AVCHD as used by the AF100.... EDITING

Shooter

Shooter

Veteran
Is AVCHD ready for the big time?

My question... what is the editing experience really like in the PRO world of editing for broadcast, SFX, After FX, Color Grading, cross platform work etc...in pro edit suites.

Who is transcoding it just to edit it? ( I dont want to know about doing that myself!)

What is it like to Key or Color Correct?

My limited experience with AVCHD is ( none of which I shot my self I will add) . ..its a dog.

DVCHD Pro , avi, mov, Prores etc..edit and post produce like butter in HD /SD for me .

My decision to buy an AF 102 now hinges on the Post Production side.

I will be doing plenty of my own shoot and workflow tests BTW

Any editors able to comment please.
 
Shooter said:
My limited experience with AVCHD is ( none of which I shot my self I will add) . ..its a dog.

DVCHD Pro , avi, mov, Prores etc..edit and post produce like butter in HD /SD for me .

My decision to buy an AF 102 now hinges on the Post Production side.
Click to expand...

You should be fine, as you would be able to transcode to Prores, or DVCPRO HD on a Mac with FCP. That is what I plan to do, transcode using FCP to convert my files to either Prores, DVCPRO HD, or XDCAM HD 422 @ 50mbps.

Also, you could use the AF100's HDMI or HD-SDI output to record to a Nanoflash or the new Ki Pro Mini Prores recorder. That way you would bypass the AVC-HD 4:2:0 color and compression.
 
I do not want to transcode. Full stop.

BTW : I use Adobe PPRo CS5 and edit everything native with it.
 
Then I'd suggest getting some demo footage to play with. Personally I see little point in 'editing native' with a relatively high compression format like AVCHD. Now if it were raw and there were something worth preserving other than a few extra minutes at ingest I could see the utility. But if you're into Premiere enough to say I don't want to transcode full stop you probably won't hear how lovely it is to cut away with ProRes from the AF100 in FCP using a codec far more suited to intensive and efficient post-production work. That being said- if you're used to the 'native everything no matter what' workflow of Premiere I'd still guess you wouldn't be disappointed at all with the AF100. It's pretty tasty.

Noah
 
I guess there are a few ways to view my question. NoahK. (and I will be shooting and doing my own tests at all levels)

Currently I edit DVCPRO HD 720 /1080 native in Premiere .. real time for most things including keys and CC, multi layered sequences etc..,

Same goes for native files direct from 5D and also HD movs, Pro res Hd , windows media , HD avi etc... a real time no transcode workflow that I can share cross platform with my post and audio houses and my MAC peers. I can flip it back and forth between all the Adobe apps seamlessly (I am using Windows systems BTW)

Now AVCHD comes along and while I can see the benefits of the AF 100 camera ... thats very cool... I absolutely can not see the benefit of the AVCHD CODEC from an editors pov. (I do understand I can record out to an external device and bypass that CODEC. should I choose)

Why was AVCHD chosen for this camera at all? What happens when I shoot it and I take it to a Flame Suite or a high end color Grade Suite or even an FCP / AVid editor?

Transcode, transcode, transcode.......... (I dont think FCP Users know any thing different)

What is the benefit of this compressed CODEC? (devil spawn). What is gained or lost in the transcode. (Apart from bulking up your storage requirements for source files creating archiving issues.)

My HVX seems far more pro post prod "friendly" as far as I can see so far.

Transcoding I understand when I use the special advantages of The Red, the Phantom and the Alexa cameras when I use them. (and I dont have to edit those projects luckily)

For a prosumer camera AF100... why, why, why...?

Ask the editors !

I am a D.P and an Editor. Broadcast HD TVC's mainly.

Now I am conflicted . Will love shooting with the Af100 but will I hate editing what I shoot. This maybe a show stopper.
 
why is it avchd ? to allow the use of those cheap cards that dont need the expensive components on p2 cards

- i love P2 and wish the Af100 was a P2 product.

But so much complaining about the cost of P2 from the amateurs has possibly forced Panas hand on this camera's storage method.

