Transcoding in Adobe for Avid system

[Richard Sanchez]

Have you tried DaVinci Resolve Lite? That will create Op Atom MXF files for Avid.

Richard Sanchez
Los Angeles, CA

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.” – Bill Hicks

[Elliott Balsley]

Yes, I’m aware of that. I called it option 4 in my first post. But for some situations Premiere is a better tool than Resolve.

Elliott C. Balsley
DIT, Colorist, Cinematographer
http://www.llamafilm.com

[Michael Hancock]

I’m curious, in what situations would Premiere be a better option than Resolve if you’re delivering to Avid?

If you use Premiere/Media Encoder the editor is facing an import/transcode or AMA link/transcode. Whereas with Resolve they receive Avid media that’s immediately ready to work with.

Option 5 would be to purchase/rent Avid when you’re delivering to an Avid editor. It’s only $50/month with a yearly commitment, or $75 if you want to rent it with no contract.

—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor

[Elliott Balsley]

That’s a good point, I didn’t know about the rental.
What if you use AMA to edit from the MOV wrapped DNxHD files? I’ve heard AMA editing is slow, but isn’t that because of the codecs? If the footage is already DNxHD, then I don’t see why AMA editing would be any different than editing imported media. But that’s why I’m here asking the Avid experts.

[Michael Hancock] “I’m curious, in what situations would Premiere be a better option than Resolve if you’re delivering to Avid?
Mostly I was talking about codecs unsupported in Resolve, e.g. AVCHD and long spanned XDCAM (Resolve doesn’t handle spanning correctly).

[Michael Hancock]

The rental is only a couple of months old, so it’s relatively new info.

Regarding AMA – DNxHD would be okay, but nothing beats Avid .mxf media when it comes to Avid performance and stability. AMA is great to preview, log, and immediately begin working but the recommended workflow is still to transcode/consolidate in the background or perhaps overnight to .mxf media, regardless of source material.

I’m working on a piece now with C300 footage and 5DMiii and decided not to do the transcode step. The interface is noticeably more sluggish, bins open slower, clips load slower, and occasionally files go offline for no reason. I can relink them fast enough, but I’m starting to regret not just transcoding in the background. So if you can give the editor Avid native .mxf media they will love you for it.

—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor

[Elliott Balsley]

I understand how you would have problems with H.264 and Canon XF; those codecs weren’t really designed for editing ease. But MOV wrapped DNxHD is another matter. Is there really any stability issue with that? Not trying to be argumentative, I just want to understand this.

[Michael Phillips]

There’s not a huge issue, but AMA linked clips still go through a plug-in architecture, in this case QuickTime even if DNxHD. Although the codec is native, the management, and playback pipeline is not as direct with AMA linked files as it is with native managed media. Also, AMA tends to have performance issues as more media comes online, as well as longer source clips (10 mins + type clips). Managing AMA clips needs more TLC, etc. If doing longer form ediorial, native MXF wrapped DNxHD is still the way to go, regardless of Avid Marketing around AMA editing. For shorter, fast turnaround stuff, it can work.

Michael

[John Pale]

If you still want to go with Adobe, Media Encoder can encode to MXF OP1a in the DNXHD codec, and does so much faster than transcoding to the QuickTime version off DNXHD. After linking to these files via AMA, you can consolidate in Avid. I think I would still go with Resolve, but AME is not painful.