Best HD Editing Codec?

overnighttolondon

overnighttolondon

Well-known member
Hey guys,

It's been a little while now since I've been in the Premiere game, my colleagues pressured me to switch over to FCP (I know, I know, sorry).

I have a client though who wants some footage they can edit in Premiere (PC).

The footage originated on the HVX200 and has been edited in FCP. What's a good 720p24 editing codec that Premiere for PC will like?

Thanks
 
Premiere does just fine with DVCPRO HD, but Apple's version is incompatible with anything but . . . Apple. (You can buy Raylight Decoder which will allow you to use it, but it's extra $$$.)

The best way to go would be to get it in P2 format, but unfortunately, FCP doesn't export it that way; it has to play back to the camera and have the camera record it to P2.
 
Thanks David.

Anything I can do on my end? (i.e. instead of making the client get Raylight decoder, can I get something that exports to a more broadly compatible DVCPRO HD?)

What's the standard? Is it Avid's codec? Or is there just a generic one that everyone except Apple uses?
 
All the other editors edit the MXFs directly, no conversion -- that's the best way to go if you can play it to a card.
 
Apple released the ProRes decoding codec for PC a little while ago, allowing playback of ProRes encoded files in PP (or Vegas, etc..). I haven't tried it yet but it installed just fine on my system. Might want to give that a look.
 
William_Robinette said:
Apple released the ProRes decoding codec for PC a little while ago, allowing playback of ProRes encoded files in PP (or Vegas, etc..). I haven't tried it yet but it installed just fine on my system. Might want to give that a look.
Click to expand...

ProRes works awesome in Vegas with AVCHD - looking forward to transcoding P2 and working with it in Vegas in the same way.

cheno
 
What are the pros/cons of editing DVCPROHD MXF's natively in Premiere vs. transcoding to an intermediate codec designed for editing like Cineform Aspect/Prospect?
 
Shooter said:
MXF is designed for editing so there are no CONS. (apart from cryptic file names)
Click to expand...

Let's assume there are no cons, then how about the pros of each method vs. the others?

I've used Cineform's Aspect for editing HDV but have recently moved to a tapeless workflow and been thinking about using it for editing my DVCPROHD footage. I immediately saw that the native MXF's are 960x720 resolution vs. the 1280x720 resolution of the Cineform files.

I've also read that CineForm's advantage is flexibility, higher quality in typical multi-generation post, higher performance, flexibility in resolution, flexibility in bit-rate, simpler file handing (one AVI file per clip vs AVI + many MXFs), flexibility to cut HDV and P2 media together in the same codec.

Anyone else using Cineform for editing DVCPROHD? I've searched but don't seem to find much info.
 
There's no reason at all to use Cineform when you can use the MXFs; DVCPRO HD isn't HDV and is much easier to edit. And in Premiere, if you have the User ClipName set, there are no cryptic file names, either.

Cineform won't be any higher-resolution; all it will do is take the 960x720 (1.333 PAR) files and turn them intoe 1280x720 (1.000 PAR) files. Visually, you won't see a difference.
 
Christopher Barry said:
When you render effects to MXF/DVCProHD, you are re-encoding to a lossy codec. This may or may not be a concern for you and your projects. CineForm can be handy if you are heavily into FX and post.

The alternative is to use the native MXF files, then encode straight to your mastered/output file from within Premiere, say to SD MPEG2 DVD, thus not taking a re-encode hit. If you offload back to tape via FW, your MXF encode is re-compressed, where you render tranistions, CC or do other things in AE, etc, also noting you are re-encoding a file that is stretched at 1.33 aspect ratio for 720p HVX camera, where CineForm can be set to 1:1 aspect ratio, which when re-encoding to what is said to be a visually lossless codec at up to 10bit (P2k), it is nice if you want to push the footage to the max.

Both native MXF and CineForm have their place and there may be a quality level to consider in ones work flow, which may vary for different people and their needs. Premiere is indeed looking good. That is my interpreation of the two codecs. I do think some of the CineForm features would be more useful to me with footage that is sourced more closer to 10-bit uncompressed, yet we all want that for little money. It is coming though, CineForm Recorder. :D
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how valid is this statement given that you can import edits directly into AE CS3 without having to render them out of Premiere CS3? The reason I'm asking all these questions is that I only use Premiere for editing and then use AE for onlining everything else; color grading/corrections, visual effects, transitions, etc. I also render the final output from AE and not from Premiere.

Thanks!
 
Leo Versola said:
Out of curiosity, how valid is this statement given that you can import edits directly into AE CS3 without having to render them out of Premiere CS3? The reason I'm asking all these questions is that I only use Premiere for editing and then use AE for onlining everything else; color grading/corrections, visual effects, transitions, etc. I also render the final output from AE and not from Premiere.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't really done tons of comparisons with this specific workflow in mind, but there's enough integration between Premiere and After Effects -- especially now in CS4 -- where you wouldn't be doing multiple re-renders; you'd be sharing the native MXF files.
 
Thanks David... I've got CS4 on order, but I'll give the native MXF workflow a shot with CS3 and post some of my feedback here for others when I get a chance...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top