s0ny

I have the same issue for almost 1.5 years already and even switched systems, but to no avail. 

Alright, Premiere Pro CC 2015.3 is released and supports h264 decoding through Iris. 

Has anyone tried it on their Skylake CPUs? Does it enable real-time, full-res 4K playback without lag? That will save me tons of time in transcoding to Cineform.

On 6/11/2016 at 8:07 PM, joema said:

I have deferred this since I do almost no editing on my Windows machine anymore. I edit on my 2015 iMac 27 using either Premiere CC or (mostly) FCPX. I would still like to test the GTX-1070 on Premiere CC because the results would be interesting, but I have no practical need for it. 

Premiere CC is quite sluggish when scrubbing H264 4k XAVCS content on both my 4Ghz PC with GTX-660 and also my 2015 top-spec iMac 27. If that is why you are considering transcoding to Cineform, Adobe will be shipping a Premiere update soon which has proxy capability so it can transcode by itself then use the smaller proxies for improved performance while keeping them in sync with the original files. I don't know what codec options they will support but it will be a big improvement.

Adobe has also mentioned vague statements about Intel "Iris graphics" improvements which might be code-speak for Quick Sync. However they say it will be Windows-only for now. That would be another big improvement. It is probably one reason FCPX is so much faster on H264 since it uses Quick Sync and Premiere does not.

If I were doing any significant editing on Premiere and had a GTX-660-series GPU, I would upgrade to the 1070 or 1080 sight unseen, without any tests. Those cards are way faster than the 660, and Premiere really needs that GPU performance -- regardless of whether GPU-assisted transcoding is possible.

A GPU upgrade plus the upcoming Premiere update will probably help you a lot.

 

If they support Quick Sync, then wouldn't the GPU matter less? 

Also curious, will Quick Sync speed up XAVCS h264 to h265 High profile transcoding too? 

Hi Joema,

Have you tested the 1070 yet? How's the result? 

Still trying my luck to find a gpu-accelerated transcoder for XAVCS to Cineform..

Nice. Thanks for the detailed reply. 

Off-topic for a little - when you're done with your XAVCS 100mbps files, do you guys usually render them as 100mbps h264 files again or? 

Put it another way - is high bitrate (100mbps) used to facilitate editing only, or does it have a real effect on final output (for archival)? For now, I'm using VBR 2 Pass, 50mbps Avg and 95mbps Max to save space. Can't see much of a difference without zooming in at least.

Need a second opinion here.

Hi there,

Thanks for the prompt reply. 

Some questions:

1. I checked the benchmarks and saw that your E5-1680v3 is faster than Skylake 6700k for single-core performance. Does that mean even for 6700k or 5820, there is no way to achieve smooth scrubbing on native XAVCS footage?

2. Why is it that for editing-friendly codecs (e.g. Cineform 10bit), GPU is the most important for scrubbing? Thought GPU can only accelerate limited effects.

3. Regarding the GPU-accelerated transcoder from XAVCS 4k 100mbps to Cineform 10 bit, I was referring to a 3rd party app than Media Encoder or Premiere Pro CC. Any that you can recommend?

WOW! You're the man, OP. I have been doing a lot of research on this topic but no info came close, except your findings!

Some questions here:

1. Surprised that scrubbing is choppy on native XAVCS files, even with your specifications. Will having a GTX980 (or 1070, upcoming) remove the choppiness while scrubbing? Otherwise, is there any foreseeable new tech in the future that can natively handle such native files? Don't really care about encoding times, but scrubbing is VERY important.

2. Does the hard drive play any part in determining the scrubbability of footage in Premiere Pro CC? Asking for both NATIVE and Cineform footage. 

2a. In terms of priority in component upgrading in scrubbability, I suppose CPU is tops. What are the next few items in the sequence? CPU >> RAM >> SDD >> GPU?

2b. Is there any performance difference between an internal and external Seagate 4TB drive? I think I'd need to have that if I were to use Cineform. The size is insane. 

