• AJA Video Systems

  compressed vs uncompressed

  Posted by Dave Garcia on August 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm

  Hi,

  This may be a strange question, but I’m trying o decide whether to go Kona 3 or HDio.

  I was doing some A/Bs with prores and uncompressed out of combustion the other day and I noticed that a render with animation codec came out much faster.

  So… It got me to wondering if working in a fully uncompressed workflow with Kona 3 is actually going to lead to less render times then working pro res 422 or our current DVCPRO HD workflow.

  I am assuming use of a fast fiber or caldigit esata drive.

  Much of our render time issues are on the fcp timeline after adding gfx with alphas, color correction etc.

  So again, would uncompressed render faster than these other compressed formats perhaps by virtue of losing the compression step?

  Thanks in advance,

  Dave

  Marco Solorio replied 18 years, 8 months ago 2 Members · 1 Reply
• 1 Reply

• 

  Marco Solorio

  August 18, 2007 at 7:25 pm

  There is a lower algorithmic computation factor to the Animation codec versus something like ProRes. ProRes requires a fair amount of CPU power where Animation requires little. This is why your renders are faster with the Animation codec.

  If your adding a clip out of AE for FCP *and* you intend on further stacking layers to that AE clip in FCP (e.g., adding text and such on top of it), then I would absolutely render out of AE using an RGB[A] 4:4:4:[4] lossless codec, like Animation, PNG, SheerVideo or Microcosm. This is so your AE clip maintains its RGB lossless quality on the timeline and allows FCP to perform the final Y’CrCb color space compression at the very last step.

  With that in mind, it doesn’t matter which hardware you want to use. If you’re trying to decide between Kona 3 and HDio, I’d choose based on editing workflow needs rather than rendering needs.

  Marco Solorio | CreativeCow Host | OneRiver Media | Codec Resource Site | Cinesoft | Media Batch
  

Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up