Transcoding to prores to solve highlight clipping?
 

I read that while editing FS100 footage on a mac, it is better to transcode the footage to pro res to save the highlights from clipping.

I know some people are editing the mts files natively. What is everyone else doing?

Re: Transcoding to prores to solve highlight clipping?
 

Tough I'm not on Mac anymore, interesting read.

Re: Transcoding to prores to solve highlight clipping?
 

"It's darker than my LCD screen": LCD screens tend to be very bright and unreliable to check brightness.
That's why zebras and waveforms exist.

My questions:
are there any superwhites in the original footage that's being pulled down by the transcoded to ProRes?
In other words: does the transcoder remap the luminance to 0-100IRE?

Re: Transcoding to prores to solve highlight clipping?
 

Ho ho! We've been discussing this in the FS100 room of the 'green forum' - seems to be the meme of the month.

I ran into this a few weeks ago, running an FS700 workshop - didn't know it was considered an issue. So much so, I wrote this blog about it.

Dealing with 109% whites – the footage that goes to 11 Travelling Matt

I didn't cover Avid et al as I have no experience with other packages, but am assured that they are all pretty much the same. Only joker in the pack was FCP7.

So, check your waveform monitor, adjust your footage accordingly, and if you don't like that responsibility, shoot to a 100% safe profile. Simples! (squeak)

Re: Transcoding to prores to solve highlight clipping?
 

Just be aware that cinegamma 1 and cinegamma 2 have exactly the same latitude. Even though the recording levels are different, the latitude is the same, so almost nothing is lost by using broadcast safe cinegamma 2.

The only difference that recording up to 109% brings is a few extra bits of data per stop that may help reduce banding if you do a lot of heavy post work, but the difference is extremely small. Plus of course the image looks a little darker due to the lower recording level.