Should I be transcoding?

G

GRIMWORX

Well-known member
I run a quad i7 with 8gb ram, 5750 graphics.... I can edit avchd fine on the timeline in premiere cs5.

But SHOULD I be transcoding? Am I missing something here? Despite looking the best I can the experts are flying way over my head...

Are there benefits to transcoding as far as quality of the final image?

If so, what should I be transcoding to and with what software? Im a PC user.

I always just thought because i CAN edit it natively I just should...
 
If you can edit natively, that is great, there is no need to transcode. The reasons people are transcoding is when they have a computer that won't playback AVCHD in real time previews. Native AVCHD may also take more time to render effects. Transcoding is always going to be less quality than not transcoding. Even if the difference is difficult to tell or even impossible to tell, you are taking a file and recompressing it into a new format and there is loss. Plus transcoding is going to create much larger file sizes.

I have looked at side by side footage of 3 transcoding methods alongside the native AVCHD file.

1. The best method I have found for a PC user using Premiere Pro is to take the AVCHD file into premiere and then use Adobe encoder to make an h.264 mp4 file at maximum bitrate (which is 20Mbps in CS4). This however takes a very long time, but at least it is time that you can walk away from your computer and come back later and edit the mp4 file with real time preview. Quality wise, the new file softens the edges a bit but quality is pretty decent in comparison to the original

2. The next best bet is the Cineform Neoscene transcoder. This one I believe is almost real time transcoding. So transcoding a 60min file takes roughly 60min. The end result is an AVI file that is high def and can be edited muh easier on slower computers. The file size goes up drastically, and the quality definitely shows a little more artifacting compared to the original, but if your end result is the web, this is a fine way to go as you won't notice the difference. If I am creating an HD file meant for an LCD TV on a blu-ray, then I am not crazy about the loss of quality, but this is still the best quality for your time if you need to transcode. Also, I seem to remember liking the colors a little better when transcoded using this method...even better than the original, but that isn't a reason to transcode.

3. The worst for me is the Panasonic transcoder that they made with MainConcept. This only works with the Panasonic AVCHD files and it is free to download from Panasonic, however, I see a pretty noticable difference in quality in this format. However, if you search around these forums you'll find people who like it, so to each their own.

Sadly, my computer won't keep up with AVCHD and I can't afford a better machine at the moment, so I either edit natively and put it on the lower quality preview or I use NeoScene if it is for web.

I hope that helps.
 
If it works, no. Transcoding is only to limit the stress on your processor. I transcode because my computer is weak and puny.
 
I always had to transcode my files while I used CS4. But now, with CS5, I can play the AVCHD files and edit them with almost no lag at all, untill you add an extra video or graphic on top of the other one, will say.
 
Admir said:
I always had to transcode my files while I used CS4. But now, with CS5, I can play the AVCHD files and edit them with almost no lag at all, untill you add an extra video or graphic on top of the other one, will say.
Click to expand...

What is your processor? I am running a Core2 Duo 2.8GHZ with 6GB of Ram. I am still on Vista and wanting to switch over to Windows 7 which I have, but am looking for a day where I have a good 10 hours to make the switch over.
 
I think i remember people mentioning to transcode if you are doing colour correcting. It works better on the 10 bit files (4:2:2).
 
dr_ron said:
I think i remember people mentioning to transcode if you are doing colour correcting. It works better on the 10 bit files (4:2:2).
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but since CS5 converts footage to 4:4:4 on the fly, then the transcoding process shouldn't add anything as far as color correction goes. So I have heard anyway, I haven't actually tested the theory.

- Hunter
 
If I need to heavily grade footage, then I use Cineform, but if I need to just lightly correct footage, then I don't transcode. The Cineform files scream in both CS5 and Vegas 10, and the ease of editing more than outweighs the time spent. In my experience, reds break apart big time in the native footage and, to me, I have more control when I go to Cineform if I am mega grading.
 
xknight said:
What is your processor? I am running a Core2 Duo 2.8GHZ with 6GB of Ram. I am still on Vista and wanting to switch over to Windows 7 which I have, but am looking for a day where I have a good 10 hours to make the switch over.
Click to expand...


I'm on an AMD Phenom II X3 2.4 ghz, 4 gig ram, Geforce GT220 1gig+ card. Works much better and smoother with CS5!
 
Um, good question actually. I think it is a Quad-equal, also forgot to mention its a Windows 7 x64, helps out a bit. The packard bell Imedia series. I've heard that the Phenom processors are just as good as the Intel when it comes to editing, but to a lower price.
 
pharpsied said:
If I need to heavily grade footage, then I use Cineform, but if I need to just lightly correct footage, then I don't transcode. The Cineform files scream in both CS5 and Vegas 10, and the ease of editing more than outweighs the time spent. In my experience, reds break apart big time in the native footage and, to me, I have more control when I go to Cineform if I am mega grading.
Click to expand...

That's good to know. I need to do some comparisons myself to see what works for me.

Best,

Hunter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top