At the moment i'm working with a project shot on Red Epic Dragon 120 fps 4K within a 25fps project, scaled down to full HD 1920p.
As I was challenged on the light conditions while shooting I had to run ISO 800 and pull up the FLUT a bit creating noise.
I've then used Neat noise reduction and unsharp mask the get the footage to a point where it's usable.
After editing I wanted to render to sequence and the export as I usually do via. Media Encoder.
Rendering took about 30min.
After exporting I had 5 other seqs with footage from the same shoot, hence same settings.
I decided to try and not render before exporting, still using Media Encoder, and this time it exported all five seqs in 30-40min.
Codec: Prores 422 1920p full HD
Frame rate: 25
Field Order: Proggresive
Aspect: Square Pixels (1.0)
Each time with Maximum render depth
My question is:
How come that exporting without rendering on forehand is that much quicker than rendering and then exporting using previews. The export using previews when the seq is rendered is quite a quick process but the rendertime is so great compared to the export without.
This results in reduced export times because your sequence render files are used instead of having to re-render the sequence. This is of course assuming that you have a significant amount of your timeline already rendered, which may not be the case if you have a fast computer or your sequence is simple enough to be played back without rendering.
Generally you should not use this option because it is likely to result in reduced image quality, particularly when outputting to a different format from your sequence and also because it will bypass the quality options detailed above. It should only be used where processing time is more important than image quality, such as previews or rough cuts for example, although these are likely to be simple enough that this option doesn't significantly affect processing times.
[Ulrik Haenschke]"At the moment i'm working with a project shot on Red Epic Dragon 120 fps 4K within a 25fps project, scaled down to full HD 1920p."
It doesn't seem as if you're taking advantage of either the high frame rate or the 4K resolution. So why shoot it that way? Especially the 120fps -- you obviously created exposure problems for yourself by doing so.
Am I missing something here?
KGAN (CBS) & KFXA (Fox) Cedar Rapids, IA
Not missing anything, I didn't explain why I used these settings.
I shoot in 120fps for varispeed for later slow motion use.
It's for a client that sells stuff to gymnastics and he wanted some nice slow motion footage of his mattress being used. So the gymnasts did some different jumps.
I know I could have gone down to 2k but I wanted the greater pixel density since he might want to use the footage at a convention, and also I like using as much of the sensor as possible. I don't have any storage issues and my editing sweet has more than enough power to make editing fast and easy.
I don't mind rendering and encoding taking some time, that's just the name of the game. I was just wondering. ☺
Hope it shad a bit of light on my motivation for using those settings.