EX cam footage render time?

I have EX1 footage captured as EDcamEX.
I placed it in a pro res time as recommended for faster renders.
The footage was an event- low light. The gain was high.
I applied a BCC Denoise filter.
The filter cleaned it up nice but,
The timeline is about 90 minutes and The render out is taking 11 hours (?)
Is this render time correct for this type of filter on this length timeline?

Hi -
Couple of things:
1) When dealing with XDCam and Ex footage, I routinely get very long estimates for renders that rapidly drop as the render progresses.
2) I am not sure what advantage you got by editing the Sequence with the Codec set differently from the source. I routinely edit Ex footage on sequences that have the same codec (XDCAM EX 1080p30) and the renders, while not zippy, are not outrageously long. If you think about it, now FCP has to convert all the footage used in the sequence to Pro Res as well as rendering any effects or transitions. This is probably quite CPU intensive.
Don't know if you want to consider this, but you might want to create a new sequence that has the same codec and frame size and frame rate as you source material, and copy all the clips from your ProRes Sequence and paste them to the new sequence and try a render there.
Hope this helps.

Similar Messages

  • Are my render times normal?

    I've been editing DV footage with PP for several years. I'm now working on my first couple of HDV projects and want to check whether the astoundingly long render times I'm finding are due to settings errors on my part or are simply what one must expect with HDV rendering.
    One project is chroma keying and general cleaning up on a 107-minute .mp4 file, which is requiring an average of approximately 15 minutes render time per minute of video (as opposed to my experience of between one and three minutes per minute with DV footage).
    The other project is a three-camera multiscreen shoot, working with HDV .mpeg files, and again rendering seems to be somewhere in the order of 10 minutes per minute of video.
    I'm on a nice fast quad core HP Workstation (Windows 7), and have had no major issues with PP over dozens of DV projects.
    Can anyone shed any light, please, as to whether I may have some majorly incorrect project settings here or whether this is just a case of "Welcome to the world of HDV"?  Thanks.

    That p4 was realeased sometime around 2004-2005 most likely. So it's actually a 7-8 year old CPU. So for computer parts a 7 year old part is basically going to be totally big pain to have to use. It is also a single core CPU.  Now days intel CPU's  are quad-cores and are also clocked higher than 2.8Ghz. The workstation you listed is also a 32-bit workstation so it doesn't take advantage of cs5 (or a higher versions) 64-bit abilites. It also means you can't have more than 4Gb of RAM. (actually like 3Gb though)
    The mobo on that workstation also doesn't have 3 Gbps or 6 Gbps sata connections which is rather limiting.
    Here is a benchmark that will show you that a i7-2600k cpu is almost 10 times faster than your current CPU in almost every benchmark.
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/92?vs=287
    My recommendation would be to do a totally new edit system. There just simply isn't any way it would make since to keep trying to upgrade your current one. What would your budget be if you wanted to do a new build? IMO if it's a tight budget then you should go with a Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge CPU, but if it's big then you'll go with a Sandy Bridge-E,  or a Xeon setup.

  • Render times large comps (4000x1000)

    Hi Everyone,
    So I'm working on a project that is a scene for live performance. The work space is 4000x1000 split between 5 screens of different dimensions. Basically I'm designing a panorama for a live set. I need to split the pano into 5 outputs for the various playback machines.
    My concept was to create a 4000x1000 comp and then nest that in smaller precomps for the final outputs.
    The problem I'm hitting is that even though the precomps are small it seems like the entire pano is being rendered anyway. Ive tried a region of interest in the render setting with similar render times.
    I cant design the pano as separate comps because they all interact with each other and it would just become a continuity nightmare.
    Any ideas how I can get the render times down?
    Thanks for your time.
    Cheers
    Glenn

    Refine your workflow. First of all, each panel must be a standard output size if you are sending the images to a series of projectors. You must figure out how the show is going to be put on, then follow the requirements for multi stream projection from the supplier of the gear. If you don't check first your entire project may have to be redone.
    Secondly, I'd learn about proxies, buy all the ram that will fit in your system, and think about your workflow very hard. You could set up 5 cameras on your huge comp, you could set up guide lines and then duplicate your master comp and use the guides to break up the copies into smaller comps using the crop composition to region of interest feature.
    Another option is to set up a single comp at a more reasonable size to produce a version of your comp that contains all of the elements but at an HD frame size. Then you could use the scale comp script file to create a full size comp that could be divided up into final output frame sizes using the crop to region of interest option on duplicates.
    If it were me I'd set up an HD comp, cut it up into 5 equal pieces, then set up the animations. If the footage (images) used in the final are huge, use proxies, if there's artwork, make it vector art, if there's video, use it at full resolution.
    None of this advice will mean anything if you don't have the output specs from the folks providing the projectors in the first place. I'm a little concerned by the line "5 screens of different dimensions." Every multi screen system I've worked with has the same output options, NTSC Normal, NTSC Widescreen, or HD.

  • Much longer render time for a few small changes?

    I bought a new Macbook pro last week with a 2.4 ghz intel i5 processor and 8 GB of ram. I got Adobe premiere pro yesterday and I made a video which combined taking footage shot from my flip video camera and audio commentary that I recorded across the full video. The video was rendered with the setting H.264 and the preset Youtube widescreen HD, the final video was about an 800 MB .mp4 file. It took about 30-40 minutes to render.
    Today, I added a 17 minute mp3 file for background music, which was 17 mb. I also added 6 images and 2 titles which overlay the video at different points. The only other thing I added along with these two was a 16 second mov file which serves as an intro video to my series. With these 3 (what I consider to be fairly small) changes, my render time has jumped dramatically. With the same export settings, I see the render time build and build until it reaches 4+ hours and I decide to stop. I've tried a couple different formats, but I'm not sure what else to do. I feel that 8gb should be plenty to render a video like this fairly quickly (like I did yesterday) and I'm not sure why it's taking so long compared to yesterday. Is this normal? Any help to guide me with reducing render times would be much appreciated. Thanks!

    The Export time will differ by what one is Exporting from and what they are Exporting to. In this case, the "to" has not changed.
    What has changed?
    Well, the stills for one. What is the format and what are the pixel x pixel dimensions of those?
    The addition of the MOV is another place to look. What is the CODEC inside that MOV "wrapper?" Having to decode via the CODEC can impact the Export time.
    The new Audio has changed. What is the format/CODEC of that music file?
    Those are the first thoughts that I have on this, and good luck,
    Hunt

  • Slow render times with large jpegs - complete system lag

    In a project i'm working on I have two large jpegs with a small zoom scaling effect. Going from 100 to 103 percent.
    I've noticed that both Adobe Media Encoder and Premiere Pro experience a heavy slow down in render time as soon as the jpegs have to be rendered.
    Not only does the render speed almost come to a halt, the complete system lags very heavy, even the mouse cursor won't respond well.
    This happens when i have GPU acceleration enabled and when i do a 2 pass H264 encoding.
    When I have the GPU acceleration disabled the render goes very smooth, and doesn't seem to slow down...
    The jpeg is 4023  x 2677, and 6,97 MB large.
    Scaling the jpeg down to about 1920x1080 in Photoshop and put that one in the timeline made the render go a lot faster.
    I understand that a large picture takes a bit more time to be rendered, but we're talking about a 10minute render whit the large jpeg file and  a 2 minute render with the jpeg resized.
    The total time of the two jpegs in the video is 5 seconds in a 3 minutes video.
    So, that made me think that the render times are exponentially long.
    In the timeline everything runs really smooth.
    Is this considered normal, I can't remember having such big differences in CS5. It's not a major thing, but I wanted to share anyway.
    My system:
    Premiere Pro CC (latest)
    i7 4930K
    32 GB RAM
    2xGTX480
    Footage and project on a Raid0 disk
    Previews/Cache on a Raid0 disk
    System and Premiere on SSD
    Render to a single 7200 rpm drive.

    >wanted to share
    Yes... known issue... I think some of the below is about P-Elements, but the same ideas
    Photo Scaling for Video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/450798
    -HiRes Pictures to DVD http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1187937?tstart=0
    -PPro Crash http://forums.adobe.com/thread/879967

