Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Codec'.
Found 5 results
H264 Mov vs Pro Res vs DNxHD workflow in Premiere Pro CC?Hi all, Hoping someone can help with this edit workflow question: I currently shoot video on Canon DSLRs (in H264 MOV format), and edit on a late 2009 iMac (2.8ghz i7 processor, 16gb memory). The films I make are mainly for web rather than TV broadcast, and beyond basic colour grade / tidying up, have minimal effects added (no CGI). Until recently, I used Final Cut Pro 7, using FCP's Log & Transfer function to import and edit footage in Pro Res 422 format. Having just moved to Premiere Pro CC 2017, I'm trying to figure out the most efficient workflow with the best resulting image. Should I import and edit in native H264 MOV? Or ingest and edit as either Pro Res or DNxHD? If Pro Res or DNxHD, what's the best way to ingest (or import / transcode)? I've been reading mixed things via Google; mainly Adobe-related articles explaining a native workflow, vs various articles sponsored by transcoding software companies, saying that transcoding will have a better result. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks! Elliot
GX7 Purchase Advice... or "Do you ever scream at your codec?"Good Day! I'm new to the site and new to video work, but I've been lurking around the forums and Review Articles for a while now, trying to figure out what camera I should pick. While totally new to serious videography, I've been doing photography and very light video on the side for about 6 years, so I wouldn't say I'm blind to the more enthusiast thresholds of acceptable quality. With that in mind, I've narrowed it down to two models. Well... one. Two. Maybe just one. Possibly two. GX7. Or GH3. Currently I'm heavily leaning towards the GX7 as: - I assume focus peaking for someone that isn't trained in the art of manual focusing would be nothing short of magical(?). - I will not be needing high quality external audio (for the foreseeable future) (I'll probably mostly be doing artsy montages with music on top,heh...). But I've seen the GH3 recommended over the GX7 for video quite a few times because of: - Bitrate - Codec I have read Mr. Reid's (predominantly positive) thoughts on the GX7 and that strongly weighed into me currently leaning towards it. My question is: Has anyone who has tried both the GX7 and a more codec-competent (higher bitrate) solution ever been strongly frustrated with the former at any point? Like going "THAT WAS THE PERFECT SHOT! GOD HIMSELF PARTED THE SKIES AND UNLEASHED THE MOST HEAVENLY RAYS OF LIGHT THAT DUCK HAS EVER SEEN. YOU HAD - ONE JOB! " when you came home to realize that the water ripples in your perfect shot created the occasional blocky codec artifact? I guess my question can mostly be boiled down to "Bitrate Vs. Focus Peaking". I hope it isn't overly redundant. Any advice and personal input would be really really appreciated. Like... ...this much > [ ]
Cineform as an Editing Codec?
villafanephoto posted a topic in CamerasHello, Everyone. I am debating whether to jump into the Canon 5D Mark III Raw video capture world, but as I have been researching the topic and equipment further I am now considering using Cineform as an editing codec in Final Cut 7. Up until now I have only work with ProRes, but I have read excellent things about Cineform, so I wanted to ask others what they feel about it as an editing codec. Does cineform work well in Final Cut 7? Does cineform require more computer performance in order to edit with? More RAM? RAID? Or would a RAID setup be overkill? Is there a version of cineform you really prefer to edit in? Raw? 4444? 422? Is there much visible difference between the various quality levels? Does cineform grading integrate well from cineform studio into Final Cut? These are some basic questions I have after having read about cineform a bit, so I would love to get some real world feedback on it from others. Please don't hesitate to add any additional observations you might have from your experience. Every bit of information is useful to me. Thanks so much. I look forward to your responses.
A very nice lossless codec for windows: Ut VideoSo I was trying to use my Gopro Hero2 files in Premiere Pro. I recently installed the Protune firmware update and this was the first time I was actually editing some footage. On MPC-HC, the video files played fine on my brand new PC (Core i7, Asus MB, 16Gb Ram, 128Gb SSD and Nvidia GTX 560). Of course, hardware acceleration with CUDA was activated in Premiere, so I thought I could edit those files flawlessly with Premiere Pro CS6. Big mistake. No matter how many things I tried, the video playback began to get choppy after a few seconds. I had to resort to convert these few files into an intermediate codec. I decided to also apply a barrel distortion correction filter in Virtualdub, noise removal, gamma correction, just for the sake of it. Now, don't get me wrong; If I could edit those files directly in Premiere I would do it. I had a few bad experiences with lossless codec before: most intermediate codecs, such as ProRes, aren't really lossless. Real lossless files are huge and it is nearly impossible to edit directly with them, like Lagarith or HuffYuv. But with a bit of luck, I stumbled upon Ut Video. The sheer performance of this codec is incredible: stable, efficient, fast as hell, AND lossless. It supports multithreading and the code is still maintained. It works both on MAC and PC. A 5 minute clip could fit So, If anyone needs a real lossless codec out there and reads this forum, you should definetely give it a try. Cheers,
Andrew Reid posted a topic in CamerasThe future codec for DSLRs is coming. Was sent this by email today, thanks Tero [url="http://techreport.com/discussions.x/23429"]http://techreport.co...ussions.x/23429[/url] This will be more efficient at the same bitrate and this means better image quality. For example 24mbit would look something like 44mbit on current codecs. [color=#000000][font=trebuchet ms', sans-serif][size=3]Over the past few years, H.264 video compression has permeated just about every corner of the tech worldâ€”YouTube, Blu-ray, cable and satellite HDTV, cell phones, tablets, and digital camcorders. Could it be just a year away from obsolescence? According to a [url="http://www.ericsson.com/news/120814_mpeg_244159018_c"]news release by Ericsson[/url], the Moving Picture Experts Group (a.k.a. MPEG) met in Stockholm, Sweden last month to "approve and issue" a draft standard for a next-generation video format. That format, dubbed High Efficiency Video Coding, or HVEC for short, will purportedly enable "compression levels roughly twice as high" as H.264.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=trebuchet ms', sans-serif][size=3]Ericsson's Per FrÃ¶jd, who chairs the Swedish MPEG delegation, comments, "There's a lot of industry interest in this because it means you can halve the bit rate and still achieve the same visual quality, or double the number of television channels with the same bandwidth, which will have an enormous impact on the industry." HVEC could make its debut in commercial products "as early as in 2013," claims FrÃ¶jdh. He expects mobile devices will be the first ones to make use of the new format, with TV likely to lag behind.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=trebuchet ms', sans-serif][size=3]That all sounds rather exciting. Halving bitrates while maintaining image quality would be fantastic for streaming web video. It might be advantageous for devices with high-PPI displays, as well, if they can offer better image quality at today's bit rates. However, hardware support could impede early adoption, since the hardware H.264 video decoders in today's mobile processors might not be compatible with the new standard[/size][/font][/color]