C200: Canon C200 Transcoding Options Video from Canon USA

Its not entirely dumb.

I would add a step of checking the footage maybe making some exposure corrections and trimming some garbage from the ends of the clips.

BUT

What is the actual data rate difference between 422 4k prores and raw? Id guess 800mbs vs 1.2gbs

So it seems a mighty hassle to compress the data by 30%.

Now there is also a trust thing.. what happens if the transcode messes up? Some dodgy card reader or power outage or something.
What happens if that garbage had ueful ambient sound.

What happens if you are on location and short of time or media.

IMO bottom line. This is something you could plan to do but will never happen.

It is better than shooting a crummy onboard format though.
 
morgan_moore said:
...I would add a step of checking the footage maybe making some exposure corrections and trimming some garbage from the What is the actual data rate difference between 422 4k prores and raw? Id guess 800mbs vs 1.2gbs

So it seems a mighty hassle to compress the data by 30%.
...
Click to expand...

Exactly, finaly someone mentioned that. I often shoot 4k50 422 prores and I was always bit surprised that a lot of people were saying that crl at 50 is so huge.
 
If I had more time (and to be honest more discipline) I would absolutely use Cinema Raw Development to make selects and trim in and outs on every clip I'm keeping and export as Prores4444 and also make a light weight Prores 2K proxy while I'm at it, then once double backed up delete the originals. Long run would save a ton of space and the archive and workflow would be so smooth, but again......the time and discipline thing.
 
I can see Canon are acknowledging 10 bit here, but what about instead of making this helpful video, they just made the internal raw convert to 10 bit in camera and save all this post work?
 
I am sure Canon will further develop the cinema raw development software to include more options. In still photography the DPP (Digital photo professional) software was initially terrible. Over the years it has improved and is fine and only misses the option of including the copyright for users. So I think in few years Canon will make it more powerful like RED has done with their software.
 
Was going to try this today and then on a whim decided to see if there was and update for Cinema Raw Development that I didn't have and there was and I was pleasantly surprised to see that they've added 4K Prores 422 as an option for your master files AND FINALLY added 2K Proxy options (used to only be 1920x1080).

Also looks like they've added ISO adjustment and a few other tweaks.

I'm completely giving up on dealing with .mp4s on my machine as it seems like they're laced with spikes and poison, so I'm going to try going the 4K Prores 422 route with 2K Prores Proxies moving forward and see how smooth that workflow is (and how much space that takes up compared to storing the RAWs)
 
*also, word to the wise: if you go the Adobe Media Encoder route as show in the original post, make sure your audio channels match the original before hitting go...... I'm currently having to re-transcode hundreds of clips because it defaulted to a 2-channel output and none of my clips had sound because the original source audio was on tracks 3 & 4.
 
chris f said:
Was going to try this today and then on a whim decided to see if there was and update for Cinema Raw Development that I didn't have and there was and I was pleasantly surprised to see that they've added 4K Prores 422 as an option for your master files AND FINALLY added 2K Proxy options (used to only be 1920x1080).

Also looks like they've added ISO adjustment and a few other tweaks.

I'm completely giving up on dealing with .mp4s on my machine as it seems like they're laced with spikes and poison, so I'm going to try going the 4K Prores 422 route with 2K Prores Proxies moving forward and see how smooth that workflow is (and how much space that takes up compared to storing the RAWs)
Click to expand...

On a related note, did you update your firmware and try the XF-AVC? I've been shooting a corporate project the past five months where there is no way we could support shooting CRL and have been shooting the XF-AVC and it's been great on my system but I use FCP X and Resolve and I know you use Premiere? The metadata is handy after not having with the .MP4s before the firmware update.
 
I just shot my first project since updating and shot some xf-avc but haven't brought the files into Premiere yet and played around with them. Will be interested to see how they play (.mp4s were AWFUL on my machine)
 
just did a thumbnail loading test (one of my biggest performance gripes) of MP4 vs. XF-AVC vs. ProRes vs. Raw. What's amazing to me is that even after all the thumbnails are loaded and then you close the folder and re-open, they have to reload one by one again:

 
morgan_moore said:
What is the actual data rate difference between 422 4k prores and raw? Id guess 800mbs vs 1.2gbs

So it seems a mighty hassle to compress the data by 30%.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear. I also don't see the point going from large gamut, 12bit files to almost as large 10bit ProRes HQ (even if the quality of those ProRes files will be good for sure).

It sort of similar to how I view the size of the 1Dx mkII, in that it's the same size of a Canon Rebel, let's say:

I can't put my 1Dx in a pocket—you can't put a Rebel in your pocket.
You CAN put a Rebel in a bag—I can put my 1Dx in a bag...

It's not about absolute size, but more about size category. Sure... smaller IS smaller, but... meh.
 
chris f said:
just did a thumbnail loading test (one of my biggest performance gripes) of MP4 vs. XF-AVC vs. ProRes vs. Raw. What's amazing to me is that even after all the thumbnails are loaded and then you close the folder and re-open, they have to reload one by one again:

Click to expand...

Wow! Hate to say it Chris, but dump Premiere. Slowest to render of all of the big three NLEs, you have to pay the monthly forever and the rendering and playback performance with your camera SUCKs! Why shackle yourself to a sub par NLE?
I have now five colleagues who have dumped Premiere this year for the same reason. Adobe is not putting their profit and development dollars into performance and stability as they should, they just add a bunch of semi-useless bloatware to
each Premiere update while the app stills crashes and freezes and has the slowest rendering. FCP X is easily two to four times faster and snappier with all of the C200 files, both XF-AVC and CRL.
 
I'm on project #2 of trying the transcoding method (instead of just shooting UHD .mp4), this time trying out 4K Prores 422 which is creating files that are under half the size of the raw files which is nice. However, I set about 900GB of raw files to transcode via Adobe Media Encoder this morning around 9:15am, then left for a shoot and I'm back at the office at 9pm and it's only about 3/4 the way through all of the clips - so I'm looking at a 1.5 days of transcoding for 1 days worth of shooting...... :(

I don't know if it's my computer, but this seems ridiculous. As I type this it's estimating 35 minutes to transcode a 6 minute clip.

Am I doing something wrong?

Late 2014 iMac
3.5 GHz Intel Core i5
32GB Memory
AMD Radeon R9 M290X 2048 MB
Raw files are on an external SSD connected via USB 3.0
Transcoded files are writing to my 50TB Drobo via Thunderbolt 2.0
Software is installed on my internal 1TB Fusion drive
Adobe Media Encoder rendering w/ Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (Metal)
 
chris f said:
I don't know if it's my computer, but this seems ridiculous. As I type this it's estimating 35 minutes to transcode a 6 minute clip.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I just tried a small transcode on my MacBook Pro, late 2016. It scores similar to your iMac in Geekbench (13366 for multi core).

A straight export out of Resolve to ProRes 422 HQ ran at 17.5 fps on a 25 fps clip.

Your 6 minute clip would take around 9 minutes. It might be worth a shot to try that route? It's free software so...
 
I’ve had really good success using Resolve to convert CRM files to ProRes. I think with the free version you are limited to UHD though. Sounds like cropping down to 16:9 wouldn’t be an issue for you though, so the free version might be just the trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top