I usually shoot and edit in dvcprohd and it really allows you to get creative in the edit - which - in my action / effects biased edits require alot of trial and error - But i probably should be working in less lossy pro res (or at least telling FCP to only render effects in pro res)

If you need real time results fast i think avchd may be a show stopper - but remember - once you have logged your clips you can always batch transcode the project overnight.


With all the different cameras that most edits are usually subjected too - in my case 7ds, go pros, 5ds, that minidvd camera that someone shot on - transcoding becomes a daily occurrence.
 
Reflex... totally different experience here. I have not one day missed P2 and it's workflow limitations. AVCHD is a very nice robuts acquisition codec and I transcode to Pro Res and it looks great.. It handles a lot of cc and doesn't ever really break down.. It's a bit more fickle with greenscreen and not quite as forgiving.. but that's a minor thing and doesn't apply at all if the screen is light really well. The limitations of P2 aren't in it's functionality but in the inabilty to just shoot and be liberal with the media. I sometimes shoot 10 hours of content and having to offload and manage P2 is a PITA... I like having 36 hours of available run time before a single offload..> That would probably be what a person would pay for a 16 gig card and I two stocked cases of SD media...

it's been as reliable as P2... Both were rock solid bu I haven't ever missed P2 or the HVX and I believe the AF100 will convert a lot of people to the idea that you don't necessarily need P2, and if we did... well then I'd opt for something quite a bit different in what it delivers.....
 
I'm running Premiere CS5 both at work with a Macpro 8 core and at home with a Dell 4 core and Mercury engine. Both systems run smooth with AVCHD files. I used to edit in Avid MC but weighting in all the advantages you get in CS5 I tend to steer away from Avid more and more. In the process I save alot of discspace and time when not transcoding. I just love the way Premiere projects open up in After Effects to do final CC and graphics.

Having Mercury activated my Dell is better than the 8 core Macpro to do H264 editing and much less expensive.
 
Shooter said:
Why was AVCHD chosen for this camera at all? What happens when I shoot it and I take it to a Flame Suite or a high end color Grade Suite or even an FCP / AVid editor?
Click to expand...
The primary value of AVCHD is that it gives the AF100 the ability to shoot for long hours on a single 32GB SD card. The main drawbacks are its 8-bit 4:2:0 color depth and long-GOP frame structure. I'm hoping Panasonic will see the value in offering a Hi422P AVC encoder in a firmware upgrade. In the meantime, the camera's SDI output can be used to capture uncompressed 422 color.

Transcoding is no longer necessary for AVCHD with Adobe CS5 and a modern nVidia card on an Intel i7 system with 8+ GB RAM. Even if it were still too sluggish, I'd choose to use proxies rather than transcoded source files. Once the AVCHD source files are decoded within CS5, it is color-graded and manipulated in 32-bit precision without any transcoding degradation. It is only when rendering a composition back to disk that any color depth issues will arise. For exporting intermediate renders to other software tools, I'd recommend AVC-Intra or CineForm, though they are both quite bulky. More compact transcoding with minimal degradation can be produced with Hi422P AVC profiles, but that requires expertise with custom settings in the MainConcept Codec Suite 5 plug-in for Premiere CS5.
 
Can anyone recommend Sony Vegas 10 pro? It can handle AVCHD native. This has the advantage of not having to transcode and requires 1/7 of the disk space with native AVCHD files compared to these same files transcoded to prores. Is Vegas a more intuitive program than final cut pro? Vegas can be used on a mac pro if windows is installed on bootcamp. Does anyone have any experience using Vegas on a mac pro?
 
Thanx all for your thoughts /input and keep them coming please. I am trying to make a decision and you guys are really helping.

..but...I am still reading transcode, transcode, difficulty with keying etc...

I read about instabilty and potential failure of SD cards - scary in a pro scenario!

I am going to struggle with AVCHD versus the ease and familarity of P2 and DVCPRO HD

Love to hear from Pro editors ( not camera people) also ...please.
 
SD cards are fine if you stick to the good ones...Panasonic Gold or Sandisk Extreme.

