maxotics Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said: As for transcoding, I usually use resolve (the free version) and it seems to handle the XAVCs ok as long as I use optimized media. But then when I get into the coloring panel, I was told that I should use the actual footage when grading since how the actual footage looks when graded will be somewhat different than what the optimized footage preview looks like while graded. That's when things slow down a bit. Would handbrake be good for encoding? Any suggestions on which codec to encode to (using Resolve with Win 10 64bit on an i7-6770 with 24GB RAM and a GTX 960 2GB graphics card) This is stuff I struggle with myself; my guess is someone will correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with "stream" CODECs like H.264, HEVC, XAVC, etc., is most frames are calculated from an I-frame (essentially) and the more compression tricks they use, the smaller the size of the visual data for streaming forward. However, that makes it harder for the computer to go backwards. So every time you want to land on a frame that isn't an I-frame, the computer must go backwards a certain number of frames, and do a lot of backwards analysis to reconstruct it. The more work, the greater the chance of crashing. Handbrake should be fine, or any software that uses FFMPEG as an engine. With Prores or Cineform, you can do a quality where there are less tricks used to make a forward-read stream so it's easier for the computer to reconstruct a video at any frame. At a certain quality, you should not lose any color information. There are some comparisons out there of DNxHD and ProRes, etc., but my take-away is you'd really have to pixel peep to see any difference between them. The weird problem with ProRes or Cineform or DNxHD is that if you choose very high quality the files get big and THEN YOUR hard drive can't keep up and you're back to square one with crashing your computer! FAIK,GoPro has just put Cineform in the public domain. So I'm hopeful there will be some good/free encoding tools for it in the future, maybe the camera manufacturers may offer it as a CODEC! In any case, my main point is that I doubt there is a significant difference between Nikon and Sony video files. You should do some tests because chances are you just happened to have an easy Nikon file/project and it was a coincidence that it seemed better. 1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said: and this may sound derpy - I guess I am more worried about losing the D750 for video than for stills Yes, very DERPY HA HA! Think you should do some tests for that too. I believe Sony video is much better than Nikon, or you can get the A6300 to look like the D750, but not the other way around. I have an A6300. I love that I can power it forever using USB. I love that it has the 4K option. And it has a mic jack. It's small. Maybe what you like more about the D750 is how the body feels (solid). The larger/heavier body make it easier to get steady video. Maybe you just need a rig to beef up the A6300? Odd idea I know. Sounds like you have all the basic equipment. Based on this new information I think you should ditch the D750 and maybe get a Sony 1-inch camera, like an RX10, RX100 or even the RX0? I truly love Nikons, but I can only keep one menu system in my head. So I'm Sony all the way now. Anyway, I had an X70 and RX10 II and I couldn't tell the difference in video quality. The RX10s are quite underestimated, though if I remember correctly Andrew always falls in love with them every time he tries one again. Yes, for real-estate video I can definitely see LOG being VERY useful! No argument there! For still, however, bracketing would be far superior. link to my video about LOG Aussie Ash and Mark Romero 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.