Transcoding AVCHD to ProRes?

[User]

I have 1.25 TB of AVCHD from the C100MkII that I want to edit. I'm working on a 2013 Macbook Pro 16GB Ram.

I'm curious to hear if anyone thinks it's worth transcoding the AVCHD to ProRes for editing? I can view the AVCHD material with an effect (Filmconvert) at half resolution smoothly.

Would I be able to be able to view at 100% if it were ProRes?

What program would you use to transcode the material? I have 5DtoRGB. People say good things about EditReady.

Any thoughts?

[M Carter]

Some NLEs will let you edit right from AVCHD (but they're basically rendering it in the background as I understand it).

Opinions are various and often heated, but I'm a prores shop and transcode from the start. Makes it easier to share footage, and more seamless to jump from after effects, etc. I also very much prefer to trim files in MPEG Streamclip for effects or motion graphics vs. trimming in AE, and I tend to do that daily. So again, Prores is much more universal on a mac. And if your system doesn't have a lot of oomph, editing native will slow you down, where ProRes will crank through like melting butter on toast.

I shoot AVCHD, H264 and H265 (NX1). I really dislike AVCHD since I can't go to the folder, see the clip I want, and grab it, insert it, trim it, effect it, whatever. it's a good format for shooting but I don't like it for post.

Don't know about FilmConvert, but you can edit ProRes 1080 on a pre-2000 mac all day, full screen, full rez, no slowdowns unless you add a lot of filters or stack a bunch of titles and graphics. it's designed to run like a champ on a decent Mac. And you can recompress ProRes all day with no artifacts or visible loss.

EditReady does a killer job with AVCHD, just drag the folder in, set your output folder, and make some coffee or whatever. You can also resize and conform frame rates at the same time. (FCP 6 and 7 also do a good job transcoding HVAC with their log and transfer windows). EditReady is well worth the fifty bucks and it will handle about anything you can throw at it, it's a robust piece of pro software, not like Rocky Mountains at all. A real workhorse. My workflow is "get back from the shoot, copy the raw card, transcode with Editready while I unpack or do invoicing or snort coke off a hooker's.." well, you get the idea. I don't return the cards to the cameras until the next day, after my backup has run, so I have the raw card and the ProRes on my system and my backup drives. Just my .02 but it's a very robust and versatile workflow.

[User]

'...while I unpack or do invoicing or snort coke off a hooker's.."

1 hour ago, M Carter said:

while I unpack or do invoicing or snort coke off a hooker's.."

Absolutely.

Thank you for providing rational and reasons behind why you transcode the way you do. This makes sense.
Is transcoding to ProRes HQ overkill for AVCHD?

*Sorry but I forgot to mention in OP that I am editing with PPro 8.2.0

[User]

I've read that 5DtoRGB uses a 10bit encoder and bypasses Quicktime to do the encoding.

"5DtoRGB takes a no-compromise approach to quality. 5DtoRGB bypasses QuickTime decoding altogether, works internally at 10 bits and uses your video card’s GPU for its YCbCr to RGB conversion. It also recognizes Canon’s full range 8 bit YCbCr values (0-255), avoiding clipping and the resulting loss of picture information. The resulting files are the absolute highest quality you’ll ever get out of the camera. In fact, you could argue that they’re even better than the camera originals since they’ve undergone high quality chroma smoothing."

Can anyone comment on if this software renders better quality than others for transcoding?

[mercer]

The makers of EditReady also makes ClipWrap, which is specifically designed for avchd and xavc. That program is only 30 bucks and you can upgrade to EditReady later for an extra 20... Or at least you could. ClipWrap is neat because it just changes the container to a prores file. And it's fast... But so is EditReady. You can't go wrong with either. 

[User]

I use Data Import Utility which is very good for copying the AVCHD files off the cards and places them as easy accessible files in an easily accessible folder. So no issues there.

My Macbook Pro can already handle editing full res AVCHD without issue. It's only when I apply an effect (ie. FilmConvert) that it starts to bog down. No issue at 50% resolution.

So my lingering questions are:
If I transcoded to ProRes, can I expect my system to bog down less?
If I transcode, would I want to use 5DtoRGB which is said to have a very good 10bit conversion processor?

I already have ClipWrap and 5DtoRGB

[Dogtown]

So my lingering questions are:
If I transcoded to ProRes, can I expect my system to bog down less? Yes, you will be much happier!
If I transcode, would I want to use 5DtoRGB which is said to have a very good 10bit conversion processor? ClipWrap and EditReady are much faster on the transcode. 

I already have ClipWrap and 5DtoRGB. 5DtoRGB worked great with my older GH2 AVC codec, with the Canon C100  AVC codec, I noticed little difference from the ClipWrap files and the 5DtoRGB files? I also recorded out of the C100 to my Nanoflash recorder ( XDCAM HD 422, 100mbs Long Gop ) the Nanoflash had a richer cleaner (less noise in the blacks) look.

 

Also unless you are doing major VFX or color CC don't waste the space and go for ProRes 422. 

 

Broatch Berry

Venice CA

screamingdime.com

 

[mercer]

I would think it would be less taxing. And since you already have ClipWrap, then you should be all set... Give it a try and let us know. Btw, do you have the plug in version of FilmConvert or the stand alone? Because I recently bought the stand alone because I couldn't stand how slow the plug in made my NLE run. But I have a less powerful computer than you. 

