Prores versus native HDV
by Jan Bliddal
on
Jul 10, 2008 at 12:29:57 pm
I know there a lot of treads regarding this subject, but the more I read up on it the More confused I get
I have the XH A1 Canon HDV camcorder and has about 10 hours of footage which I am going to edit for a personal project. The project will not have a lot of compositing and I doubt it will be send to color even though it is part of Final Cut Studio (I lack the time needed to learn how to use the program)
What I think I know is the following
HDV is very demanding on the Processor processor due to its use of Long GOP. I have A Mac Pro 2.66 With 12GB of memory that should eliminate that problem
Prores is very demanding on the Harddrive because it much larger file size 145 versus 25m/bit per second. My Scratch disk is a 1TB Samsung Spin Point with more than 700GB left
I am planing on deliver the final result on DVD for my Parents and Parents in law and our self, but
would also like to deliver it in a format that shows the Full HDV resolution of the Camcorder.
What will give the best DVD quality a project edited in HDV or a Project edited in Prores
I gather the quality will be the same in full resolution if I render effects in Prores
Re: Prores versus native HDV by Jan Bliddal on Jul 10, 2008 at 1:44:24 pm
Hi Walter Thanks for the quick answer I think I will ad another Spin Point to my computer at stripe the 2 diskes in a Raid 0 Should give me enough harddisk Speed to edit in Pro Res
Let the machine work for you. Not you for the machine
Re: Prores versus native HDV by Ed Dooley on Jul 10, 2008 at 3:03:29 pm
And we edit lots of stuff in HDV with no problem. All the posts here on the COW show just how varied the points of view are. There are some good reasons to edit in 4:2:2, but if you're not doing lots of graphics, and you have the time for rendering at the end, HDV works fine. We bring the footage in FW from a JVC HD-110 and edit away. At the end we conform it. If you were doing tons of very deadline intense editing, that rendering at the end may take too long for you.
Ed
Re: Prores versus native HDV by Chris Borjis on Jul 10, 2008 at 5:33:32 pm
[walter biscardi]"HDV is a terrible format for editing no matter how you slice it."
As much as I'd like to, I can't agree with that statement.
HDV Editing works very well if you have at least a G5 dual system
and you render lossless.
Any rendering should be switched over to an uncompressed or pro-res codec.
I have recently done post on some (JVC 1280x720P) HDV food reels that look outstanding and I dare say BETTER than varicam food footage I've worked on before.
Re: Prores versus native HDV by Chris Borjis on Jul 10, 2008 at 5:34:24 pm
[walter biscardi]"HDV is a terrible format for editing no matter how you slice it."
As much as I'd like to, I can't agree with that statement.
HDV Editing works very well if you have at least a G5 dual system
and you render lossless.
Any rendering should be switched over to an uncompressed or pro-res codec.
I have recently done post on some (JVC 1280x720P) HDV food reels that look outstanding and I dare say BETTER than varicam food footage I've worked on before.
Re: Prores versus native HDV by Rennie Klymyk on Jul 10, 2008 at 5:55:24 pm
Perhaps there is some stigmatism pertaining to HDV from back when it was new and there were no editing platforms that supported it. AVCHD is in this situation presently as a fairly new kid on the block with early adopters of the cameras flocking for editing solutions.
"thou can not stir a flower without crumbling a star" ......Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Re: Prores versus native HDV by Ron Priest on Aug 2, 2008 at 11:44:53 am
Hi Walter
You suggested to "add more storage if you need to since a single drive is never a good idea for a media scratch drive."
So, If I'm editing in ProRes without a RAID, are you saying it would be better to have my captured source files on one drive and use another drive for my render drive? (Both separate from my applications drive of course)
