|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 29th, 2009, 12:01 AM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Port Charlotte, Florida
Posts: 104
|
AVC-Intra Question
Is AVC-Intra just as intensive on the NLE processor as AVCHD? I am about to upgrade workflow and want to leave the AVCHD headaches behind. Will I be reliving AVCHD if I upgrade to a camera (HPX300) using AVC-Intra?
|
November 29th, 2009, 03:47 AM | #2 |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,992
|
No it isnt AVC intra is a superb codec and far better for editing than AVCHD, I am using AVC intra 100 a lot and it goes into final cut pro as re-wrapped native AVC to pro res files.
It is a dream to work with and the lower bit rate AVC intra 50 is even easier, the files also go into FCP at 3X real time for AVC intra 100 on my mac machines. I also use AVCHD from a canon HF11 and find that it is better to transcode to pro res LT than re-wrap and try to use AVCHD for editing. Hope this helps, I have the HPX301 and the picture quality of AVC intra is superb.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/ |
November 29th, 2009, 04:26 AM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC [Canada, Eh!]
Posts: 257
|
Sorry to go some what off topic here, but is there any way to convert from AVCHD (or nay format) to AVCIntra? I'm thinking the storage would be much smaller than say DNxHD codec.
|
November 29th, 2009, 06:32 AM | #4 |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,992
|
I dont think there is a way to copy AVCHD to AVC intra and it would up the size and bit rates.
I transcode all my AVCHD to pro res LT now and that seems to be the best balance for bit rate and file sizes. It also gives the advantage of all my media from the 301 and HF11 being in the same format for edit.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/ |
November 29th, 2009, 07:09 AM | #5 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
DNxHD is variable bit-rate, and you can use sizes down to 36Mbps which is even smaller than AVC-Intra 50. There are several DNxHD codec bitrates below 100 Mbps. Why not use one of those?
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
November 29th, 2009, 12:31 PM | #6 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
Hence, if you're originating AVC Intra 100, but using ProRes within FCP, the inputting process is not re-wrapping (where the codec remains the same) but transcoding. Hence the edit performance has nothing to do with AVC-Intra (which is the question asked), but everything to do with ProRes. |
|
November 29th, 2009, 12:36 PM | #7 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
Apparently, at least from what I've seen on the internets, ProRes can take in AVC-Intra without a transcode. And it's just a re-wrap. Not sure how they are doing it, but that's what Panasonic and Apple claim. So...
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
November 29th, 2009, 02:13 PM | #8 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC [Canada, Eh!]
Posts: 257
|
Quote:
Quote:
I can;t see hpow it can be a re-wrap. Prores is colser to DNxHD. It is definately not the same as AVC-I. I could see it transcoding quite quickly though as it is an easier codec to handle than AVCHD. |
||
November 29th, 2009, 02:20 PM | #9 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
I didn't say AVC-Intra wasn't more efficient than DNxHD. I just said that DNxHD offered variable bit rates, since you seem to be worried about space. The efficiency of the codec is immaterial to how much space it consumes on the drive. That is a function of frame size and bit rate.
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
November 29th, 2009, 03:18 PM | #10 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,992
|
Quote:
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/ |
|
November 29th, 2009, 10:02 PM | #11 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC [Canada, Eh!]
Posts: 257
|
I thought prores was a codec, not a wrapper?
Not a mac guy but this is what I had been led to believe. |
November 29th, 2009, 11:27 PM | #12 | ||
Barry Wan Kenobi
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
Quote:
Intra's way faster to use than AVC-HD, but it's still quite processor intensive. |
||
November 29th, 2009, 11:30 PM | #13 | ||
Barry Wan Kenobi
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
Quote:
FCP 7 can execute a simple rewrap, where it keeps the files in native AVC-Intra mode. Or it can do a transcode to ProRes. FCP 7 has native AVC-Intra support; prior versions didn't offer this and so could only do a transcode to prores. |
||
November 29th, 2009, 11:31 PM | #14 |
Barry Wan Kenobi
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
|
FCP can take in AVC-Intra, but not to ProRes. It just does a file re-wrap to Quicktime.
|
November 29th, 2009, 11:35 PM | #15 | |
Barry Wan Kenobi
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
Uncompressed HD = 1920 x 1080 x 59.94i = 62 megabytes per second. AVC-Intra = 1920x1080x59.94i, same frame size and frame rate, but 12 megabytes per second, and delivering what people could arguably call "visually uncompressed" quality. So if you hold to a specific standard of quality, the more efficient codec will take up less space on the drive. I think what was being asked was if DNxHD at 145mbps looks the same as AVC-Intra at 100mbps, because if so, the more-efficient codec is storing the same quality footage in less drive space. |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|