4 Replies Latest reply on Dec 20, 2011 7:33 AM by vovando

    should I transcode 5D & 7D files for editing?

    denez mcadoo Level 1

      I've read several places that h.264 is really only a delivery codec, and though I know that Premiere Pro 5.5 can edit the files natively, I have also heard that decompressing the files makes them more manageable for post-production?


      What do you guys think?


      It is easier to just skip the transcode process, but would I get better results transcoding first? By the way, I'm running PP on a PC, so I'm thinking there is some sort of formula for decompressing into uncompressed AVI? But I don't really know.



        • 1. Re: should I transcode 5D & 7D files for editing?
          lasvideo Level 4

          Only you can really answer that question. It depends on the capabilities of your edit system. Try out a couple of clips on the timeline and see how it goes. My system is pretty beefy and handles them well.


          Tom Daigon

          Avid DS / PrP / After Effects Editor


          Mac Pro 3,1

          2 x 3.2 ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon


          Nvidia Quadro 4000

          24 gigs ram

          Kona 3

          Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid

          • 2. Re: should I transcode 5D & 7D files for editing?

            You really do have only two choices:


            1. MOV/RAW from the camera
            2. Transcoded AVI's


            1. MOV/RAW


            You can, of course, keep using MOV files straight from the camera.

            The only downside is the speed penality.


            When editing files straight from the camera in Premiere you do still get access to full 255 luma range (in contrast to Sony Vegas for example).

            Visually it would be even better, since there will be no quality loss (if you're very strict) due to absence of transcoding.


            2. Transcoding the files


            I can recommend Cineform as an intermediate codec.

            Google "Cineform neo4k".




            • Fast (Vegas, Premiere - you name it)
            • Stable (I've been using it for 3 years with no problems so far)
            • 10-bit (Even suitable for RED RAW footage)
            • Supports 3D and alpha


            On the other hand Cineform Neo is not cheap.


            I've been using Cineform for 3 years and can recommend this option if you are looking for relaxing, stutter-free editing experience.



            • 3. Re: should I transcode 5D & 7D files for editing?
              davidbeisner2010 Level 3

              I've done a good bit of editing with 7D and 5D files straight from the camera and have had no problems at all... I'd recommend just working with them as-is, unless you do notice a huge problem in speed...


              And though Cineform is great, it's gotta be done JUST RIGHT with just the right settings, etc., and it can be more of a problem than a solution. If you do decide to transcode, I'd recommend going with a lossless codec like Lagarith or UT, both of which are available free for the PC (UT is also cross-platform with the Mac). Another viable alternative to those two (especially if you are going cross platform) is the Avid DNxHD codec, which is also available free...

              • 4. Re: should I transcode 5D & 7D files for editing?
                vovando Level 1

                Well, I've been using Cineform for 3 years and had no problems with it (me using a PC of course). Cineform's HDLink does the transcoding in batch mode with the right settings, so I never have to do that manually.


                But great ideas on the alternatives, davidbeisner. Gotta try them, since Cineform must be licensed on all machines you use, so... Thanks!