EDITING H-264 easier

[EyeNorth]

Agree with Rockmore - transcoding is for grading and fx - no need to transcode for assembly. So a time and render-saving workflow would be to transcode the clips without applying fx or transitions when the edit is assembled, and then only transcode what is needed for grading/fx/transitions. You will need to interpolate the video stream to a better color space before applying any processing - going straight on h.264's compressed color space will give bad results.

Two fast intermediate codecs for HD are cineform's and Matrox I-frame HD. Matrox is free, cineform costs $99.

 

[J Davis]

Agree with Rockmore - transcoding is for grading and fx - no need to transcode for assembly. So a time and render-saving workflow would be to transcode the clips without applying fx or transitions when the edit is assembled, and then only transcode what is needed for grading/fx/transitions. You will need to interpolate the video stream to a better color space before applying any processing - going straight on h.264's compressed color space will give bad results.

Two fast intermediate codecs for HD are cineform's and Matrox I-frame HD. Matrox is free, cineform costs $99.

This is essentially what I do with final cut.
I convert all dailies to my iTouch and start making my selects. I throw together rough edits in whatever codec.
Then transcode only what I need to straight to prores4444 with round trips to Color.

l... just don't say that working directly with h264 is the "right" way to do it. It is a workaround at best...

This is very true. It is a work around and lets hope for not much longer.
The true solution is not a machine that can edit with h264 but for work place camera's to stop
using long gop codecs like h264 as a capture codec. h264 capture is for point & shoot consumer grade.

Let us not forget that we are working with a hack. None of these SLR's are designed for video. I feel this phase is drawing to a close and camcorders with iFrame codecs and XLR inputs for audio are going to descend on us soon.

 

[saneproductions]

Let us not forget that we are working with a hack. None of these SLR's are designed for video. I feel this phase is drawing to a close and camcorders with iFrame codecs and XLR inputs for audio are going to descend on us soon.

Amen brother! I still use my HPX 500 for almost everything except certain types of b-roll or fun projects. Still too many tradeoffs.

 

[Chris Johnston]

lol!

I don't care if you don't transcode, just don't say that working directly with h264 is the "right" way to do it. It is a workaround at best; so many easily influenced people read these posts, it ends up spreading mis-information. People don't tend to remeber the "buts".

It wasn't too long ago I recall many here saying you HAD to transcode to do effective color. (THAT is misinformation!)
and here's a quote from YOUR recent post about CS5

While you CAN edit without transcoding it is better to transcode first. This will cut down on rendering when adding any effects and make color grading work better.

I'm not a techie by any means, but I'd like to hear how going from 4 4 4 to another 4 4 4 or 4 2 2 is going to make color grading better

I'm certainly not saying it's the right way, but there's nothing wrong with this workflow. Where I work, much of it is in and out fast. If I find out you're wasting time transcoding, hit the road Jack.

I don't work with 4K, 2K, arriraw, and I don't think most here do. but if you're working with h264 beer can cameras and CS5, transcoding is wasting time IMO.

 

[saneproductions]

I stand by that statement. Renders are going to be faster and workflow more seamless if you transcode first. No reason not to do overnight batch transcode so the edit goes smoother. I don't want to wait for renders. Transcoding time means nothing to me since it is done when I am not sitting at the machine.