Trancode or Not to Transcode...That is the Question

I have to say that you should avoid the Mainconcept transcoder when transcoding to AVI.

It will soften the image, so you have to set the sharpness higher in the scene file prior the shooting. It will also introduce large blocks in the AVI file.

Me, if I want to work in DV, I will capture the footage via the component connections of my BOB and use my Panasonic BD player for playback.
 
Edweirdo said:
I am actually starting to see transcoding as a good thing, and I am starting to prefer it. Here are two reasons:

Transcoding to Cineform creates a stronger file for post (4:2:2 10bit) and is visually identical

Proxy editing not only allows you to render from the originals, but rendering from the proxy first gives you a very good SD version (Vasst Gearshift)

Now the downside is you need more storage for the proxies and transoded versions, and the time that it takes to transcode them. In a large production environment this may be a no-go. But for me it’s negligible.
Click to expand...

I tried this trial version. I found it not to be identical. Degraded the footage to me. But that was at 720 60p.
 
Skilled said:
I tried this trial version. I found it not to be identical. Degraded the footage to me. But that was at 720 60p.
Click to expand...



You did something wrong.

Not sure about neo, but with prospect hd (suposedly they make the same output file, just prospect hd WILL have be an accelerated codec in CS4)
there is a check box that says render at maximum quality, check that and the file becomes 10 bit if you are outputting from premiere. In HD LINK, you do not have to do that.
 
Skilled said:
I tried this trial version. I found it not to be identical. Degraded the footage to me. But that was at 720 60p.
Click to expand...

I recently bought Neo Scene and used it to transcode a bunch of 720 60p clips and as far as I can tell they appear identical.
I've played both clips side by side on the same monitor and I can't tell them apart.
 
OK..tell you what..I will make a test video...Render the same footage with and with Neo and then see if you can tell.
 
Skilled said:
OK..tell you what..I will make a test video...Render the same footage with and with Neo and then see if you can tell.
Click to expand...

Cineform, despite being visually lossless is still compressing the file. Obviously, its always going to be better to render from the native files when possible. But honestly, I can't tell the difference between files rendered from the native files and those rendered from Cineform files, even when placed side by side (I have some here right now). But if you are doing multiple layers of color correction or motion graphics, you are probably better off with the frame based 4:2:2 Cineform .avi files than the Intra-frame AVCHD files.
 
What I dont like about it is...it changes the frame rate and frame size, when I match it in vegas. Wont that effect my slow motion? I film paintball so I do alot of slowmotion.
 
Skilled said:
What I dont like about it is...it changes the frame rate and frame size, when I match it in vegas. Wont that effect my slow motion? I film paintball so I do alot of slowmotion.
Click to expand...

When I bought Neo Scene, I did it mainly for the codec. I transcode to the Cineform codec using either TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress or using a batch encoding script (click on Proxy Stream) for Vegas so that I can have control over framerate, resolution, or any rendering control that these programs offer. The Neo Scene program itself does not offer much control over transcoding.

BTW: Go to here for instructions on using the Proxy Stream script for proxy editing:
 
Last edited:
I just got my HMC and I edit with FCP.

I did a couple of experiments and, I've noticed that the transcoded Pro-Res footage looks much better than footage transcoded to either DVCPRO HD or XDCAM EX via Toast.

I wanted to use DVCPRO HD to keep file size down a bit, but Pro Res looks leaps better (color is more saturated, latitude is better, and contrast is superior). Anybody else notice this?

And, how are you all dealing with the giagantic PRO-RES file size? I'm about to start shooting a new movie, so would it be a decent idea to just edit from a big external firewire drive?
 
ikander said:
And, how are you all dealing with the giagantic PRO-RES file size? I'm about to start shooting a new movie, so would it be a decent idea to just edit from a big external firewire drive?
Click to expand...

Same thing with Neo Scene. It turned about 24gig of clips into 125gig. At this rate the project I'm working on will end up at 600-800gig.

I think I'm going to replace my smallest drive, (200G), with a 1T drive...
They are only about $100 these days.
That will give me two 1T, one 500G internal and one 500G external, plus my OS drive.
Hope that holds me for a bit...:)
 
Baatfam said:
Same thing with Neo Scene. It turned about 24gig of clips into 125gig. At this rate the project I'm working on will end up at 600-800gig.

I think I'm going to replace my smallest drive, (200G), with a 1T drive...
They are only about $100 these days.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. For my last wedding, I shot about 60g of footage, and ended up with nearly 300g after transcoding to Cineform. I bought one of those 500g portable drives specifically for that project, and backed up to a 1 tb drive. Now that the DVDs have been delivered and approved by the client, I erased the back up files and have tucked away the portable drive for 6 months or so until I am confident that the Cineform files won't be needed anymore. I will still keep the original footage.

Eventually, when I can afford a Blu-Ray drive, I will store the original footage on those disks.
 
The huge file sizes are the downside of transcoding. I bought a 1.5 terabtye external drive, and I was only able to fit 4 weddings on it after transcoding. Now I need to buy another one.
 