  • Looong render times with motion templates

    I've been a big advocate for FCPX as there are a lot of great features but there are some things that are just killing me, no.1 render time.
    I'm working on some simple presentation edits using motion templates I have built in motion 5 and published to fcpx. The templates all consist of a single dropbox for video with a type field for test messages next to it. These are against a flat white rectangle used to reflect (similar to the coverflow but against a white background) and a subtle camera sweep has been added so it slowly turns from one side to the other by 30 degrees. Each of these is 10 seconds long.
    I chop up my imported movie on the timeline (untouched by grade/fx/retiming) and add the template to each of the chopped clips. I then select each applied template in the timeline and use the video well to select the clip below it for the dropzone. I add my text. That's all good. I now have a timeline approx 3 minutes long consisting of these motion graphics templates.
    Now, if I chose to either render or export a QT with timeline settings, estimated time is 8 - 9 hrs (I have tried both) I left a 3:30 project exporting last night at 11:45. It finished at 9:00AM.
    That is just unacceptable. It is irritating because the functionality of building the sequences in FCPX far outweighs what FCP 7 is capable of but the so-called "renderless" abilities of FCPX
    are making life ****.
    I use Event Manager X to turn off everything I am not using except the individual project. I have reset preferences in Preference Manager to see if that helps. I have purged using terminal. I have my clips on an external firewire 800 HD. I have no other software running. I accept I need a more powerful Mac - I'm using a 2009 3 Ghz Intel Core Duo iMac with 6gig ram using Lion 10.7.2 and FCPX 10.0.2 but 9 hours for a 3:30 clip?
    Any suggestions for where I can cut down on render time are appreciated. The source clip for the video for the dropzones and the final exported presentation movie are HD ProRes.
    Cheers

    The situation you describe does not seem normal. It should not take nearly that long to render and export your 3:30 movie. Considering that your mac is not one of the most recent vintage, and your are editing in full HD, one could expect it to take a bit of time, but nothing like this.
    In the way of troubleshooting, you could try and export just one of these 10 second segments.
    I have no way of knowing for sure, but I guess that it might export in a much more reasonable amount of time.
    I suspect that memory may be running scarce, which, as has been repeatedly mentioned in these fora, is a problem affecting many of us using FCP X under Lion. You mentioned you used "purge" in the Terminal, but in such a long render you might have had to do it repeatedly...

  • Render time Issues with 5.0 project in CC 12.1

    This is actually a copy of a post I had in a different discussion entitled "render time" but this now
    I did some extensive testing to try and see why my render times in CC were so much slower that 5.5 and I found some very interesting results.
    The original project was created in 5.0 and opened in 5.5 and rendered, it contained video footage and graphics. When it was render in 5.5 it rendered in 4:27. When I opened it in 12.1 and rendered it was 18:00. I then started turning off layers and my render times shot up. basically layer 12 had two animated masks on colored solid. With this off it took 8:30
    I then imported the project into 12.1 and saved it, reopened it and with layer 12 off it took 5:11. So importing and saving the project made a difference. Now I recreated layer 12 in 12.1 from scratch and turned it on and my rendered time was 6:50.
    So there is something going on with projects being converted from earlier versions - Now to really test this theory I would need to recreate the project from scratch and compare to the 5.5 times.
    To further test this we did the same sort of testing with a different comp and found similar results - the render times were different if it was imported vs. just opened. But the big thing we found with this comp was a layer where we were moving large stills with some z space. It looks like the 3d from 5.0 was causing a major slow down in CC on layers that has AE 3d applied.
    I think the major take away is if your comp was created in 5.0 and you need to modify it, then make changes in 5.5 or 5.0 or be prepared to recreate any layers with more than simple key frames.
    Just to also answer some other questions - in rendering to prores vs. animation or dvcprohd the times were almost the same. The animation was slightly longer but that makes sense cause the file was much bigger.
    I also found that with 32 gigs of ram my magic number was 11 reserved for other apps ...
    Hope someone can jump in and add some light to this
    This was all done on a 2010 mac pro 2.66 w 12 cores 36 megs ram running 10.8.4 - I have 5.5 and CC and the 12. 1 updates are installed and the video card is an NVidia 575. Mulit threading was on and in 5.5 - 9 Megs is reserved and in 12.1 - 10 is reserved

    I've experienced similar problem with Java Web Start twice.
    Also using JRE version 1.5.0_06 Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM and Browser Internet Explorer 6.0.2800.1106 on Windows XP (Problem was the same with Java 1.4.2)
    My application was signed and launched via JNLP. The security warning popup was shown in the windows taskbar, but it was hidden. Using maximize in the taskmanager, I was able to see the dialog but it was blank. The problem was persistent, although I did not try as many times as 20-30 :-)
    On both occations the problem occured on multi (3) screen systems, which I suspected to be the problem (Java has historically had some issues regarding multi screen systems), but now I'm not so sure.
    Did you find a solution / cause?

  • Render time in HD

    What is the standard time to render and export a quicktime movie in HD format. My format is DVCPRO HD1080i50. PC Specification is quadcore dual intel xeon mac pro with 6gb of ram. I need approx 8 min to render a 3 min video. Plz help. I am using fcp7 in OSX Lion.

    What HD format?  There are many.  Full resolution DVCPRO HD? ProRes? H.264? For YouTube? Vimeo? BluRay?
    What plugins/filters do you have on the footage? Render times will vary based on that.

  • Help - Getting slower render times with AE CS6

    Hi everyone
    Wonder if anyone else is getting as described?
    I have a 3m37s project which is predomnantly motion graphics using live shot footage (.MXF files), Illustrator and a few JPGs.
    In CS5 AE I get render times which average around 45mins, so I thought I'd see how quickly CS6 could crank it out by - as you can see I'm getting times which are in excess of 2 almost 3hours!
    The project contains a few 2.5D moves as well as tiny bit of Trapcode 3D Stroke
    I have mentioned on this forum that I'm having the Error 5070 problems with start up and Ray Trace is unavailable but these times seem seriously wrong to me.
    Mac Pro 3,1 (2x 2.8GHZ)
    20GB RAM
    OS 10.7.4
    NVIDIA GeForce GT8800
    NVIDIA Quadro 4000 both on GPU Driver 207.00.00.f06
    CUDA Driver 4.2.10
    All files are on a 2TB drive (7200rpm)
    Rendering to a 1TB drive (7200rpm)
    Corsair SSD 60gb Cache drive
    As an observation when I watch the frames counter ticking over, CS5 seems to steadily work it's way through the render at around less than a frame a second, CS6 seems to crank out 2-6 frames then hold for 30secs before working on another batch. It crawls to a halt near the end.
    Can anyone offer any help or advice?
    So far I'm not having a great time with my CS6 transition
    Thanks
    Rob
    Message was edited by: Bokeh Creative Ltd
    because of a Typo

    Thanks Rick - Yes what confused me was that it only took 45mins in CS5 even with MP 'on'
    Still having no joy with Ray Tracing though, even though I have a Quadro 4000 card, I get the 5070 error on start up. Any ideas?

  • Exporting HD in FCX - massive render times issues

    Hello,
    Reading the FCP X Help topics etc I think I have a good understanding of import/export criteria. However, I have it from some peers that I could do much better with regard to reducing the massive render times I am experiencing.
    Currently the render time for an 8minute clip is 26 hours using Compressor 4 using preset 'HD 1080 Video Sharing (H2.64) - AAC
    BACKGROUND:
    OS X 10.8.3 (12D78)
    17-inch, Late 2008 MacBookPro
    2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
    4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
    FCX 10.0.8
    Raw footage is 1920 - 1080 from Canon D7 card -  copied to an external HD.
    Import settings: both proxy and optimised - both with huge export times as above.
    Destination to Movei folder or desktop
    The 8 minute sequence includes filters which I know will increase processing time, but by this much is pretty horrendous. (a 'preset' colour correction + sharpen + manual colour correction)
    My understanding is that if I import - or later convert all footage - into optimised files - these become ProRes222 files which will give me much faster render and export times. But this does not seem to be happening.
    It simply is not efficient or practical to myself or any clients to have 25 - 30 hour export times for 8 minute sequences
    My impression is that this computer is simply not up to  faster rendering/export processing - but my peers tell me my currrent render/export times are rediculously long.
    Can any one advise please.
    Thank you.

    This is the Final Cut Studio forum.
    You need to ask your questions here: Final Cut Pro X

  • Rendering Hundreds of Audio Previews Upon Export, Long Render Times

    Hi everyone,
    I have an assembly cut of a feature, with footage and a timeline at 422 ProRes HQ, 24 fps, 96kHz audio.
    When I try to export any length of a clip, I get exorbitant render times and hundreds of audio previews to render.
    Video alone is rendered almost instantaneously.
    There are some audio files on the timeline (music and SFX) at 48k sample rate.
    Any ideas what the problem is?
    Thanks.
    Premiere CC 2014
    OSX Mavericks
    2 X 2.66 Quad Core Xeon
    32 GB memory
    NVIDIA Quadro 4000 w/ CUDA
    3 tB 7200 RPM - RAID 0

    Thanks, Ann. I'm thinking that may be a factor because this is the first time I've had to work with audio recorded at 96 and I've never had this problem.
    Can anyone else elaborate more?

  • Render times in AE?

    Hi,
    I've been playing around with photoshop, premiere pro, and I've been avoiding AE because it looks a bit intimidating. I have  a project I am working on that I want to deinterlace. I have magic bullet frames plus, and the footage that I imported into AE is an MPEG. The footage comes from a crappy source - someone recorded it from television and it was all noisy, full of "jaggies", and just rough looking. I took out some of the noise with neat video in premiere and now I want to deinterlace it in AE. Frames plus is really amazing, but the render times seem crazy to me - like 30 hours - I'm running a top of the line system. The source file is about 3 GB and I have been trying to export it into MPEG2-DVD format. The file is 1 hr and 30 minutes long. Is that too long a file? Does AE work only for clips of a short duration? Should I be expoting my file into a different format? Are render times in AE this brutal? Even the most demanding plugins in Premiere take a fraction of the time - Neat video renders out an 1 hr 30 min clip in 5 hours. 41 hours seems bizzare!
    Thanks for the help!
    Howard

    The clip is an hour and a half... the render took 5 with temporal smoothing. Sounds normal to me.
    Here's another problerm with the render:
    I have been trying to export it into MPEG2-DVD format.
    You should never try to render to an MPEG stream from AE's render cue unless it's for a quick preview. No Multi Pass rendering, No Intra Frame compression, None of anything you choose MPEG for except the container. IMHO it sholdn't even be an option in the render cue.
    Use AME for delivery encoding or a 3rd party compressor. Render to Production codecs from the RQ....

  • CS5 on mac 10.6.4 slows system to a crawl, render times really long

    We recently upgraded our towers to 10.6.4 and all productivity has slowed to a snails pace using After Effects. On 10.5 the speed was almost TOO fast on our renders...it was awesome. Now I'm looking to get that speed back.
    I have a few very simple comps. 1920 x 1080, 23.98fps, 5 layers (4 QT renders from final cut XDCAM and Animation codec, 1 adjustment layer with levels and hue/saturation for color correction). Approx 40 seconds long each.
    I've followed the Adobe advice of turning the multiprocessing on and using the following settings from here http://forums.adobe.com/thread/543440
    leave 4gb for other apps, set minimum 3gb per processor = 33min render
    setting it back to what WAS screaming fast on 10.5:
    leave 3gb for other apps, set minimum 0.75gb per processor = 19min render
    turning multiprocessing off = 5min render
    same project on 10.5 system with multiprocessing turned ON with the above mentioned settings = 2min render
    what is going on here? is there a compatibility problem with CS5/10.6 and Animation codec files? that seems to be the bulk of the slowdown, but still over twice as slow?
    additionally, when AE is rendering the rest of the system becomes unusable...every action, even dragging a finder window around, results in beachballs and a 30 - 40 second lag in response. this happens with or without multiprocessing.
    I just want to get back to work...any ideas on how i can configure this beast to get back to my former speeds?
    8 core mac Pro
    OS 10.6.4
    12gb RAM
    many thanks in advance. i'm willing to send beer for a winning fix.

    Good to know, thanks for the update. 10.6.x does manage memory differently, but our testing for performance has shown a slight improvement in the newer OS. So I am guessing that the OS update is not the issue. I just ran another test on a Mac with your configuration and saw a 4% improvement on 10.6.4 over 10.5.8.
    It's uncertain what state the system memory was in when you started your tests. That's why I asked for a restart of the computer. The times reported seemed like there was a possibility that the OS was swapping. XDCAM footage places a high demand on system resources.  But it's hard to say without being there.
    What I was seeing with the initial post was that the two extremes of allocation per background cpu were tried, but not the middle ground. To better see this, launch the Activity Monitor utility or look at the last line of the MP preference. With the 4GB reserved and the 3GB/ bkgnd cpu setting you weren't getting any extra processes spawned for multiprocessing. You can see this in the preferences multiprocessing section as "Actual CPUs that will be used = 0". Then, by setting the pref to .75GB/bkgnd the app launched 8 bkgnd processes, but for the task at hand, I am guessing that they were starved for memory and sometimes failed to render. This was faster than the first test, but still slow. By setting the pref to 1.5GB/bkgnd cpu you were now getting 4 new processes spawned for multiprocessing. The background processes had enough memory to succeed so that made it render faster still.
    Now, try setting it to 1GB/bkgnd cpu. That will launch 6 processes which should render faster as long as that is enough memory for the task. If  the Memory pref for Reserve RAM for other apps is set back to 3GB, it will allow the spawning of 7 bkgnd processes. If that is a successful balance for this project then it will be the fastest render time. But, our testing shows it will be at the risk of starving the OS for memory, thus the more conservative 4GB recommendation for a 12GB system.
    It's a fine line and why we are recommending that one give up a little speed by reserving more memory for other apps. True, there will be less processes spawned for multiprocessing, but there will also be less chance for the OS to start swapping to disk which greatly slows down performance for all tasks. If that compromise is not acceptible, then the alternative is to buy more ram so that all 8 processes can adequately receive enough memory for the job, and yet still maintain adequate reserves for the OS and other apps.

