C100 and Ninja 2

[David Ells]

I have a C100 on pre-order and I am likely to buy a Ninja 2 shortly after my C100 arrives. One thing I can't seem to find anywhere is if I am exclusively delivering for the web, is there a benefit to using ProRes 422 or HQ as opposed to ProRes LT?

From what I can tell, the only difference between them is bitrate, and 100Mb/s is still twice the bitrate of the C300's internal codec. If I use the Ninja 2 it will be because I want to do substantial grading, which I imagine makes a difference in what people would suggest. But still, I don't read about many people using the C300 with an external recorder so I have trouble understanding how twice the bitrate would not be good enough for web delivery.

Also, removing the Ninja from the conversation, does converting to ProRes from AVCHD as opposed to recording in ProRes change what you might suggest or is it the same question?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by David Ells

From what I can tell, the only difference between them is bitrate, and 100Mb/s is still twice the bitrate of the C300's internal codec.

Not quite true - the C300 internal codec is long-GOP, whereas I think you are referring to 100Mbs I-frame only.

It's a complicated subject and hard to generalise but it's pretty true that (with all else equal) a long-GOP codec will give equivalent quality to an I-frame only one at a far lower bitrate, probably well under half.

Also, removing the Ninja from the conversation, does converting to ProRes from AVCHD as opposed to recording in ProRes change what you might suggest or is it the same question?

Once something is lost, it's lost, and that's the case when you compress to AVC-HD, then go to a less compressed codec. You don't get back what AVC-HD threw away.

Think of having a litre of water. Pour it into a half litre pot and you lose half of it. Pouring the contents then into a 1 litre container won't give you the missing back.

[David Ells]

Thanks for that info!

Regarding my second question, I understand that AVCHD severely limits the quality from the get-go. I am just wondering if converting to ProRes for workflow purposes changes my need for one flavor of ProRes over another compared to recording directly to ProRes via a recorder. I am guessing that it does not.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by David Ells

Thanks for that info!

Regarding my second question, I understand that AVCHD severely limits the quality from the get-go. I am just wondering if converting to ProRes for workflow purposes changes my need for one flavor of ProRes over another compared to recording directly to ProRes via a recorder. I am guessing that it does not.

I think "AVCHD severely limits the quality" is probably a bit harsh - AVC-HD is pretty good, it's just not up to the standard of such as XDCAM422.

If you have to record in AVC-HD, it can only help to transcode before editing but best to go to PreRes from the start if possible. As far as bitrates go, I'd go as high as is viably realistic .......

[David Ells]

Thanks, David.

My plan for now is to record the corporate stuff my company does (quick setups, long record times, no grading) in AVC-HD, and record the promotional stuff in ProRes. I have Premiere so I can handle either format for editing.

[Alister Chapman]

One consideration is that AVCHD is very processor intensive when it comes to playback and decoding. So while modern computers and NLE's handle AVCHD much more smoothly than in the past, it's still not as smooth as when using a codec like ProRes which is designed to be simple to decode and thus easier for the computer to work with. You will probably find the editing experience easier and faster with ProRes than with AVCHD.

[David Ells]

Thanks, Alister. I'll have to put each workflow through its paces to see how well my computer performs with the AVCHD. I'm perfectly content with how it handles my native 60D video files so if it's comparable then I will use that workflow.

[Noa Put]

I'm perfectly content with how it handles my native 60D video files so if it's comparable then I will use that workflow.

Avchd and dslr mov files are similar in terms of processor load, if prores is comparable to Edius HQ avi codec then I can also confirm what Alistar says about easier editing experience, in that codec it's like cutting through butter, especially while fast scrubbing the timeline the difference is very noticeable. I much prefer editing in an intermediate codec but in Edius case filesize (meaning harddrive space) becomes an issue quickly when you have to deal with many longer form projects.