-
Log & Transfer & Transcoding
Lots of info out there,
still unclear.I’m researching AVCHD and DVCPRO p2 formats with FCP.
Everyone says that DVCpro is easier to edit.
both formats require log and transfer, but AVCHD needs to be transoded.
ok, i got that.but during the log and transfer for DVCpro, it spits out .mov files, so its doing some kind of conversion right?
both formats go thru a conversion before editing, but AVCHD takes just takes a longer due to transcoding.
so then, when people say “DVCpro is easier”, it just means it takes less time during that one step. I haven’t found anything about why else AVCHD would be more difficult.
Do i have this correct?
thanks!
-
7 Replies
-
Wikipedia can give you very detailed information on both AVCHD and DVCPro Codecs.
DVCPro is an Intra Frame codec. That means, each frame stands on its own. The computer does not have to make up frames to interpret the footage. That’s why it is easier to edit. ProRes is also an intra frame codec.
Codecs that are difficult to edit come in Long GOP form.
Steve Eisen
Eisen Video Productions
Vice President
Chicago Final Cut Pro Users Group -
You mean Pro res is an INTERFRAME, and not intraframe, right?
also, i just noticed that my MTS converter can convert the mts files into DVCPro…
i’m a bit confused as to what’s actually happening here.
1. what does this mean for quality, how does it compare to prores
2. will working/editing with it have the same benefits as working with footage from a DVCpro camera?thanks
-
No, I mean INTRAFRAME. Read the bottom for a good explanation between the two.
https://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-85886.html
Steve Eisen
Eisen Video Productions
Vice President
Chicago Final Cut Pro Users Group -
[charlie broon] “1. what does this mean for quality, how does it compare to prores”
DVCPRO HD is lesser quality than ProRes.
DVCPRO HD is 8-bit, thin raster (anamorphic)…960×720 or 1280×1080. But it is 4:2:2 colorspace.
ProRes is 10-bit, full raster 1920×1080 (or 1280×720)…and also is 4:2:2 color space. BUT, AVCHD isn’t 4:2:2, it’s 4:2:0. And it is also 8-bit. But, converting AVCHD to ProRes is far better than converting it to DVCPRO HD.
[charlie broon] “2. will working/editing with it have the same benefits as working with footage from a DVCpro camera?”
ProRes, being full raster and 10-it, has a higher data rate. so it takes up more space, and require a faster drive connection. BUT, I say that DVCPRO HD is better than AVCHD as an acquisition format. Even though it is anamorphic. It has a better color space (4:2:2 vs 4:2:0), and the cameras are 3-chip sensors, vs single chip, they won’t suffer from rolling shutter (look that up in wikipedia).
But what do I know? I’m an editor.
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
thanks for all the info.
i went ahead and setup comparisons by converting and working with all the different codecs and just went by my eye, and workflow needs.
all the technicalities on paper doesn’t matter that much in the end when my eye should be the judge.
so far, i haven’t been able to notice much of a difference between DVC and pro res
even AIC was just minor differences.
indeed
-
[charlie broon] “all the technicalities on paper doesn’t matter that much in the end when my eye should be the judge”
The blind eye. Try doing a comparison looking at scopes. There will be a major difference.
Steve Eisen
Eisen Video Productions
Vice President
Chicago Final Cut Pro Users Group -
i know there will be a difference for sure.
but in the real world, no one is looking with scopes.
i’ve always spent tons of energy studying and finding out all the details, but recently, i’ve come to think its often overboard.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up