-
Compressor or Streamclip for D5 footage?
I have read several strings here on conforming and converting video from the Canon D5 DSLR for use in FCP. I haven’t seen a consensus of opinion on the use of Compressor vs. Streamclip for the conversion part of the workflow.
For those who have experience with these workflows, I would appreciate hearing your opinion about which app is best for converting those h.264 files to ProRes. I read that Streamclip is faster. True? What about image quality; delivering video that is as close to the original as possible?
Thanks for any guidance on this.
-
4 Replies
-
I’ve always used Compressor and have been happy with the results. However, why not test a short clip using both and see how they compare. Be sure to use the Ftame Controls in Compressor. Pick a fast-moving scene that will stress the encoder. Let us know what you find.
John
MacPro 8-core 2.8GHz 8 GB RAM OS 10.5.8 QT7.6.4 Kona 3 Dual Cinema 23 ATI Radeon HD 3870, 24″ TV-Logic Monitor, ATTO ExpressSAS R380 RAID Adapter, PDE enclosure with 8-drive 6TB RAID 5
FCS 3 (FCP 7.0.1, Motion 4.0.1, Comp 3.5.1, DVDSP 4.2.2, Color 1.5.1)Pro Tools HD w SYNC IO, Yamaha DM1000, Millennia Media HV-3C, Neumann U87, Schoeps Mk41 mics, Genelec Monitors, PrimaLT ISDN
-
Yes, of course I do plan to test with some incoming footage. In the meantime I thought I would get the value of expert experience here. Hoping for some…
Ron
-
I would also vote for compressor. If you have a multi core mac and can set up compressor to use all your procs via a virtual cluster, it should smoke streamclip.
Matt Lyon
Editor
Toronto -
Been this an operation (no resizing, no fields order managing, no time-base..) where we only change the codec, I don’t see any advantage in any of both processes. Even QT should be able to do it with the same results. While the tree applications may use very different filters and algorithm for re-sizing, field order or time-base, they use the same “engine” (QT) QT for transcoding.
Best,
Rafael
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up