Forum Replies Created

Page 70 of 70
  • David Cherniack

    April 8, 2005 at 7:28 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    You are partially correct. Full rez is available while scrubbing. Full rez in play probably by NAB

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • David Cherniack

    April 8, 2005 at 12:30 am in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    [Luis Caffesse] “I assume there is some way to easily convert DVCProHD footage to CFHD”

    Probably not just yet. Directly through their convert utility. But I’m sure it will happen once the P2 cameras come on stream.

    [Luis Caffesse] “Of course, then we would need twice the hard drive space. “

    I believe the DVCProHD codec and the CFHD codec use about the same amount of bandwidth. Last time I looked they did.

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • David Cherniack

    April 7, 2005 at 11:28 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    [Luis Caffesse] “Obviously you wouldn’t convert your footage upon capture, because there is no capturing to be done. So what would we use to convert the DVCProHD footage to CFHD, and how long do you think that transcode would take? “

    The workflow is play out of a DVCproHD deck into the HDSDI Xena card. AFAIK the footage is converted in real time on a dual Opteron.

    https://www.cineform.com/products/ProspectHD.htm

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • David Cherniack

    April 7, 2005 at 11:19 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    [Ron Shook] “Irregardless of compress codec quality, the problem with the wholey software solutions to HD editing is that there is no true full rez, full speed output to monitor like there is with hardware accellerated solutions. “

    In fact because it uses the overlay of video cards, Aspect and prospect can output to HD monitors from the new Matrox Parhelia and Nvidia 3 headed cards. I believe it’s full rez.

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • David Cherniack

    April 7, 2005 at 10:21 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    [Graeme Nattress] “Cineform is very interesting, but without a camera or tape deck that supports it, it’s only useful as a computer codec. Without camera or deck support, I doubt it will ever be popular”

    First of all it’s an intermediate codec, not an acquisition or delivery codec. With prospect HD on a dual Opteron you ingest via HDSDI from wahtever flavour of HD you’ve shot in (or 1394 if HDV) and convert to it in real-time. After editing/compositing (and it can do 10 generations without blinking), you export to whatever delivery codec you want.

    AFA popularity goes you can bet that as a superb codec that’s a cheaper alternative to Axio and a more powerful editing solution than Decklink, they’re going to do very well with PremierePro as their base.

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • David Cherniack

    April 6, 2005 at 4:07 pm in reply to: DVX2000 and a DVCProHD tape drive

    [Ron Shook] “Goldangit, don’t you ever read what I write.”

    Sometimes 🙂 Actually I read that misive and didn’t link it to the problem of dumping large quantities of P2 material on location. Sounds like a good reason to have a PA.

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • David Cherniack

    April 6, 2005 at 2:45 pm in reply to: DVX2000 and a DVCProHD tape drive

    [Luis Caffesse] ” think Graeme went that we could backup the native DVCProHD files to BluRay discs as data.”

    As Graeme points you’re correct and I should have interpreted his comment that way.

    But how far away are blu-ray drives at reasonable prices?

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • David Cherniack

    April 6, 2005 at 2:32 pm in reply to: DVX2000 and a DVCProHD tape drive

    [Graeme Nattress] “A DVCproHD tape drive, even cut down to just those features would be quite expensive, probably not much less than the $20,000 of the DVCproHD AJ1200A. “

    I doubt it would need to be that expensive. It wouldn’t require much in the way of support circuitry and all the R&D has already been done on the drive mechanism.

    [Graeme Nattress] “Personally, I think Sony have it all wrong with XDCAM. Those discs are practically perfect for longer term storage, not for aquisition. Failing that, we’ll have writable blu-ray very soon, and that should take care of most of our needs.”

    I don’t think most producer types will be happy archiving by transcoding to mpeg2. Far more confortable staying in the native compression codec.

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

Page 70 of 70

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy