![]() ![]() Unless you are only splicing uncorrected AVCHD files, transcoding into ProRes is a better solution.Īnother major benefit of transcoding is the significantly less demand ProRes (or any other transcoded format) puts on your Mac. If you need to do some colour correction, exposure correction or visual effects, ProRes will give you much more latitude and colour detail than original AVCHD. One major advantage of transcoding into ProRes is the 4:2:2 chroma sampling that it provides. The resulting image quality is perceptively identical, despite the generational loss due to transcoding with FCP. I have tested both workflows (Premiere CS4, as well as FCP). Other Mac solutions (such as iMovie, Final Cut Express, or Final Cut Pro) can recognise AVCHD camcorder and transcode AVCHD files into AIC (Apple Intermediate Codec) or ProRes (FCP only). If you definitely want to edit native files, without ANY generational loss due to transcoding, that is your solution. On Mac, currently, there is only one software platform that can edit AVCHD natively: Adobe CS4 Production Premium (i.e. Right now, it's not out yet when it does come, it will be an intriguing option. However, last week, I heard from some beta testers of Version 2, which is supposed to rewrap AVCHD into QuickTime, for transparent native editing on Mac. So, right now, Clipwrap won't help you much with editing AVCHD files directly. It wastes enormous time, degrades the image, and is entirely an accomodation to a very immature software and BluRay authoring environment further confounded by Apple's insistence that QuickTime wrappers be used in their programs.Ĭlipwrap can only do HDV files (MPEG-2), not AVCHD's MTS (or M2TS) ones. Since I personally like to author my HD disks in AVC (h.264) format, either as BluRay or AVCHD, I personally dislike the approach of converting AVCHD to another format, then editing it, and then converting back into h.264. ![]() It is merely a matter of Mac software catching up to the PC world in terms of handling native AVCHD. The AVCHD format with 1920 by 1080 resolution is intrinsically handled well by the faster Intel processors, and therefore some Intel-based Macs can now handle the workload. Yes, transcoding to another format will provide a solution, but I hesitate to suggest it since it adds a lot of time to make the conversion, compromises the quality of the original image since decompression followed by recompression takes place, and results in very large files as well. Hello Stu H and Stuart H (quite a coincidence!) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |