FS7: Which software do you use for conversion ?
- Thread starter Duol
- Start date
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Davinci Resolve is free, you can add a LUT - the colours are way nicer than Browse, you can if desired do primary corrections, you can strip off the unwanted audio tracks.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I edit XAVC natively with Premiere CC on a Mac and it cuts like warm butter. Why bother with conversions?
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
I edit XAVC natively in Avid 8.3 also via AMA and it works just fine but I'm not cutting hour long docs.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I'm curious to know what difference it would it make if you were cutting hour long docs?
icarusfilm
Veteran
+1
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Avid AMA can chug when you get a ton of layers or complex edits in a long timeline. I usually rough cut and then transcode overnight for longer edits.
I also need to upgrade my edit disks as 4K is chugging off the ol spinning platters but thats my issue not Avids.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I guess I have one more reason to be happy I switched from FCP7 to Premiere before I actually installed the Avid software I had already bought. In fact, I have a Symphony 6 box still sitting on my shelf with the shrinkwrap intact. I can't even estimate how much time it sounds like I would have wasted over the last couple of years doing conversions for Avid. Dodged a bullet there.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
For me I started 16 years ago as an Avid editor so avid is like second nature to me which is why I've kept it up. I absolutely hated FCP and have premiere and keep meaning to migrate over (to make the most of my CC dollars) but Avid keeps pulling me back because of my speed cutting with it. One of these days I'll end up on Premiere I'm sure.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Having to transcode doesn't sound very speedy to me. 
starcentral
Veteran
I've used them all including Davinci Resovle on MAC and PC, FCP X, and Catalyst products (browse and prepare) on both MAC and PC.
FCP X and Catalyst will convert much faster than Davinci Resolve. Davinci may crash way more depending on your machine specifics so it is a bit picky. Don't get me wrong however, it works on both my PC and MAC without any problems.
Davinci Resolve is FREE and in my opinion will transcode footage without really any chance of screwing any of it up. Main thing you need to know about transcoding footage is that your timecode does not get changed, and sometimes paying attention to "levels" (data and video). Other 3rd party programs may totally screw either of these up, so I tend to trust Davinci most because it just works. It is slower I find, probably because of Davinci's insane floating point math behind the scenes. On a MAC you will have access to ProRes codec. All of them from 422 LQ to 4444. On a PC you are limited to a "good" codec unless you want DPX which will eat up serious space and not have any sound.
FCP X costs money, it only runs on MAC but it will create nice ProRes files without any effort really. You just import the footage, check or uncheck a few boxes and let it do its thing. Like I already mentioned it's faster than Resolve. Everyone loves ProRes.
I've been evaluating Catalyst software for some time and keep playing with it to see what it can and can not do. I provide this feedback to Sony directly and they like getting my feedback on it, not to say they will implement "anything" I suggest. As a "COLORING" software it is mediocre because of certain limits or functions missing from curves adjustment or the wheels. I can break the software's ability to make subtle adjustments on footage quite easily by doing what I might do in Davinci Resolve. But to answer SPECIFICALLY about transcoding, it is marvellous. Very very fast i find, and again on a MAC you will have access to ProRes, on a PC they have included a few codec options but you need to see if your NLE will support it.
Browse is FREE as you know and Prepare you can get online for $149. The differences are not what I'd call "huge" depending why you want to use it. Some people here want to just apply a 3D LUT and batch transcode. For this Browse will work fine but ONE color setting gets applied to ALL your clips so it may not be desirable. Others want to be able to adjust each clip a little and apply a 3D LUT and batch transcode, so for that you would need Prepare for. The work around in Browse of course is to only work on a chunk of clips at a time that can take the same color or expsore adjustment, transcode them, then go back and work on your next batch. You can save/export your color adjustments as ASC-CDL files which is handy. As far as colouring tools there is no difference between the two softwares at this point in time. It could be also depending on your entire workflow lifecycle that YOU DO NOT WANT to apply a 3D LUT during the transcoding process since the editor can just as well apply his own working LUT for the purpose of editing and later the log/RAW footage will go to a professional colourist who will want the original footage without any LUTs applied.