3. For Cineform 10-bit YUV, does it suffice to use Quality 4 in AME?

4. Is there a GPU-accelerated transcoder from XAVCS 4k 100mbps to Cineform 10 bit? I checked my GPU load (660Ti, 2Gb) and it was only at 1%, while my CPU is on full load all the way when transcoding 1h+ of 20 clips.

5. What is the current workflow for swopping out proxy files with the originals? 

well, it's just like back in the DVD days, many encoders recommend 8000kbps 2-pass VBR as good enough. In today's world (4k XAVC S 100mbps), there should be a yardstick that says what's good enough, or what's overkill etc. 

On 3/24/2016 at 10:01 PM, Don Kotlos said:

Are you talking about the original footage or edited? Original should rarely be modified since storage is cheap and you always loose information during transcoding. 

If it is for just viewing your edited clips, then you might be able to get away with less bitrate than 100. How much lower depends on your subjective quality criteria. 

 

i'm looking for a somewhat-universally-agreed range of bitrates that people find pretty 'good enough' for archival purposes. I have tested at many different bitrates, but the effects are very different on specific clips and not always noticeable. 

referring to the final, edited clip.

YouTube quality is terrible, even in 4K. HEVC is not an option now as my encoding time increases by many times (can take 20 hours for a 3 min video). I'm looking at a balanced quality-size ratio. 

As above - if my objective is to archive them for 4K viewing next time (on TV/Monitor), is there really a need to encode at 100mbps (source is XAVCS 4k, 100mbps 24fps)? Or will numbers like 20mbps suffice?

The file sizes are massive, so I'm trying to find the optimal balance between size and quality. Thanks!

12 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's interesting. I avoided shooting SLOG this time. Went for Cine4 and graded with FilmConvert, Kodak, A7S II profile. Colour definitely seems nice.

Hi Andrew,

Which Source profile did you choose in FilmConvert? I just checked and the a7sii only has Cine1Pro and a slew of S-Log profiles. What would you recommend to get nice looking skintones like the NX1?

I finally bought my a6300 and I'm very keen to match it to colors of the NX1 and Canon ML RAW footage. What should be the best PP and gamma curve I should use to grade my footage and get the skin tones looking good? 

While S-Log 2 seems extremely popular, I have seen others recommend Cine4 for better/easier-to-grade results. 

Would also appreciate if there are links to resources that I can read up on all the different settings for log/gamma/pp. 

Thanks!

Hi guys,

Is there any surefire way to grade GH or Sony A Series footage to look exactly (or 99%) like NX1's default colors all the time, without manual fiddling of 3-way correctors and stuff? 

On another unrelated note, I'd also like to ask: what is the best consumer-level (<3k) camera that has the BEST 60p or 120p footage? 

For instance, will the a6300 + 16-70 f4 look less sharp than a 24-70 2.8 @ f4 in 4K24p mode? 

On both my Canon and GH bodies, at least in video mode, the lens choice did not seem to affect the video quality/aesthetics (other than the aperture rating). 

Suggestions please!

in terms of pure sharpness and detail in great lighting, am i the only one that thinks NX1 still beats the hell out of a6300? the a6300 image just doesn't seem to 'pop'.

8 minutes ago, Jpr said:

Like every 8 bit Sony camera the skin tones are great for gritty stuff but useless for beauty/glamour imo. I'll stick to their 10 bit stuff where it's possible to wrestle the skin tones the right way or canon. Shame because this looked like a winner on paper. 

interested on the results after grading. Canon and Samsung seem to have the most pleasing skin tones so far.

Hi guys, 

I've been watching ALL the a6300 hands-on reviews so far. While there is A LOT of hype on this camera (and i'm impressed by the AF capabilities), I still want to ask - is the NX1 or the a6300 better in terms of image quality? 

The NX1 caught my eye on YouTube (when the compression is so horrible, yet the NX1 can retain its sharpness and colors so well) and so far, it doesn't seem that the a6300 has beaten this 2 year old camera yet. 

Would also like to check - how easy is it to grade Sony A series footage that looks like NX1 colors? does it take a a lot of time? 

Lastly, is there any chance of Samsung releasing a successor to the NX1, given there are so many rumors of them abandoning their business?