Currently Being ModeratedJun 20, 2013 11:45 AM (in response to Jenmere)
>(Setup B) Shane has suggested a few times to just edit in a Pro Res 422 Sequence. Shane, or others--could you clarify please, do you mean keep the XDCAM media but edit it in a sequence with Apple Pro Res 422 Preset? Also, what does it do better than the above? (Is it less crashy or does it let you mix formats?)
Yes, that is what I mean. Make a 1920x1080 ProRes 422 sequence, and edit the XDCAM in that sequence. If you have other formats, convert them to ProRes 422 if you can, or if they are other native formats like DVCPRO HD or HDV, they will mix fine. AVCHD, H.264...those get converted to ProRes.
This is better than Option A when mixing footage types. So if you have ProRes, XDCAM, HDV, DVCPRO HD, DV...this is the way to do it.
Setup C...if you have the time and space....is a fine option too. But Setup B has always worked fine for me and I see no benefit to transcoding, other than not having a render bar.
>Also, this last one is just for curiousity... why is a clip in .MXF so close in size to the .mov that is produced when you import to FCP with XDCAM browser?
MXF and Quicktime are just "wrappers" that house the footage CODEC. Like AVI is the Windows wrapper of choice. MXF can be DVCPRO HD, XDCAM...a host of other formats. What FCP does is take the MXF media, the codec, and just wraps it into Quicktime so FCP can read it better. Just changing how it is housed, not the codec. So the sizes are exactly the same.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 21, 2013 6:34 AM (in response to Shane Ross)
Let's keep in mind that xdcam is really a better bitrate HDV, in that it's an mpeg codec. I've got a feeling that 200 plus hours of mpeg footage is going to get really boggy to work with. On the other hand I use option b a lot with a client. They do a lot of work and even with a 192TB SAN, they're always at or near to capacity, so xdcam import is a must for them. On my own projects I use option c.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2013 10:39 AM (in response to Jim Cookman)
Jim and Shane, thanks!
If we recompress to Pro Res with Compressor, is there a difference between the settings:
"Apple Pro Res 422" (claims to be progressive)
"Apple Pro Res 422 for Interlaced material" (Under Other workflows > Advanced Format Conversion > Apple Codecs?
The camera material is interlaced, want to keep it that way. On testing I couldn't determine a difference between the Pro Res 422 files produced by these two settings. They both produce files that are Upper field dominant, which is what I'd expect.
Are these settings actually equivalent (both use source framerate?) or is one the correct one to use?
Didn't mean to assign "solved" to this response.