-
Native File format for Final Cut Pro Question
Hi,
Working for a new company and need to do some research for them. I need to know which formats are better/best for editing without having to transcode/import the file.
The output will be used for broadcast to air. I am leaning towards DVCPro50.
Storage will not be a issue.
Thanks -
6 Replies
-
DVC50 is a nice codec, but if storage is not an issue uncompressed is better. For us storage is always an issue so we usually work in DVC50. We do event support(large projection), corporate and some broadcast spots. Never had any technical complaints.
joe
-
I have not even started thinking about HD yet, Orginally we were going to used MPEG2 4:2:2 @ 50 and 100 Mps. But all the different groups don’t want transcode it. they want it in a flavor they need.
This is going to be a file base library, people will be pulling from it.
So I need to find a format that looks really good and the broadcast side will be happy and will not have to transcode it. That is way I came up with DVCpro 50.
I want to be able to pull a file from the library and open it up in FCP and not have to do anything else.
I might be asking a lot, I do feel that analog was easier to design a workflow.
Thanks, -
if storage is not an issue and you have a decent video card and a fast enough Mac, then i would second the uncompressed suggestion.
I use a Kona3 card and have an xserve raid connected. All our work is 20-30 sec commercials which originate on Digibeta and get laid back to Digibeta. I can work at full image quality which i find helps me work quicker as i am aware of any problems, glitches, colour issues (yes, thats the correct spelling!) immediately. I don’t need to convert to any other formats (unless i want to).
I do find i get a more reliable export to Shake if i export it as uncompressed rather than using the export to shake feature.
If your system can handle uncompressed, why compromise and lose something in the codecs?
adam
Editor/Mixer
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UK -
[lightning ad] “If your system can handle uncompressed, why compromise and lose something in the codecs?”
But you’re losing something by using digibeta. Why do you recompress your uncompressed to digibeta? Essentially the same as DVCPro50. Just a hair less compression. But technically, if you shot on DVCPro50, acquired natively (firewire), and then output to DVCPro50 (firewire) you’d have a much higher quality image.
-
I use digibeta because that what the material is captured on, and its the prefered broadcast format for all the UK stations.
Digibeta rushes are fed into my edit suite, cut uncompressed so as to maintain everything, then the broadcast master tape is recorded direct from my system.
I think any quality difference between the higher end formats is lost as soon as you put the tapes through a broadcast station. The methods they all use to get the shows to air all degrade the images far more than we would ever be allowed to!
adam
Editor/Mixer
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UK -
I use digibeta because that what the material is captured on, and its the prefered broadcast format for all the UK stations.
Digibeta rushes are fed into my edit suite, cut uncompressed so as to maintain everything, then the broadcast master tape is recorded direct from my system.
Anyway, the question was about codecs, not about input/output formats. Regardless of it being digibeta or dvcpro or whatever, i would still go with uncompressed for editing as long as the system could handle it.
I think any quality difference between the higher end formats is lost as soon as you put the tapes through a broadcast station. The methods they all use to get the shows to air all degrade the images far more than we would ever be allowed to!
adam
Editor/Mixer
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UK
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up