[Eddie Adams]

This is the current build:

* unRAID 5.0
* Case: NORCO RPC-4224 4U Rackmount Server Case (24 x 3TB HDDs, 69TB of usable storage with one dedicated 3TB parity drive)
* MB: SUPERMICRO MBD-X9SCM-F-O LGA 1155 Intel C204 Micro ATX Intel Xeon E3 Server Motherboard
* CPU: Intel Core i3-2120 Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor
* Power: CORSAIR TX650 650W ATX12V/EPS12V 80 PLUS BRONZE Active PFC High Performance Power Supply
* Controllers: 3x SUPERMICRO AOC-SASLP-MV8 PCI-Express x4 Low Profile SAS RAID Controller
* Memory: 2x Kingston ValueRAM 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM ECC Unbuffered DDR3 1333
* Intel X520-DA2 Dual Ports 10 Gigabit Ethernet Converged Network Adapter, PCI Express 2.0 x8, Low Profile w/ Intel E10GSFPSR Ethernet SFP+ SR Optics transceiver

This is not my build, I inherited this system so working with what I got to try and make the best of it.

[Eddie Adams]

[Alex Udell] “but native MTS will use a lot of the mercury goodness which is a 64 bit path simply because it’s recognized as an MTS file.

re-wrapped as .mov….well now PPro sees that as a quicktime file and and has to revert to a 32 bit path thru quicktime… and the fact that it’s not a truly native quicktime codec but rather a soft pointer file to the original source probably adds a whole other layer of voo doo to the stream decoding.”

Interesting. I was originally avoiding using ProRes in PPro because of the 32-bit issue, I didn’t realize that PPro processed all .MOV’s in a 32-bit path. This is due to a limitation in Quicktime? So this brings up the question – why is a program like FCPX able to process QT/ProRes/H264 in a 64-bit path but PPro isn’t? Or is that a mis-understanding that FCPX is utilizing 64-bit paths for those files when actually it’s 32-bit?

[Alex Udell] “there have even some threads on here about utilizing Prelude with MTS for the purposes of organizing and naming files without transcoding which might be beneficial….I think within the last 30 days or so… search Prelude and MTS here and see what pops up.”

I did do some initial research but more related to my issues with the H.264. I’ll look into Prelude as an option and report back. Thanks for your killer response, very helpful.

[Eddie Adams]

Valid argument. Never brought the H264 into FCP, would convert to ProRes when that was needed, but also looking for a solution that doesnt involve encoding to ProRes unless needing to work outside of Premiere.

It’s an iMac so limited by what I have hardware wise. Will try enabling CUDA and seeing if that offers a solution to the problem, although I suspect not.

Again, my issue is that the .MTS files play/edit/etc with absolutely no problems, but I’m seeing huge issues with the Re-wrapped .MOV files – seems like hardware limitations would have little factor in this, but correct me if im wrong.

[Eddie Adams]

DNxHD is not an option as I sometimes need to pull the same footage into FCP7. ProRes I toyed with but the resulting file size increase didn’t justify the minor improvements in speed I was seeing, and those speeds were truncated by the extended time it took for the transcodes to render out. It’s a 2.7 i5 w 8gbs RAM.

[Eddie Adams]

Because I need to be able to rename the files. When premiere loses it’s link with the .MTS files it tries to re-link to 00000.MTS, 00001.MTS etc. and it makes relinking far too complicated, especially with multiple cards and multiple clips named 00000.MTS by the camera. Re-wrapping them into a .MOV bundles multi-clip streams, including metadata, and allows me to freely rename them. Unless you have a better workaround?

[Eddie Adams]

yeah, sequence is TFF also.

[Eddie Adams]

yes, it’s TFF.

[Eddie Adams]

Yes, every file is at 29.97 and has a visible 3:2 cadence pattern when opened in QT.

[Eddie Adams]

What is the deal with the stereo matrix then? When I receive a set of LtRt tracks from the audio house – are those actually matrix encoded or a simple stereo mixdown? Is stereo matrix encoding still being used?

[Eddie Adams]

Thank you for your response. In regards for video editing, which seeks information off the drives almost constantly, it seems I would benefit from the “faster response” of a RAID0? Im actually now looking at taking 4x 1tb 7200 drives and RAID10 them into a single 2tb setup.