![]() ![]() Since MXF just names clips Clip_001 ect its very easy to have a dozen clips of the same name. This can also happen when you clipwrap MXF media into individual new MOV's. thats a HUGE help when you have multiple dslr clips from _different_ cameras and they have the same names because some on thought it would be a good idea to match all the cameras together on a shoot… or you are a busy post place and simply wind up with dupe names because of all the material coming thru. QTchange will write into the mov file a reel name and set the clip TC = to creation time (ToD). One of the huge pitfalls is if you don't pre-process your canon DSLR footage thru QTchange. ![]() there are just too many things that go wrong that can cost days of work to correct. if you have never had to manually relink hundreds of clips, you won't understand that proxy workflow is pretty much to be avoided at all costs. Proxy workflow on most systems is just a total minefield of problems. ![]() having enough ram, fast drives and a good GPU are all part of the equation and if they all aren't up to speed, then you won't have a good experience on older gear. ![]() my 4.1 mac tower with 2X4 2.8ghz zenons does ok with canon h.264 in prem pro. I really disagree unless you have a pretty low end processor for that era. What are your thoughts on transcoding, and what role does it play in your post production workflows? If that's the case with any particular codec that you regularly use, transcoding to an intermediate might just be the best option in the long run. These and a few other codecs can be notoriously difficult to work with regardless of resolution, and they'll slow down your editing machines considerably. Ultimately, transcoding your original media to intermediate codecs like ProRes or DNxHD can still save you loads of time in the long run if you're shooting to codecs like high-bitrate h.264 or the new h.265, which is currently only available as a capture format on the new Samsung NX1. Otherwise, creating proxies and relinking to the original media when you're ready to color correct and master is the best solution. Although it is possible to edit natively with certain types of RAW files, you lose much of the flexibility that comes from shooting RAW when you use that workflow. There is one major exception to that rule, however, and it's when your capture format is RAW. Luckily, our friends over at Videomaker just put out a helpful excerpt from their post-production course that should shed light on the process. The answer to that question is actually more complicated than you might think, and there quite a few things that need to be taken into consideration before making the choice of whether to transcode or not. However, in the past couple of years, each of the major editing platforms has taken on the ability to natively edit footage from a whole range of cameras and capture formats, which begs the question, is transcoding still a necessary step for most of us to take in our post production workflows? In the past, transcoding was almost always used as an intermediary step before the edit because NLEs like FCP7 and Avid didn't perform particularly well without their specifically-tailored mezzanine codecs (ProRes and DNxHD). One subject that seems to confuse people more than most is that of transcoding. With all of the codecs, software options, and workflows available to us, it's hard to know if we're being as efficient as we can be. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |