----- Original Message -----
From: <
oskarsum...@gmail.com>
To: <
ffmbc-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <
bo...@editb.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:52 PM
Subject: [ffmbc-discuss] Re: AVCHD to QT and Avid
> Why do you want to edit in h.264? It's a recipe for pain. Stop being
> precious and just transcode the damn thing.
>
> -stib
Stib,
You're missing a couple of points here:
-It's not always up to me to decide. Others decide for me, and i'm asked to
advice.
-Some people have no trouble working with the files. Premiere seems to do a
decent job on a fast machine. (and some edits are really simple, just top /
tail)
-The current case is that Avid and AVCHD don't play well together.
Client has TONS of this stuff (and other formats) on near line storage. They
transcode all to an offline codec in Avid.
Then for online, they restore just the used clips, AMA them in and transcode
the used stuff to something good.
Now transcoding the AVCHD to something easier would increase the amount on
their near line storage, or (in case the transcode should be to an offline
codec for Avid),
involves a huge risk of not being able to relink.
(avid relinks based on duration of the file. With these files there is a
risk of an 'off by one' error. Stupid, i know, but i'ts the way it is....)
So it would mean transcoding the whole shebang twice, one for offline, one
for online.
That would be my choice as well, as storage is relative cheap, and a render
farm isn't that expensive as well, but if the client decides, i'll bug you
to make it happen :-)
Does that make sense?
Bouke