Activity › Forums › Adobe Premiere Pro › To transcode or not to transcode
-
To transcode or not to transcode
Posted by Donald Riley on June 16, 2012 at 1:16 pmI’m not sure if I got this right. Working in FCP which I did before switching over to PrPro we always transcoded to Pro-res, and all my stored media is that way. What I’v come to understand is that all QT movies and Pro-res as well are all 32 bit. If that is the case then we don’t take advantage of 64 bit in final output, I think not sure, therefore final render is not all that it could be. My questions are:
1. When I get my new camera Panasonic H.264 I shouldn’t transcode or is there a codec I should use I don’t know about.
2. Is there anything I can do about my stored media (Pro-res) if the above is correct about 32 bit.
The best thing is I can see everything without rendering in CS6 what a difference (unreal).
Thanks very much, Don
Donald Riley replied 13 years, 11 months ago 6 Members · 13 Replies -
13 Replies
-
Warren Eig
June 16, 2012 at 4:27 pmI’d probably transcode up front. ProRes is 10 bit. 32 bit has to do with memory architecture, not colorspace. In PPro, you can either take the hit in the beginning and transcode or take the hit at the end when you export. There are no free lunches. Also H.264 is an Intra-frame codec, like a GOP so you can’t really scrub. It was never really designed as an editing codec.
My 2¢ YMMV.
Warren
Warren Eig
O 310-470-0905email: warren@babyboompictures.com
website: https://www.babyboompictures.comhttps://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/F5_Director_Cut.html
https://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/AFX.html
https://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/KnitWits_Movie.html
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0251670/EDITING REEL: https://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/Editing_Reel.html
TITLE DESIGN: https://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/Titles_Reel.html -
Tom Daigon
June 16, 2012 at 6:47 pmWhether to transcode really depends on…
1. How much power your system has in order to maximize performance of the Mercury Playback system (ie CPU/GPU/Ram/ Raid Speed)
I can play h.264 just fine on mine.
2. How long a project you are doing. H.264 on a long form might be more problematic.
Tom Daigon
PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.3
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3 -
Donald Riley
June 16, 2012 at 11:45 pmThanks very much.
Warren.
That answers my question, I downloaded the Pro-res codecs to AME and will do the transcode up front since I have to do lots of speed change in my clips and need i-frame. File size is not a storage problem for me yet and planing to acquire 2 new Raid 5s later this year. I’m not real technical on all this but I want to make sure my workflow is optimized and not have to redo or change things that require workarounds down the road, hopefully. Thanks you very much.
Tom.
Yes, some of my projects run an hour and a half, mostly for Blu-ray so I hope the transcode will cope with that. When it comes to AE my usual number of layers will be around 40 to 60 more or less. I have not approached that yet, I’m still getting the hang of things over there but that was my norm in Motion.
I will add my equipment after this post. I currently have a 12 core Mac Pro with 32 GB Ram and QDR 4000 coming next week. My two current external raids run around 150 to 180 Mbps but as I said I’m going to get new ones latter on. Do you think I’m on the right track? Any suggestions would be more than welcome.
Thank you very much. Don
-
Tom Daigon
June 17, 2012 at 1:12 amDon sounds like you are on the right track. The transcode should lighten the load. You have a powerful CPU with a good GPU on its way. Ram sounds like a nice amount and faster external drives will really be crucial to a good edit. Good luck!
Tom Daigon
PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.3
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3 -
Jon Barrie
June 17, 2012 at 2:05 amI’d like to chime in to highlight that coming from FCP workflows and ProRes that PPro does things differently. Rendering clips as you go won’t reduce or speed up the export time – No matter which codec you are cutting with.
I have personally found working with both NLE’s for many years on multiple duration projects that the ProRes transcode eats a heap of hard drive space and gains perhaps “some” smoother experience when scrubbing material, which is not the bulk of the editing process IMHO.
The time it takes to transcode Vs the time is takes to export only the edited frames, with effects, transitions, grade, audio mix etc has always trumped the overall post-production time frame for me.
The only caveat with longer form projects working in native codecs I have noticed (not always) is to clean the media cache once the project is finished. This will re-conform audio and index frames (that require it) so if there has been any level of corruption during the editing process it’s a clean slate. Then I’ll export.
You do need to budget time to export – it is not like FCP in this way.
Hope this helps.
Cheers JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Tom Daigon
June 17, 2012 at 3:20 amAs I mentioned Jon, playback of certain codecs like h.264 can be problematic on certain machines. Native playback is a great concept but isnt always practical. The workflow needs to fit the tools. I will look forward to hearing what kind of experience Donald has.
After a year with PrP Im convinced that the option of background trancoding to an Adobe intermediary codec would be a wise thing to implement to allow users to accommodate their circumstances. Ideally an offline / online option will be needed when that part of the software is fixed, hopefully by CS7. 😀
Tom Daigon
PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.3
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3 -
Donald Riley
June 17, 2012 at 5:39 amJon
I hope I understand this, Yea, in FCP I had to do a lot of rendering since I did all my effects in motion and when I tabbed back to FCP I had to render in order to check it. Now I don’t render anything until export of course but I didn’t know that I should clean the media cache before export, that is really good to know.
I haven’t done any lengthy projects in PPro yet but have in Encore 5.5 from existing projects in FCP. I expect export times to improve in Encore now that in CS6 it is 64 bit, but haven’t tried it yet.
Thanks very much especially about the media cache.
Don
MP 12 core 2.9 GHZ
32 GB ram
Quadro 4000
2 Ext. Raids 180 Mbps -
Jon Barrie
June 17, 2012 at 5:47 amJust to clarify, its my personal workflow not an adobe thing.
Also be aware that cleaning the cache will clear everything, not just that project.
😉
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Donald Riley
June 17, 2012 at 11:01 amJon
I read some of your material and watched a couple of your episodes on uTube and some of Tom’s as well. I get it now, I see it as a big reference movie all linked up and will have to deal with long render times on final export. Geez, I’m just thinking about 30 or 50 clips in a sequence that contain just 20 or 30 layers each, that, I expect will take at least 3 or 4 times as long as real time.
Thanks
Don
MP 12 core 2.9 GHZ
32 GB ram
Quadro 4000
2 Ext. Raids 180 Mbps -
Tom Daigon
June 17, 2012 at 12:30 pmDon, just remember, the ONLY time you need to render is when the timeline wont playback in real time. Thus rendering allows you to see the timeline playback as you edit. Using any accelerated Adobe effects you can will help since you have the Q4000 to play them back in real time.
Tom Daigon
PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.3
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up