|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 8th, 2010, 08:27 PM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 32
|
Most easily digested format?
I am trying edit a multicam shoot on FCP 7. The footage is of the AVCHD type (.mts). If I want to edit a live multicam stream (as in, seeing all the angles play at once as I edit) is there any other supported format outside ProRes? I tried converting the footage to .mov with a H.264 codec and a divx codec, but neither supports open sync for multicam playback.
So am I stuck with ProRes for multicam editing, or will something else out there work? P.s. I don't have anything against ProRes, but it makes pretty huge files for 1080p footage. I know that most codecs with superior compression are to difficult for Final Cut to play multiple streams on the fly, but I'm hoping there might be a mix of reasonable file size and multicam playback out there. |
February 9th, 2010, 08:35 AM | #2 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 645
|
DVCPRO HD is a little more aggressive in the compression department versus Apple ProRes 422 .... alternatively there is Apple ProRes 422 LT which has a similar data rate to DVCPRO HD. Or how about, XDCAM HD 422 (50 Mb/s), XDCAM HD (35 Mb/s) or even good old fashioned (!) HDV? All are natively supported formats in FCP.
|
February 9th, 2010, 11:39 AM | #3 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 1,585
|
I would stick with ProRes. With hard drives being so cheap right now, there's not much reason to worry about storage. And I can't imagine any reason to transcode to some other format other than to save disc space.
|
February 10th, 2010, 08:08 AM | #4 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 645
|
Got a feeling the issue here is not so much about disk capacity Vito, but about multi-stream playback capacity. Buying a new hard disc is not going to make a significant difference in and of itself, but a big fast RAID is certainly a means to achieve better performance ... as is choosing a more aggressive codec ;-)
|
February 10th, 2010, 08:57 AM | #5 | ||
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 1,585
|
Quote:
Quote:
The original post makes it clear he's concerned about disk space. Even if wants to build a raid, a good idea as you suggest, discs are so cheap that it's to his advantage to stick to ProRes, which is designed for high quality and ease of playback, the advantage of frame based codecs. If he transcodes to a codec that takes less space, but is harder for his computer to play back, he's going to have trouble with multicam perfomance. ProRes is only 75Gigs/hour. For $200 he could have a 2 terabyte raid that will hold over 20 hours of footage. Not bad... |
||
February 10th, 2010, 09:20 AM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 645
|
Aha! Good catch.
Jackson, Vito's quite right ... if all this is just about disc capacity then just getting a bigger disc is a pretty affordable option. Best Andy |
February 11th, 2010, 09:56 AM | #7 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
Let's be clear about compression. AVCHD is a more complex compression codec, not always "superior" unless the criteria is only about taking less room. The AVCHD format was created for video delivery not editing. It has been adopted for consumer cameras as the industry found that people generally don't edit their home videos. The same issue was with MPEG2 which was developed as a professional video delivery format (satellite, DVD, fiber) and it took years before the industry came up with ways to turn MPEG2 into an editable format. The amount of computer resources needed to just play back a single AVCHD file makes multi-cam playback difficult if not impossible for some computers. ProRes was created for a purpose and one of them was to make multi-cam possible. The best option in terms of superior video quality is to transcode to ProRes.
__________________
William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation |
|
February 14th, 2010, 06:55 PM | #8 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 645
|
>The best option in terms of superior video quality is to transcode to ProRes.
Before we all get carried away, lets also remember that a transcode to ProRes will absolutely not improve the video quality of your already recorded material, it will only change the codec. You do not get superior video quality just by transcoding source footage. |
April 16th, 2010, 03:27 AM | #9 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London UK
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
I think u must stick with ProRes.Convert to h.264 MP4 HD first, and then convert again to ProRes422 codec using Compressor. |
|
| ||||||
|
|