D.R. Gates said:
The huge file sizes are the downside of transcoding. I bought a 1.5 terabtye external drive, and I was only able to fit 4 weddings on it after transcoding. Now I need to buy another one.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just bough windows home server software,
then bought a new computer from ebay that someone tried to downgrade to windows xp (and there were no drivers for the sata controller), the guy could not get operating system back on the computer.

Got the two for around $300, added a few hard drives and now it serves as a home server of files (video clips)

When ever you need more room, with windows home server software, you just add a drive. Adding new drives allows you to make the total size larger, and larger as needed. It also somehow does a backup in case one of the drives dies, you just replace it, and it recreates the data.

You can remotely connect to it with remote desktop,
log on to it from outside your house (at starbucks to transfer fiels).

That is how I save my files (plus with the other usb externals all over my house).:huh:
 
Is there really any need to keep the transcoded files? As soon as you are done with the project, just delete them. Just keep 2 copies of the original footage along with the project files, and if you need to open the project up down the road, just re-transcode. You can fit about 100 hours on a 1TB drive, so its easy to back up cheaply and throw on a shelf for safe storage.

I'm loving native editing so far for the most part. There really isn't a NEED to transcode on a fast computer if you can export to your delivery format through your NLE, but there will always be reasons to go that route anyway. For example, even the fastest computer will choke trying to view mpg4 at 100x speed (eg. time-lapse).
 
the project files will be looking for the transcoded versions, so if you do have to restart the edit, just remember what the trans versions were named.
 
mcsmooth said:
Is there really any need to keep the transcoded files?
Click to expand...

I keep the transcoded files because I like the 10 bit files that i can name what ever i want. I have not tried to rename a native file in fear of it may no longer work.

I have no idea what the file contains with native avchd naming.

With the transcoded file, I can:

1. Name it what I want.
2. I Can edit it easily.
3. I know it is pulled down, full raster, and ready to go (any other file is not)
When working with the Canon files as well, they need to be pulled down.
If they are AVI cineform files, I know they are ready to go.
4. They color correct/ alter so much better without damaging the image.
5. Hard drives are cheap. I usually keep all files per project on one drive including the AVCHD files in a folder named AVCHD.
 
mcsmooth said:
Is there really any need to keep the transcoded files? As soon as you are done with the project, just delete them. Just keep 2 copies of the original footage along with the project files, and if you need to open the project up down the road, just re-transcode. You can fit about 100 hours on a 1TB drive, so its easy to back up cheaply and throw on a shelf for safe storage.

I'm loving native editing so far for the most part. There really isn't a NEED to transcode on a fast computer if you can export to your delivery format through your NLE, but there will always be reasons to go that route anyway. For example, even the fastest computer will choke trying to view mpg4 at 100x speed (eg. time-lapse).
Click to expand...

mcsmooth:

I agree with you on everything and am having a smooth ride with Vegas 8.0c. On my machine, native HMC-150 files render slightly faster than real time. I have never even had to think about transcoding.

I clean up the deshaker directory files (huge) and DVD files after the project is complete and perform a weekly backup to an identical 1TB drive. When they are both full, I start a new set. 1TB actually lasts through a lot of projects for me with only the native files.
 
Green Hornet said:
I keep the transcoded files because I like the 10 bit files that i can name what ever i want. I have not tried to rename a native file in fear of it may no longer work.

I have no idea what the file contains with native avchd naming.

With the transcoded file, I can:
Click to expand...

Good points, thought I'd comment on some thoughts;

> 1. Name it what I want.

Very true. Most of us find out early its a bad idea to start changing the original file names, but is a logical mistake considering most of us come from manual captures where we can name (and add other data to) every clip.

This is where metadata can really help. You can do much more than simple naming and retain the original filename link. Until there is a standard for this, I see people having issues with the info not being passed between programs (eg. original files to transcoded). I noticed the DVCPRO HD converter is one of the few programs that actually pulls the timecode from AVCHD. Premiere still doesn't do this (grrr), yet it will read it from the P2 transcodes.

> 2. I Can edit it easily.

It will be several years before that is no longer an issue. Hardware speed, hardware acceleration, and software compatibility is getting there, but far from the norm. I'm finding no need to transcode for basic editing in CS4 on my good machine, but have noticed things can really start to bog down when you have multiple layers with effects... maybe those projects/sequences belong in AE anyway?

> 3. I know it is pulled down, full raster, and ready to go (any other file is not)
When working with the Canon files as well, they need to be pulled down.
If they are AVI cineform files, I know they are ready to go.

Unless NLEs start doing that natively, definitely the way to go. Similarly, anyone using one of the many programs that still do not support AVCHD (or certain modes/framerates of this cam) has no other option.

> 4. They color correct/ alter so much better without damaging the image.

This will certainly be the case if the file is ever rendered more than once, but I question if this applies when all of the work is done in one shot. If a program properly does all of the processing with extra head room, you are still starting with the same amount of information to work with. Similarly, make sure the programs you are using AND the effects/plugins truly work beyond 8 bits, or you will lose the benefit.

> 5. Hard drives are cheap. I usually keep all files per project on one drive including the AVCHD files in a folder named AVCHD.

They sure are cheap. It will take 5-10x the space, but that is still only 5-10x the size of tiny files ;) Still... I wont waste the space if I don't need to and always delete the transcodes when finished (since I do not rename the files).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top