I have lots of write-ups on all three of these softwares on my blog including step-by-step guides on how to use then to do transcoding. I also wrote on how to do a roundtrip workflow and some of the benefits of it. Editing natively of course is an option if your NLE supports it but editing transcoded footage or proxies is not uncommon at all. I think Sony will do well selling the ProRes option on all the new F cameras, no transcoding and support to practically all NLE's new or old.
Cheers and good luck!
Last edited:
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Having to transcode doesn't sound very speedy to me.
I don't need to transcode for short projects and on long ones I just transcode after the rough A line cut with jut the material I need. Doesn't interfere with my workflow as I just set it to transcode overnight while I sleep. No actual time lost.
cuervo
Veteran
With today's fast processors, a lot of people think cutting, grading, and adding FX to straight highly compressed capture codecs are a no-brainer. But, there are a lot of reasons NOT to go this route. Avid will work with native codecs when you AMA link to them, no transcoding needed. But, when you get serious about more than just cuts, like adding CC and FX, Avid wil force you to go to a DI. Avid will work with Prores and DNxHR as DI's, so if you're already in this format, there is no need to transcode, Avid will fast import them. Nevertheless, my point is that just because you may have a fast processor; and, you can process a highly compressed capture codec like XAVC-I or XAVC-L is even worse, doesn't mean you're not experiencing significant loss in image quality. This is due, simply to generational losses because capture codecs don't reproduce without losses. This is why DI's were developed, ITFP. I keep hearing "editors" say they don't need DI's anymore, but, if you do FX, transitions, or grade your work, there's no avoiding the fact that you're suffering generational losses every time you re-render your timeline.
Disclaimer: I love Avid. I hate almost every other NLE I've ever used, including FCPX, Premiere, Vegas, and Edius. Every one of those other systems have always been highly unstable, costing me tons of time in lost work. FCPX has it's limited merits, but, given that it's an Apple product, leaves me feeling somewhat disengenuous about using it.
Disclaimer: I love Avid. I hate almost every other NLE I've ever used, including FCPX, Premiere, Vegas, and Edius. Every one of those other systems have always been highly unstable, costing me tons of time in lost work. FCPX has it's limited merits, but, given that it's an Apple product, leaves me feeling somewhat disengenuous about using it.
Last edited:
mainstreetprod
Veteran
I'm in the beginning stages of a feature and originally planned to transcode 4K to 2K, staying in XAVC to keep the file sizes down. Now that I have 3 days of footage, I just tried editing 4K and so far it's working great. But it's only a 3 minute project, so the question is how well will it work with 90 minutes on the timeline.
I had planned on transposing the files to Prores but the time involved and tripling the file sizes wasn't attractive. The plan is to just cut, drop in a Lut for editing, then remove the LUT , transcode to Prores and send the file to a colorist in SLOG3. Hopefully editing in XAVC won't have generational loss if all I'm doing is cutting. Cuervo?
I had planned on transposing the files to Prores but the time involved and tripling the file sizes wasn't attractive. The plan is to just cut, drop in a Lut for editing, then remove the LUT , transcode to Prores and send the file to a colorist in SLOG3. Hopefully editing in XAVC won't have generational loss if all I'm doing is cutting. Cuervo?
starcentral
Veteran
The colourist will not want a single file rendered output of the film, this would be a nightmare to single out each cut and grade individually.
What would typically happen is you will finish your edit, export an XML or EDL from your NLE, then give that to your colourist along with the original footage from the camera. He will create NEW files in whatever format you want and you will then take these and re-link them back in your NLE.
So having described this "roundtrip" workflow even if there is any generational loss while editing it won't matter.
Cheers,
Liam Hall
Veteran
The key to editing XAVC 4K without annoying lags on the timeline is fast drives. A G-Tech Studio with Thunderbolt 2 will be just fine.
mainstreetprod
Veteran
Yes, rather than "file" I meant "project", as I've discussed giving the colorist a PPCC project file.
- The key to editing XAVC 4K without annoying lags on the timeline is fast drives. A G-Tech Studio with Thunderbolt 2 will be just fine.
Exactly the drive I have.
Did you find this post helpful?
| 
