2 card DVC HDpro Then bring into Edius 5 on my Desktop. I shoot the HVX200, HPX2000 AVC Intra. Edius 5 will choke with the 5D clips. I also find if I put more than 5 or 6 clips in 4.61 it sometimes chokes.
I have a MacBook with FCP and it works well with the footage. I still perfer to work with Edius when working with P2 and D5 footage.
:Drogar-Love(DBG):
Mule Ferguson

holyzoo
04-17-2009, 10:42 AM
Transcoding to DVCPRO HD is a wise choice. In my tests I couldn't see any loss in quality, and the files handle FAST in final cut with effects/transitions, rendering, and export.

puredrifting
04-17-2009, 12:00 PM
Good to know guys. I will have to try this workflow out.

Dan

dantewaters
04-17-2009, 12:44 PM
Dan even proress 422 but it would make sense to goto dvcpro since the 5D holds up well.

puredrifting
04-17-2009, 02:17 PM
I have done the ProRes route with 5D MKII footage (a friend of mine has one and loaned it to me) and with the AVC Intra footage from the HPX300. Pro Res is great but it is much larger than the original footage. I am just curious to see how the 5D MKII footage holds up with DVC Pro HD.

Dan

Demistate
04-20-2009, 11:03 AM
I am just curious to see how the 5D MKII footage holds up with DVC Pro HD.
Dan

Ive used Adobe Media Encoder CS4 to turn the Quicktime files into 1280x720 29.97 Progressive DVCProHD files. The quality loss will not be very noticible to your audience since all the resolution loss is in the horizontal (less likely to be seen) but there still is a resolution loss.

I've edited a small feature on DVCProHD and have exported from that master. If you're going to the web and staying there, downconvert to DVCProHD, but if you were trying to push something to the silver screen, you might want to keep your old files around just to go back to (use your DVCProHD as an offline, and then online the QT files)

Right now the 29.97 vs 30 fps is a big issue going back to your QTs as onlines. I tried re-onlining the Original QT files and had issues with frames not syncing up perfectly, or the editor trying to frame blend the 30 to fit the 29.97 base.

puredrifting
04-20-2009, 11:35 AM
Thanks for that. I would always archive the original H264 QTs from the Canon, I have been shooting P2 for almost four years so I archive everything.

A lot of this material I am shooting with the 5D will just be for SD DVD and possibly broadcast and will be cutting with HPX170 footage as well so I thought that DVC ProHD seemed like a smart way to do this project, if it looks good enough.

I am the exact opposite of a measurebator, I don't feel my work needs to always be seen at the highest resolution and quality possible, on the contrary, I kind of like a lo-fi look for a lot things. Most people who are obsessed with 4k, RED, codecs in general are gearhead enginnering types, which is fine, everyone needs a hobby but having the best look for everything is not going to make you a better storyteller. On the contray, I think a lot of measurebating is bad for your storytelling abilities.

Dan

Pierre N Petit
04-20-2009, 12:45 PM
Would there be a way to transcode to dvcprohd and create virtual p2 cards? I did not find a solution for that yet. I have been using p2 cards for 3 years and i would like to keep my archive homogeneous....I got used to a worlkflow editing with p2 and i like that workflow.
It might be possible taking quicktime dvcprohd from a finalcut transcode and using dvfilms tools to create p2 cards. It just would take so much time and i dont have finalcut on my macbook.

tfg
05-07-2009, 01:34 PM
I do not own a 5DM2, but as a TV editor I would say that ProRes is a much wiser choice than DVCPROHD. Both codecs are 4:2:2, which is fine ... but DVCPROHD is only 1280x1080, where as ProRes retains the full raster 1920x1080, and is higher bitrate. So ... the choice is obvious for which retails the best quality of your footage.

On the point of mixing footage -- I suppose it's a fair assumption to transcode everything to DVCPROHD if your other camera shot in that format. However, also consider "up-rezzing" your DVCPROHD footage to full raster ProRes ... at least that way won't lose quality on the 5DM2 shots - and you can also keep those full raster files for use in demo reel material down the road. Just a thought...

Daniel L.
05-07-2009, 01:50 PM
Be careful when transcoding 5D Mark II videos. Keep in mind that NLE and the Quicktime codec do not properly display the videos. Even if you use the latest version of quicktime there are still problems with gamma. The majority of editing software will clip your shadows and highlights if not configured correctly. This really depends on which software, for example I believe in Vegas you must set it to Studio color space.

If you do just transcode to prores make sure that all of the levels are in range. You can use Apple Color to pull down the levels from 0-255 to 16-235 and transcode from there.

