FORUMS: list search recent posts

transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx

COW Forums : Avid Media Composer

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Paul Dougherty
transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 1:28:27 am

I had a project recently where there was a lot of Canon footage to be transcoded. Several dozen cards for a rush-rush job, I wanted to transcode in the Avid to (native) DNx. But speedy turnaround was problem. If there was a way to set up a batch queue of bins to run overnight I would not even entertain transcoding to ProRes. But while I only have one Avid, I have many Macs would allow me to distribute transcoding.

Depending on the version of Media Composer, are there viable ProRes alternative workflows to help with this transcoding bottleneck? I want to learn more and hear people out before I suggest possible pros & cons.

Thanks in advance for any help,

Paul


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 3:38:21 am

Perhaps consider using Resolve to make native MXF/DNxHD?

Michael


Return to posts index

James Patterson
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 10:19:07 am

You could use Sorenson Squeeze on one (or more) of your other machines to free up the Avid, but if you want to transcode multiple bins within Avid over night the best way is to create a new bin and alt drag all of the clips from all the different AMA cards to this bin. You can then transcode these clips all in one go, then go back to each of the individual bins and relink the clips so that you keep your file structure intact.

Best

Paddy


Return to posts index


Paul Dougherty
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 12:09:04 pm

Not trying to be provocative but Michael since you're already on this thread, Paddy has invoked the extra step of linking the .new files back to the original clips (please correct me if I've got this wrong). You were saying in an earlier thread, just use the ,new clips... which I'd like to do. On a big scale the extra step(s) is tedious overhead. When if ever is the linking the new media to the original AMA clip necessary?

Thanks,

Paul


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 12:55:59 pm

If a fast turnaround is needed, and they don't allow time for transcoding (they need to if you plan on using Avid 6.5 or earlier), then you should also consider using an editing app that allows you to edit this footage without transcoding. Like Adobe Premiere pro cs6

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 1:07:33 pm

It is never necessary and I am still curious as to how and why such an operation was ever started. The transcode process puts the proper links from the master clip to the new media in the Avid managed Avid MediaFiles folder while the original clips can maintain their original locations. Forcing one to look at another through a relink potentially invites unforeseen problems down the road.

Perhaps users started doing it so they didn't have the .new added to the name - which is a whole other feature request, but since the names get changed anyway to something more useful to the editor, it is a bit of a moot point. Another habit that seems to be more associated to FCP users making their way over to Avid is keeping the Name column values the same as the original filename. AAGHH! That would drive me cray to have to edit with those filenames, and seeing them in the timeline and such. Avid tracks those in TAPE, SOURCE FILE. TAPE ID, etc. No need to maintain that thinking it's needed for a relink process.


Michael


Return to posts index


James Patterson
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 1:44:23 pm

The method I use has nothing to do with not liking the .new because as you say you can change it to anything you like. It's solely to keep things organised, if I have to transcode/consol lots of bins overnight instead of bringing one bin in at a time I do it this way. The relink just means they're are in the bin I want them to be in ithout having to manually move clips back. I've used this method on countless jobs and have never had a problem working this way.

Best

Paddy


Return to posts index

Paul Dougherty
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 1:48:01 pm

Thanks Michael,

This extra step seems so embedded in people's thinking it would appear hard to dislodge. Makes me wonder if there was some defensible kernel of truth or utility to the practice.

Your 2nd comment about the bad habit of maintaining the cryptic file name. At its root there must be doubts about traceability. I guess it's a classic hedge, the file *should* always be traceable but in many "should" situations, sh*t happens so there is caution. I'm guilty of adding my human-English clip name in front of the file name. Chalk it up to unreasonable fear of gotchas, welcome to my world:)

Paul


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 1:58:14 pm

I hear ya - but I will also create a custom columm called Original Filename and duplicate the contents of the NAME column into that for tracking. I also put it into either the Labroll or Camroll column as those can be used as source ID for EDL generation. Now I have

Source File (If AMA)
Tape (If done in external dailies software)
Labroll
Custom column

I have plenty to relink on, generate EDL from, AAF from, etc. I much rather see

32A-1 in the name than A004C010_100610_R1JL.mov

:)


Michael


Return to posts index


Paul Dougherty
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 2:10:14 pm

Excellent Michael.


Return to posts index

Paul Dougherty
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 9:20:02 pm

Michael when you say "duplicate the contents of the NAME column into that" you aren't cutting and pasting one clip name at a time right? How does one do the copy in bulk?

Thanks,

Paul


Return to posts index

Paul Dougherty
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on Apr 30, 2013 at 9:22:34 pm

duh, never mind:) It's duplicate not copy


Return to posts index


Paul Dougherty
Re: transcoding to ProRes rather than DNx
on May 2, 2013 at 1:43:06 pm

btw my post by the same subject on the Avid-L resulted in 15+ replies providing a lot of good info


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]