Working with P2 for the past few years (Final Cut Pro), I'm not too concerned with AF workflow. It's pretty much the same steps with some tradeoffs. Instead of logging and rewrapping MXF files and "copying" them into Quicktime which gives you original and working files of roughly the same size (depeding on if you trim anything or not import all audio tracks) as your working DVCPRO HD quicktimes, now you transcode from AVCCAM to Prores and end up with working qicktimes that are a little larger but have your original media which is quite a bit smaller. Still same amount of steps.

I've been working in both DVCPRO HD and Prores a lot and honestly I can't tell the difference in ease of editing. They both cut "like butter" and I have 2006 Mac Pro. Only difference is that Prores looks a little nicer and is 10bit and full raster.

I may work native for quick projects or non-intensive ones, but anything major and I plan on simply going Prores. Will probably get a KiPro Mini at some point.
 
Hi, I edit for a living and AVCHD is actually easier to edit than the 5d / 7d materials so if you use Premiere with Mercury playback you should have absolutely no problems. I agree about ditching transcoding. You only need to transcode if you use FCP because it's very bad if its not using native codecs. With cs5 that is not necessary and will only hamper performance and quality.
 
In Premeire Pro, you don't transcode until the final output and that is because you will want to have all of your edit point to be full independent frames, that is what the transcode does and it is necessary. It feels very much like you are editing in the native codec. It is driven by a bit of hardware as I understand it but it looks to be a very nice implementation for editing. You shouldn't have any issues.

Best,

Jan
 
Shooter said:
..but...I am still reading transcode, transcode, difficulty with keying etc...
Click to expand...
When I'm pulling in footage from the HVX and the GH1 into FCP from the same project (a 2 camera shoot), Log & Transfer feels the same for both formats. The process for the AF100 should be very similar to the GH1, even though the codec is slightly different.

It sounds to me like the AF100 isn't going to be a good option for you, based on your preference for a different workflow. - Tim
 
Because AVCCAM is a long GOP, there will always be rendering involved at almost every edit, transition, or composite. If a program says it handles it natively, what the program is doing is rendering these edits, traditions, and composites in an I-Frame codec. For Example FCP says it can edit XDCAM natively, but what it's really doing is rendering the edits, transitions, and composite in ProRes. I'm sure CS5 does something similar. It always better to transcode first in my opinion so you don't loose time editing and also loose creative steam while waiting for renders all the time.
 
I'm going to be editing the AVC stuff in adobe premiere pro cs4

Now, im running an intel core i7 2.80 with 12 gigs of ram, and if i load a project with hours of footage from the 7D, it can crash sometimes. I really want to avoid this with the avchd workflow.

What are PC users going to be transcording to? I know there are a couple of options.
 
Transcoding to ProRes seems like it makes so much sense. And transcoding to ProRes generally doesnt take long. ProRes is 10bit 4:2:2, which should give you more color latitude when ColorCorrecting vs staying in 8bit 4:2:0, correct? (and yes I know the transcode doesn't improve the color of the raw footage)
 
PaPa,

I know you can now get the ProRes codec for PC's. I would recomend getting that and transcode to that. That way you can share files with the millions of Mac users out there running FCP. I mean let's face it most people probably edit with FCP on a Mac. It will only benifit you to be able to have your files play nice with FCP.
 
TimTheFoolMan said:
When I'm pulling in footage from the HVX and the GH1 into FCP from the same project (a 2 camera shoot), Log & Transfer feels the same for both formats. The process for the AF100 should be very similar to the GH1, even though the codec is slightly different.

It sounds to me like the AF100 isn't going to be a good option for you, based on your preference for a different workflow. - Tim
Click to expand...

The GH1 workflow isn't really the same as the HVX. Because of the pulldown situation if you're shooting 1080 on the GH1 you have to L&T then run it through Compressor or another program to remove the pulldown. That's not necessary for the HVX, the AF100, or the GH2. The AF100 (and the GH2) are a simple 1 step process for L&T to begin editing, although it sounds like it's not as simple of a process as it is for Premiere Pro CS5. I plan to try out Premiere Pro CS5 on a short I'll shoot with the AF100 before I begin shooting my feature to see how well it will work for me since I'm tired of FCP and QT's gamma issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top