  • Render time has INCREASED!

    I'm running FCP 6.0.4 on a Quad 3GHZ Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM. I am working with Sony XDCAM HD 1080i (35MBS, VBR) footage.
    I edit a 28:30 local TV program and have produced over 20 episodes so far. Its a fairly simple format and most of the shows are relatively the same, so I had grown accustomed to consistent render times. The main element that needs rendering on every show is a small animated logo in the lower right frame. It is on-screen for 95% of the program. For the first 20 episodes, even with some select clips having multiple layers of graphics and color effects, to render the entire show, it would take 2-4 hours at the most. Again, these render times were consistent for the first 20 shows or so.
    However, for the last few shows, I am experiencing extremely long render times for the same format I've been working with for over a year. It now takes 8-12 hours to render the entire show. I have four internal 750GB hard drives. I do not store any footage on the OS drive and I always make sure I have more than 30% free space on my source disk.
    Would anyone have any idea why render times would have drastically increased?? Was there a recent
    software update or something that may have caused this, either with Leopard or FCS?
    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Run, don't walk, to the Aja site and download a copy of their Kona System Test utility. It's PowerPC, which is a little annoying because it takes a long time to launch. But it's a great tool to test disk I/O performance. (Also, despite the name it is not in any way related to the various Kona I/O boards. I haven't received by LHe yet, and I've been using the System Test tool for ages to keep an eye on my framestore bandwidth.)
    For comparison's sake, I get on the order of 160 MB/s reads and writes on my framestore. It's a very humble configuration, just two internal 750 GB SATA drives striped using Disk Utility. If you're getting less than that, something ain't right.
    How exactly are you setting up your projects? Are your timelines using the XDCAM compressor, or are you using ProRes? If you're using an XDCAM timeline, do you have ProRes rendering turned on? Do you send your finished shows back out to XDCAM, or do you go out in some other format? I ask this part because it's possible — though since you've been doing these shows for a while you almost certainly already know this — that you don't actually need to stay in the XDCAM format at all, unless you're going back out to XDCAM media. If you're laying off to some other mastering format, or going out with a Quicktime master, you can skip rendering back to XDCAM entirely, which may save you hours and hours.

  • ProRes render times vs 8-bit Uncompressed

    We have a project being brought in to us with the footage as Pro Res 422
    Our editor thinks that perhaps it may be beneficial to media manage to 8-bit Uncompressed and do the edit and then re-link to the original Pro Res material because she thinks that it may save rendering time.
    There will be quite a bit of colour grading, vignettes, masks and multi-layers etc, that will almost certainly give us red render bars.
    Final delivery will be to SD and HD and as it happens the originator of the material can supply us media managed 8-bit Uncompressed clips anyway so we don't have to worry about wasted time there.
    It's really to discover which codec is most efficient with respect to rendering.
    I'd initially thought about the data rates that each requires and thought perhaps that might give a clue - but then the whole HDV issues of long render times made me re-think.
    I'd love to do tests but the client will be there from day one and I'd love to be able to suggest a work flow straight away. (Searches on the forum havn't come up with a comparison - hence this request...)
    We're using G-Raid drives that seem to handle both codecs quite happily.
    Oodles of thanks for your collective wisdom.
    LEE

    ProRes is not a long GOP structure (it is not HDV). It is an all "i" frame with compression while maintaining a 4:2:2 color space. Its getting very good reviews including it's ability to work in Color and other grading/finishing options.
    Just for your own piece of mind, why not get a segment in both formats and do some testing. That's the only way you'll know for sure the best workflow for your interests.
    Good luck,
    x

Maybe you are looking for