Latest post Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:23 PM by Kevin Klimek. 6 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (7 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Tue, Sep 15 2009 10:26 PM

    Transcoding vs. Video Mixdown

    I'm working within a 1080i project.

    I have 1080i XD cam footage, HDV footage, and 30i on mini-dv all in the same sequence, I'm thinking I should either transcode the sequence (currently featuring various resolutions) to 1:1 or do a video mixdown of the sequence at 1:1...my question is, is there a difference?  Would transcoding to 1:1 take up more drive space than mixing down to 1:1 would?

    I'm leaning towards mixing down bc I've read qt ref exports will yield interlacing problems if attempted with varying resolutions within same sequence...and I'm not sure I'd be able to transcode uniformly.
     
    For now, my end result will be a digital file...I'm assuming 1:1 will yield me best possible resolution for all shots.

     

  • Wed, Sep 16 2009 9:52 PM In reply to

    • DylanReeve
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Auckland, New Zealand
    • Posts 1,680
    • Points 20,460
    • Moderator: MCA Mac
      Moderator: MCA PC

    Re: Transcoding vs. Video Mixdown

    I can't say I've been in exactly situation, but the process of doing an export essentially does a mixdown as part of the export, but it might not be exactly the same thing.

    A video mixdown will probably end up taking up more space, especially if you're mixing up to a higher resolution (1:1). With a transcode, only the footage not at the target resolution will be converted. Either should work out okay I imagine.

    Various systems - including HP Z440 and Z840 workstations Media Composer 2018 [view my complete system specs]

    Dylan Reeve - Edit Geek // Online/Offline Editor // Post Production Supervisor
    Auckland, New Zealand

     

  • Wed, Sep 16 2009 10:09 PM In reply to

    Re: Transcoding vs. Video Mixdown

    Sycophant:
    A video mixdown will probably end up taking up more space, especially if you're mixing up to a higher resolution (1:1).
    I would (and do) use a HD mixdown for this type of project. It allows me maximum versatility for output formats to a locked timeline .  It gives you one file to delete if you need space once you have output. Or a bonus of one video file plus a stereo .wav mixdown for a simple ready to use backup if archiving a for subsequent different format releases.

    Sycophant:
    With a transcode, only the footage not at the target resolution will be converted.
    but you will need to render all effects so space savings not really an issue IMO.

  • Wed, Sep 16 2009 10:21 PM In reply to

    Re: Transcoding vs. Video Mixdown

    AndrewAction:

    Sycophant:
    A video mixdown will probably end up taking up more space, especially if you're mixing up to a higher resolution (1:1).
    I would (and do) use a HD mixdown for this type of project. It allows me maximum versatility for output formats to a locked timeline .  It gives you one file to delete if you need space once you have output. Or a bonus of one video file plus a stereo .wav mixdown for a simple ready to use backup if archiving a for subsequent different format releases.

    Sycophant:
    With a transcode, only the footage not at the target resolution will be converted.
    but you will need to render all effects so space savings not really an issue IMO.

    Andrew...specifically, what HD mixdown...1:1 1080i HD? or one of the dnx hd resolutions?

     

    I had been told that since my current output choice of qt ref (later to be converted to mp4 digital file) is SD, that even though I'm converting to 1:1, my HD footage will be downgraded to SD in thi situation.

     

  • Wed, Sep 16 2009 10:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Transcoding vs. Video Mixdown

    In PAL probably DNxHD 120 for anything with HDV in it.

    Makes for easy QT references that Squeeze, ProCoder, TMPGenc etc can out put to any compressed format.

    SD 1:1 would work just as well for a MP4 SD output.  HD mixdown would give you a better starting point for MP4's wanted for online HD files for youtube etc.  (Also in keeping with my basic philosospy of keeping everything at as high a quality to the very last step)

  • Wed, Sep 16 2009 11:01 PM In reply to

    Re: Transcoding vs. Video Mixdown

    I always thought 1:1 (uncompressed) was the highest quality possible...are the dnx hd resolutions actually higher quality for the HD footage?

     

  • Thu, Sep 17 2009 3:23 PM In reply to

    Re: Transcoding vs. Video Mixdown

    BJS 7 19 08:
    I always thought 1:1 (uncompressed) was the highest quality possible...are the dnx hd resolutions actually higher quality for the HD footage?

    You never get more quality than you put in.  Unless all of your footage is uncompressed 1:1 HD, you are only wasting disk space rendering that way.  Avid DNxHD codecs are excellent quality with data rates similar to SD footage.  So, if you're using HDV as a source, I would suggest just using DNxHD.

     

     

    Symphony v2019 | OS 10.13.6 • Nitris DX • 12-core MacPro (Mid 2012) • 36 GB RAM • Facilis Terrablock 24EX [view my complete system specs]

    -- Kevin

Page 1 of 1 (7 items)

© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc.  Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Find a Reseller