By far the safest ane easiest way to work with the videos is to use Cineform Neo Scene. There is a demo avaliable and it is worth a try. It looks like they took great care to preserve the quality and color space this camera outputs. Well worth the cost.

puredrifting
05-07-2009, 06:44 PM
tfg:

So then I am increasing my DVC Pro HD files from the 170, which look fine, and increasing the file size by six times, and increasing the file size for the 5D MKII footage by six times. To be seen on the web or SD DVD? Seems like a waste of time and space. If I was going for HD broadcast, yes, it would be worth it but for my needs, I think the file sizes are ridiculous and you are editing a lot of resolution that will never be seen by anyone.

Dan

tfg
05-08-2009, 05:00 PM
Yep Dan -- the size does go up a bit, but I wasn't sure if that was an issue for you. Drive space is usually the cheap part of the equation, but if you take that into consideration I totally see your point.

By the way though -- DVCPROHD to ProRes will not increase your file size by much, maybe about 1.5x at most -- I've had to do it plenty of times myself. Since DVCPROHD is only 1280x1080 you don't necessarily have to use HQ variant -- the regular ProRes format will do fine for most stuff. But again -- now that I understand the whole picture, I'd say just go ahead and see it all in DVCPROHD.


tfg:

So then I am increasing my DVC Pro HD files from the 170, which look fine, and increasing the file size by six times, and increasing the file size for the 5D MKII footage by six times. To be seen on the web or SD DVD? Seems like a waste of time and space. If I was going for HD broadcast, yes, it would be worth it but for my needs, I think the file sizes are ridiculous and you are editing a lot of resolution that will never be seen by anyone.

Dan

rapsucks
05-26-2009, 12:36 AM
In response to Dan, I've been experiementing with different transcoding options for my T1i footage (I know, my toys are not as cool as yours). I get weird inconsistencies between codecs and transcoding programs (Compressor vs. MPEG Streamclip vs. Quicktime Pro).

I kinda wish that the Canon vDSLRs would record to HDV or something more universally editable, even though the bitrate would be lower (I get about 26 mbits/sec for 720p, and about 38 mbits/sec for the gimped 1080p at 20fps).

That being said, I've found that my best option is using MPEG Streamclip to transcode to AIC using the native raster (no reshaping of pixels) and native framerate (which I can conform to 29.97 in Cinema tools no problem) and 100% quality. I don't have as many gamma issues with MPEG Streamclip (in that it looks closest to the h.264 files I pulled off the camera) and the files can be natively edited in FCP. I'm getting about 31 mbits/sec on the AIC files, so they're a little bigger than the h.264s, but I think it's a good balance between not losing too much in the transcode (bitrate is higher than original) and huge file sizes (bitrate is not off the charts like it would be in Prores). I get about an 18% increase in file size.

If I were really doing something that I thought would be displayed on the big screen where I needed every bit of quality I could muster, I would offline edit in some smaller format (DV Anamorphic) and then apply the edits to the online h.264 originals and wait the two years for it to render.

But I'm with Dan. Who needs to go to those extremes when I can load the same frame of the h.264 original and transcoded AIC file and not tell a difference?

Demistate
05-26-2009, 09:27 AM
I do not own a 5DM2, but as a TV editor I would say that ProRes is a much wiser choice than DVCPROHD. Both codecs are 4:2:2, which is fine ... but DVCPROHD is only 1280x1080, where as ProRes retains the full raster 1920x1080, and is higher bitrate. So ... the choice is obvious for which retails the best quality of your footage.

Not everybody has a Mac, and/or Access to ProRes 4:2:2.

daveswan
05-26-2009, 11:30 AM
No, I don't either. I'm Avid MC on PC. Still to get a 5DII, but want to get my workflow sorted out before hand.
The couple of clips I've got I transcoded into DNxHD, worked ok. Incidentally the native DVCProHD I get from my HVX are 25fps, hence 1440x1080.

Edit...incidentally, the DNxHD codecs are FREE to download from the Avid site.
Dave

puredrifting
05-26-2009, 11:53 AM
Not everybody has a Mac, and/or Access to ProRes 4:2:2.

I know, and this injustice must stop! Macs and FCP for everyone! ;-)

Dan

daveswan
05-26-2009, 11:59 AM
What does prores 422 have over DNxHD?

Finster
05-26-2009, 12:07 PM
Anyone use Cineform Neo Scene? I know nothing about it - I just remember it coming up quite a bit in the GH1 forums.

tfg
05-27-2009, 06:13 AM
What does prores 422 have over DNxHD?

Nothing really. Technically speaking DNxHD is better, just more processor intensive. If AVID is your weapon of choice then definitely use that codec. I'm just not sure how nice the DNxHD codec plays inside other NLEs.

puredrifting
05-27-2009, 09:42 AM
I believe DNxHD is just intended for AVID use, AVID typically doesn't make anything that is very compatible with the non AVID world but I know that the older AVID codecs have had some limited functionality on other systems.

Dan