storage space
- Thread starter ramkuma
- Start date
Mike Harvey
Veteran
A lot 
I've got 8 hours in a 71 GB folder, so I'm guessing probably a little over 100 on 1TB
I've got 8 hours in a 71 GB folder, so I'm guessing probably a little over 100 on 1TBA 1TB drive does not really hold that much--If you're transcoding you willl likely have file sizes that take about 1GB per minute. 60 minutes would = 60GB's, or about 16 to 17 hours of transcoded footage (at least when using the Main Concept transcoder from Panasonic's site).
Digital is indeed digital, but not all digital footage is the same.
The HMC records / compresses the video in an AVCHD codec. This is (largely) unsuitable for serious editing because it takes a lot of CPU power to do it.
To make the footage easier to edit you might want to uncompress the AVCHD footage and re-compress it to another codec more suitable for editing. This is generally known as transcoding.
Transcoding can also be seen as taking footage from one resolution (i.e. 1080p) and resizing it to another one (i.e. 720p).
Last edited:
ramkuma
Well-known member
If this is so, then what format is a final work usually in, i.e., when you want to screen your final digital film or the final film available for streaming on the internet? Thanks so much.
The final output depends entirely on what you are showing and where you are showing it.
If you are uploading to the web (e.g. YouTube or Vimeo) then a codec like H264 is usually a good one to choose as a compromise between quality and size. While YouTube and Vimeo may transcode again in to one of their own codecs, it's better to upload a 200MB file than a 2GB file. H264 is high quality, small size and is also one of the Blu-ray supported codecs (MPEG2 being the other one).
If you are exporting to DVD then you will compress using MPEG2.
If you are showing in theaters then you need to know what the theater can take. Many have digital projectors now, so you can supply them with digital files. Check what codecs they support. They may even be able to hook up your computer to the projector if required.
If you want to show in an older theater that odes not support digital then film is the only way - and at this point be willing to spend LOTS of money getting your digital files transferred to film.
There is however a big difference between being able to PLAY the file and EDIT it. the amount of CPU time taken to play or edit a single H264/AVCHD stream is one thing, but when you start intercutting and layering files then things get pretty overloaded pretty quickly. If you want to cut at (say) frame 1000 but the last key frame was at (say) 980 then the editing program has to first find frame 980, then decode all the frames from 980 to 1000 to be able to display frame 1000. That's a lot of overhead. Now do that on several tracks at the same time....
If you are uploading to the web (e.g. YouTube or Vimeo) then a codec like H264 is usually a good one to choose as a compromise between quality and size. While YouTube and Vimeo may transcode again in to one of their own codecs, it's better to upload a 200MB file than a 2GB file. H264 is high quality, small size and is also one of the Blu-ray supported codecs (MPEG2 being the other one).
If you are exporting to DVD then you will compress using MPEG2.
If you are showing in theaters then you need to know what the theater can take. Many have digital projectors now, so you can supply them with digital files. Check what codecs they support. They may even be able to hook up your computer to the projector if required.
If you want to show in an older theater that odes not support digital then film is the only way - and at this point be willing to spend LOTS of money getting your digital files transferred to film.
There is however a big difference between being able to PLAY the file and EDIT it. the amount of CPU time taken to play or edit a single H264/AVCHD stream is one thing, but when you start intercutting and layering files then things get pretty overloaded pretty quickly. If you want to cut at (say) frame 1000 but the last key frame was at (say) 980 then the editing program has to first find frame 980, then decode all the frames from 980 to 1000 to be able to display frame 1000. That's a lot of overhead. Now do that on several tracks at the same time....
mcsmooth
Well-known member
Keep in mind, transcoded footage does not necessarily need to be stored permanently. It does come in handy for scratch use. I've been editing raw AVCHD files for some time, but still see the advantages of transcoding on heavy editing (several layers, lots of effects).
With a good workflow, you should be able to toss the files when you are done editing, and can re-transcode again later if needed (make sure you keep the original, plus a backup). I actually prefer to revert back to the originals for the final render to assure there is no quality loss.