I feel as though this is the only concept regarding dslrs that i havent really figured out yet. I dont understand why you should convert the files straight off the card to edit with. Whats the main reason for doing this? Does it downgrade or lower the resolution of the footage? Does Mpeg Streamclip work fine to use? Please help.
Why should you convert dslr footage to edit?
- Thread starter deadby23
- Start date
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I have detected no loss in quality when using a codec that accommodates the data rate of the original footage as long as quality is set to 100% for the transcode.
I have seen someone edit the H.264 footage on a Mac and apparently have no issues, while I have then taken the project from them and had playback issues on a Dual Quad Core Mac, so who knows.
I'd say, if you can edit the original files and have no issues, then do it.
I have seen someone edit the H.264 footage on a Mac and apparently have no issues, while I have then taken the project from them and had playback issues on a Dual Quad Core Mac, so who knows.
I'd say, if you can edit the original files and have no issues, then do it.
Jean Dantes
Well-known member
I never convert my footage and edit it straight off the card. You only need to convert if you're trying to edit on a "not-so-powerful" system. But then again, my system isn't even that powerful - overclocked Intel Q8400 @ 4 x 3.5GHz
Samuel H
Major Contributor
before CS5 came around, everybody said you had to transcode, to avoid working on a reduced color space that would kill your footage when grading, but I think that changed with CS5
if you have CS5, you can edit your H.264 files directly, with no performance issues*, and it seems that will give you the best possible quaility
I suspect any transcoding will affect picture quality, but I haven't run any tests
* that is, unless your computer is unsuited for the task... but it's not a great problem: with premiere CS5, a core2 with a GTS450 (for CUDA-enabled mercury playback engine) will edit H.264 footage with lots of filters, transitions and whatnot, in realtime (at least if you don't go third-party for those filters and transitions)
if you have CS5, you can edit your H.264 files directly, with no performance issues*, and it seems that will give you the best possible quaility
I suspect any transcoding will affect picture quality, but I haven't run any tests
* that is, unless your computer is unsuited for the task... but it's not a great problem: with premiere CS5, a core2 with a GTS450 (for CUDA-enabled mercury playback engine) will edit H.264 footage with lots of filters, transitions and whatnot, in realtime (at least if you don't go third-party for those filters and transitions)
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
To be honest, the main reason I transcode to ProRes is simple: I work with other professionals.
If I were shooting, editing and finishing every aspect of my projects solo, then I might be more tempted to not transcode, and to stick with the H.264 files. But working with transcoded ProRes files means that at any moment, if I need to send a clip to a high-end graphics room, or a color suite, or just about anyone else in the professional post-production chain, I know they'll be able to work with the files straightaway without having to fuss with them at all. If I worked in Avid I'd use DNxHD for precisely the same reason.
If I were shooting, editing and finishing every aspect of my projects solo, then I might be more tempted to not transcode, and to stick with the H.264 files. But working with transcoded ProRes files means that at any moment, if I need to send a clip to a high-end graphics room, or a color suite, or just about anyone else in the professional post-production chain, I know they'll be able to work with the files straightaway without having to fuss with them at all. If I worked in Avid I'd use DNxHD for precisely the same reason.
King-Pin Lei
Member
Well, I do a lot of post with my stuff and generally I never edit in H264 because down the line I know I'll be colour correcting and H264 has a really crappy colour space because of the heavy compression. But I have friends that edit with Premiere Pro CS5 and they're quite happy editing in H264, but they don't need to do much in the way of colour correction on their stuff.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Yeah, it's important to point out - some platforms and post software work fine with H.264 files, and some do not.
It's pretty common by now for post-production houses to transcode the H.264 files to Prores for all their post work as far as I know.
It's pretty common by now for post-production houses to transcode the H.264 files to Prores for all their post work as far as I know.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
that's not a problem anymore: CS5 converts the footage on the fly to the color space of your choice
Luis Caffesse
Admin
When I got a new editing system recently I tried cutting a project without transcoding, and I had no workflow problems.
I was able to edit and finish the project without issue.
The problem came in when I compressed the video for upload (it was an episode of Project Rant).
The final piece that was compressed for the web looked terribly chewed up, using the same compression settings I always use that generally give me very clean results.
I went back and transcoded all the footage to ProRes - leaving every filter in FCP exactly the same, and my final compressed upload looked much much cleaner.
SO - while you CAN edit native files it may not always be a good idea.
I suppose if you aren't doing any color correction or manipulation of your footage at all other than straight cuts then you might be fine - but I still feel it makes more sense to transcode in order to ensure the highest quality output possible. Just my 2 cents.
I was able to edit and finish the project without issue.
The problem came in when I compressed the video for upload (it was an episode of Project Rant).
The final piece that was compressed for the web looked terribly chewed up, using the same compression settings I always use that generally give me very clean results.
I went back and transcoded all the footage to ProRes - leaving every filter in FCP exactly the same, and my final compressed upload looked much much cleaner.
SO - while you CAN edit native files it may not always be a good idea.
I suppose if you aren't doing any color correction or manipulation of your footage at all other than straight cuts then you might be fine - but I still feel it makes more sense to transcode in order to ensure the highest quality output possible. Just my 2 cents.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
But not everything can be done in CS5.
Again, for simple workflows, this is fine. But when you need to start shipping things into other programs or to other people, this workflow falls down. And frankly, I prefer to transcode at the FRONT of the workflow, than at the back end after I've done 100 things to the footage.
My ignorance is showing. I thought ProRes was lossy.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
They aren't visually lossy until maybe 6-9 generations down. You'd need to computer difference the files at the first few generations to know anything was gone. DNxHD is the same way. As is Cineform, Matrox's VfW codec at higher bitrates, etc.