[User]

I pointed ClipWrap at the single folder containing 1.25TB of AVCHD files in multiple folders... it hung for 30 seconds and then quit. I don't think it could handle a large batch like this. Maybe I could do one folder at a time, but this going to take a long time.

For FilmConvert, I have the the PPro plugin.

[fuzzynormal]

I've used 5d2RGB a lot. It does create an image in encoding that's slightly better than what QuickTime can do. 

It is a slow transcoding process, however.  

If proresHQ offers a better IQ than regular prores, I've not been able to see it.

I'll also use proresLT at times to save hard drive space --depending on how much footage I'm trying to convert. 

[User]

Anyone know the ideal 5DtoRGB settings for the Canon C100MkII?

[Policar]

What are you cutting that is 120 hours of footage? How will you store all that.

ProRes cuts WAY faster than AVCHD. 

 

I use 422 (not HQ for that much footage)

rec709

full range (though FCP does broadcast range by default and both will work, but full range will look flatter and not lose super white detail in RGB conversion.

No post-processing or gamma correction (1.0 is fine).

[Don Kotlos]

 

4 hours ago, User said:

My Macbook Pro can already handle editing full res AVCHD without issue. It's only when I apply an effect (ie. FilmConvert) that it starts to bog down. No issue at 50% resolution.

So my lingering questions are:
If I transcoded to ProRes, can I expect my system to bog down less?
 

My opinion is that you shouldn't expect too much improvement with ProRes if Premiere is using GPU acceleration for mercury playback. The reason is that your GPU is your bottleneck and not the CPU.  If Premiere was not using your GPU then yes, CPU friendly codecs such as Prores would help. Lowering the resolution helps with real-time playback of the effects (here more details), and truth be told you should only have it at 100% resolution only if you have a full screen preview on a second monitor. 

The advantages of the Prores codec will be smoother scrubbing (see previous link), and a 10 bit environment that can help with some effects. 

[User]

Policar:
It's a feature doc for theatrical and broadcast.
My plan was to to transcode the 1.25TB to a 4TB HGST drive., converting to ProRes (standard) it should just about fit.
Good to hear that one will not lose the super whites as I see that there is often detail hiding up there.

Don:
I remember seeing your post when it first appeared. Thanks for putting that together.
I don't use the Mercury Playback Engine GPU as it has been nothing but trouble since I switched from FCP7 to PPro in 2013. Maybe there is a fix but everything I've tried over time never worked so it's been OpenCL all the way.
In the project I'm building, I already have XDCam, H264 and Prores and I agree with you that I haven't see that big a difference working with that material except maybe in simple things like scrubbing. Thanks for the straight and narrow.

[Policar]

7 hours ago, User said:

Policar:
It's a feature doc for theatrical and broadcast.
My plan was to to transcode the 1.25TB to a 4TB HGST drive., converting to ProRes (standard) it should just about fit.
Good to hear that one will not lose the super whites as I see that there is often detail hiding up there.

Don:
I remember seeing your post when it first appeared. Thanks for putting that together.
I don't use the Mercury Playback Engine GPU as it has been nothing but trouble since I switched from FCP7 to PPro in 2013. Maybe there is a fix but everything I've tried over time never worked so it's been OpenCL all the way.
In the project I'm building, I already have XDCam, H264 and Prores and I agree with you that I haven't see that big a difference working with that material except maybe in simple things like scrubbing. Thanks for the straight and narrow.

Glad it's a doc and not narrative. Otherwise you'd be in David Fincher territory.

That's a close fit for 4GB. Maybe 6TB would be better? Where's your scratch disk? I agree no need for 422 HQ. If you're concerned about super whites, definitely choose extended range to flatten the image and bring them back in legal range. That said, if 422 standard is 8 bit and you shot Canon Log you might be getting a bit too flat for an 8 bit finishing codec. Guessing it's not the end of the world, though.

Hope it goes well.

[User]

Thanks again for the extra insight on all things Policar.

Scratch disks are on a thunderbolt 5 bay JBOD. Actually the project harbours about 6 TB of material, so it's getting up there for sure. But better to have too much material than not enough. Although one might say the opposite is equally true.

[M Carter]

On April 28, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Dogtown said:

So my lingering questions are:
If I transcoded to ProRes, can I expect my system to bog down less? Yes, you will be much happier!

These kinds of questions are dependent on many factors. It would be easy to do some tests and find out. Get the same clip in prores, AVCHD, etc, play with it, stack some effects, and you'll know how it "feels" -  and also time your final renders and so on for harder data.

[User]

27 minutes ago, M Carter said:

These kinds of questions are dependent on many factors. It would be easy to do some tests and find out. Get the same clip in prores, AVCHD, etc, play with it, stack some effects, and you'll know how it "feels" -  and also time your final renders and so on for harder data.

Absolutely. Good points all around. Thanks!

[M Carter]

3 hours ago, User said:

Absolutely. Good points all around. Thanks!

I swear sometimes, the answer to 70% of the questions here are 'TEST TEST TEST'!!! I'm thinking of buying a lab coat so when I'm testing things I'll feel super-legit!

[User]

Yep, and I do make tests. But sometimes I feel it is important to ask others so as to know their methods and results. Especially with so many variables. Like for example in my situation, the Mercury Playback Engine has always caused issues on my system so I go with OpenCL. With Don Kotlos comments on ProRes being a more friendly codec on systems not using a GPU, it helps me understand and make important choices above and beyond my on knowledge and tests. But yes, test!