AF 100 codec transcoding

D

dhart1949

Well-known member
I'm a newbie to the AF 100. My questions is concerning real world experience with transcoding AF 100 files to FCP and/or AVID. I work with a lot of out of town producers who download master media files to their HDs at the end of the day. They leave and I do not control the post-production process. No problems with P2 or Sony SxS cards or codecs.

I plan on using a NEXTO for that (should make "mirror" copy of master media). But my concern is once the AF 100 codec enters the post-production workflow. Is this transcoding to FCP/AVID onerous? Near realtime or an all night process. I know it depends on the amount of footage, but if this transcoding process takes a long time it could be a deal killer. Reading other posts about this topic indicates mixed results.

Looking for some "real world" experience, not theoretical. Am I going have to do a lot of hand holding during the process or is a competent post house know what to do?
 
Working in Avid Media Composer version 5. Import AVCHD PH to DNXHD 145 is about 1.5x to 2x realtime. Pre-version 5 MC however import of AVCHD requires sepaerate outside of the application converter like the one from Panasonic.
 
Using Log and Transfer in FCP on a Mac Pro 2.8ghz octocore to transcode to prores 422 It's about 1/4 real time.
 
mcgeedigital said:
That's exactly what you should do.

422 doesn't do anything more for you other than waste disk space.
Click to expand...

This is totally incorrect in my experience. Do a test with shots with a lot of shadow detail using prores LT and prores 422 HQ. Better yet, do the same test using 5dRGB as your encoder. You will be shocked how much data prores LT throws away in the blacks.

Don't take a chance. Use a real, industry standard codec. At least prores 422.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
This is totally incorrect in my experience. Do a test with shots with a lot of shadow detail using prores LT and prores 422 HQ. Better yet, do the same test using 5dRGB as your encoder. You will be shocked how much data prores LT throws away in the blacks.

Don't take a chance. Use a real, industry standard codec. At least prores 422.
Click to expand...

I've been editing and shooting for over 20 years.

All ProRes is 10 bit.

I have a Flanders 10 bit grading monitor in my suite along with HD scopes.

There isn't any discernible difference.

But hard drives are cheap, do what you want.
 
mcgeedigital said:
I've been editing and shooting for over 20 years.

All ProRes is 10 bit.

I have a Flanders 10 bit grading monitor in my suite along with HD scopes.

There isn't any discernible difference.

But hard drives are cheap, do what you want.
Click to expand...

I've done quite a bit of ProResLT encoding and there is and can be a slight degradation of the content. I doubt you've ever seen it because you probably light every shoot properly :)

I've been using LT in a live stage recording scenario and depending on the lighting situation (lighting can changes week to week) we get "noise" in the blacks on our hpx170s. ProResLT definitely has more trouble with fast moving noise/graphics (which we also record on occasion) though it isn't ever an "issue". If you want to save space, I agree, LT is worth it because it usually halves the bitrate and 95% of video shot doesn't have the fast motion necessary to mess with LT. However, if your footage isn't perfect and you wanna get 100% out of it, stick to standard 422.
 
Yup- I'd go ProRes - the one before HQ. LT is ok for one transcode but it will noticeably fall apart as you do color grading, effects, compositing ,etc. Get a bit more HD space. That's a lot cheaper than having to redo your work...

Noah
 
I also want tacotim to be my hero.. but I'm a little confused as to why proress 422 is the end all of all workflos?

If I import my .mts files into my premier (which is my go-to edit station) am I losing something by not log-in transfer to fcp?
 
GrandLunar said:
I also want tacotim to be my hero.. but I'm a little confused as to why proress 422 is the end all of all workflos?

If I import my .mts files into my premier (which is my go-to edit station) am I losing something by not log-in transfer to fcp?
Click to expand...
no you don't loose anything but heavy CC will degrade the image.
 
I use Log and Transfer in FCP on 8-core Mac. It's faster than realtime.

For broadcast we use ProRes 422 and for web/DVD only content we use ProRes (LT). Still hate how the clip names are not unique. Really hoping for a firmware update on that one.
 
sunny_j said:
no you don't loose anything but heavy CC will degrade the image.
Click to expand...

That is SO wrong! Don't give advice that fools people. Editing natively in Premiere is way better than transcoding and thus degrading the image. Premiere handles everything in 32-bit float so you will not gain anything by transcoding, only loosing. People only use FCP7 because of legacy projects. I've been doing that prores workflow but it's seriously flawed. Native editing is THE way to go.
 
For what it's worth, I've experimented with color correction in Premier Cs5, both with the native AVCHD files and coverted to Cineform files.

The original AVCHD files held up better to color grading than the transcoded Cineform files. Which flew in the face of everything I've read on here. The difference wasn't massive.....it was a slow zoom in shot, and there were noticable anti-aliasing artifacts after grading that weren't there w/ the AVCHD graded version.

Edit: Sorry, I should've clarified. This was done on an HMC150, not the AF100. Same codec, though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top