What do I convert T2i footage with and what format to edit/color grade with?

No need to convert it in CS5, I have had a history of attempts with DNxHD and stuff... Bottom line, edit natively. Color grading can be done with all of Premiere's various effects. I would use Magic Bullet Looks, but I cant figure out why its not working after 6 installs...
 
skatethrasher said:
No need to convert it in CS5, I have had a history of attempts with DNxHD and stuff... Bottom line, edit natively. Color grading can be done with all of Premiere's various effects. I would use Magic Bullet Looks, but I cant figure out why its not working after 6 installs...
Click to expand...

Interesting. I read that the native format is not an editing format and isn't good for grading and is really a delivery format for viewing. Is that incorrect?
 
Yes you are right. Premiere CS5 can recognize the native DSLR footage, I recently made a video with all native h.264 t2i files and AVCHD, but did not do any grading. From what I gather even if you can work well with the native files in your editor, transcoding is ideal for any type of PP other then putting clips together.
 
skatethrasher said:
No need to convert it in CS5, I have had a history of attempts with DNxHD and stuff... Bottom line, edit natively. Color grading can be done with all of Premiere's various effects. I would use Magic Bullet Looks, but I cant figure out why its not working after 6 installs...
Click to expand...

Wrong. You should still convert. You're editing in a Long-GOP 4:2:0 delivery codec which is a really dumb idea. It degrades with each edit you make, and won't handle color grading well. It's just generally a bad idea. Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you should do it. Always convert to an I-frame codec for editing.
 
Ben_B said:
Wrong. You should still convert. You're editing in a Long-GOP 4:2:0 delivery codec which is a really dumb idea. It degrades with each edit you make, and won't handle color grading well. It's just generally a bad idea. Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you should do it. Always convert to an I-frame codec for editing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I ran into that issue when editing a short for a 48 hour film festival. To save on time, we worked with the camera files directly instead of converting them and we couldn't get the color grading the way we wanted.

I've converted all of the files to a better format for editing and things are going much smoother for the "director's cut".
 
If you do use premiere CS5, I urge you to purchase a CUDA enabled video card.

I just bought the Palit GTX 460 2 Gig video card, and after hacking Premiere to accept it, video runs like silk at full res, even with native Canon files off the camera.

Previously, I could only edit at one quarter res playback, and even that was choppy once you lay down video effects.

Other Cuda enabled video converters like Media Show Expresso takes one minute to convert a video which took 20 minutes previously.
 
Is there an i-frame codec that can be used working only with CS5? I mean, that is included in Premiere Pro and there is no need to buy something else.
 
Ben_B said:
Wrong. You should still convert. You're editing in a Long-GOP 4:2:0 delivery codec which is a really dumb idea. It degrades with each edit you make, and won't handle color grading well. It's just generally a bad idea. Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you should do it. Always convert to an I-frame codec for editing.
Click to expand...

this
 
Well, Jason Levine at Adobe seems to think that it's okay to edit the files natively, he says that Premiere will convert the footage to 32bit so it's ready for grading. I've yet to test this out and am not sure how far you can push the native footage but it does seem as though some people are saying you must convert while others are saying CS5 can handle it.

Here's Jason's video:


 
adzcool said:
Well, Jason Levine at Adobe seems to think...
Click to expand...

Adobe are marketing it as a competitive advantage... what do you THINK he's going to say in the video.

Avid say I can cut my native 5D/7D files through AMA in MC5. Does it work? Yes. Would I do it? Not in a million years.

Think this one through...
 
Yes but by converting to a non-lossless codec you are losing information, not to mention sometimes tripling the space required to store the transcoded files so I don't think it's as clearcut as "always transcode".
 
adzcool said:
Yes but by converting to a non-lossless codec you are losing information, not to mention sometimes tripling the space required to store the transcoded files so I don't think it's as clearcut as "always transcode".
Click to expand...

You're right. Do it any way you please.

Best of luck.
 
Guys, is there another option besides neoscene? I remember somebody mentioned a free alternative, something starting with L... Lili something maybe. Or Liga.

???

It would be interesting to run some tests though, what would work for stressing the capabilities of CS5's native editing? And do the same with Neoscene and another one. Until this is all theory - which I respect. But it would be nice to be able to run some examples.
 
Iudex said:
Guys, is there another option besides neoscene? I remember somebody mentioned a free alternative, something starting with L... Lili something maybe. Or Liga.

???

It would be interesting to run some tests though, what would work for stressing the capabilities of CS5's native editing? And do the same with Neoscene and another one. Until this is all theory - which I respect. But it would be nice to be able to run some examples.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of options, each with their positives and drawbacks

Lagarith
HuffYUV
DNxHD
Matrox VfW

I've broken down the plusses and minuses on these more than I care to recall. The Matrox VfW offers the best option for a free codec PC only.
 
I don't know guys, from what I have seen, what this Jason guy says seems to be true. Premiere does in fact transcode the footage. The first time you import a clip, Premiere must process it. You can edit while it's processing but it can lag. It takes only a few seconds or a couple minutes tops per clip.

When you export the edited footage, you can select "Match project settings" and it outputs a mpeg2 file. If I'm not mistaken, cs5 is basically transcoding the footage in the background.

With premiere I have noticed that the dynamic range of the image is restored as compared to other video players like WMP, and I'm assuming, Quicktime on a mac.
 
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Same applies to editing the native codec. I have much better results using Cineform.
 
I would like someone to show me the drawbacks of using the "native" files. Because as the adobe guy said, premiere is doing something with it... I believe they are putting it in an mpeg2 I-frame format... but really I can't be sure.

Does anyone have some comparisons of the exact same grades done on native versus another codec?
 
Nathan.Buxton said:
I would like someone to show me the drawbacks of using the "native" files.
Click to expand...

On one of my last shoots I noticed in Premiere really horrible blocking noise in the shadow areas, like bad compression artefacts on the native codec, it was so bad I was thinking I might have to reshoot.

I encoded them to Cineform and the artefacts were all gone.

I don't have the original files, I delete them & keep the Cineform version after the edit is complete (so i'm sure i don't have any dodgy files) so i can't post a grab of the footage.

Maybe it was just a playback issue & the footage was fine, but it was enough to convince me that I'll just keep working with Cineform regardless of wether i get a card that can run the Mercury playback engine. I currently have a 512mb 9800GT so can't use the hack.

Tell you what though, I might perform a few tests myself if you're interested? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top