Re: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

But under what circumstances would you repeatedly recompress DVCproHD?? Would you edit it in FCP, apply colour correction, export to AE, do more colour correction, and then export to shake to add some final colour correction before sending back to FCP for some extra final colour correction??

Unless you're going to show that the software codec works differently from the hardware codec, necessitating capture of DVCproHD over SDI to 10bit uncompressed, any use of an intermediate codec to cut down files sizes is, I'm afraid to say, daft. I'm really at a loss to see how it fits in and works. Whenever you apply an effect, say in AE to some DVCproHD footage, AE must decompress it first. Do that in a 16bit project and AE will decompress to a 16it representation in memory, and there you are - uncompressed, in memory, ready to do your effect. Then you set an appropriate output codec. Final render and out. There's no repeated mucking around between umpteen different applications, repeatedly decompressing and recompressing the video. This was all hammered out ages ago with DV, and you just don't work like that. You can get equally good results without resorting to mucking around with proprietary intermediate codecs that you just don't need.

I think you'll have to show us a workflow where you'd have to repeatedly compress and decompress the DVCproHD back and forth and time and again. I'm really at a miss to see a) why you'd want to do that, and b) why an intermediate codec would help better than adopting a more suitable workflow that uses the benefits of native codec editing for you, rather than against you. I'm bemused....

Graeme

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects for FCP