![]() I'll have to do some tests to do whether Optimizing Media inside resolve (which can be to a lower resolution for editing purposes) is faster than transcoding the 10-bit camera source. That said, the DNxHR encoded video is much smoother to scrub than H.264, so there is definitely a case for transcoding or optimising media on my machine at least! If I actually need a 60fps timeline, I would need transcode to make it editable. So it looks like I could save on pre-transcoding time with Resolve Studio, if I plan to use H.264 for slow-motion only. This might suggest that the high frame rate H.264 is the limiting factor and not the 10-bit color. after slowing down the 60fps clip to 24fps (CPU is <50%). ![]() 85-90%, but it's unusable for viewing or editing. However, 8-bit UHD 60fps won't playback H.264 video smoothly - CPU is a bit higher, c. GPU is a NVIDIA Geforce GTX1060 6GB, but I don't think this is used in the free version of Resolve except for rendering effects?ĬPU when playing back UHD 60fps on a 1080p timeline is about 80% with the DNxHR HQX encoded clips with smooth playback. It seems to sit pretty happily at 3.5GHz all day. My machine is a 5-6 year old (maybe older?) Dell T3600 workstation with a first generation Xeon E5-1650, 6 cores base and 64GB RAM. I would suggest you do the same for further discussion. In my signature below, you can see my system configuration for your reference. ![]() You can extrapolate to 60 fps, I don't know if it's a simple 2.5x multiplication. When I set the timeline to 1080p, the load dropped to about half of that. I was able to play it smoothly on a UHD timeline, but it took 40% of my CPU and 20% of my GPU (no grading or corrections applied). Michael_Andreas wrote:Just for your reference, I have some GH5 footage 24 fps UHD 10-bit. Time and disk space are serious considerations, so I'm open to suggestions! I understand that the optimized media (to DNxHR or ProRes) doesn't need to be full UHD quality (as per my pre-import transcoding), but it still takes a fair bit of time.ģ) Assuming I render the final output to DNxHR HQX, are there any downsides to doing the final render from the edited AVC footage, compared to having imported and edited the entire project in DNxHR HQX from the start?Īs a beginner who is editing videos for fun, I don't need the other features of Resolve Studio, and I'm trying to work out whether the ability to import my 10-bit footage directly is actually going to save me much time, or improve or worsen the quality of the final output. This appears to be a "modal" (blocking) operation in Resolve which also slows down the workflow. ![]() However, playback on my PC is borderline, and I get better results if I optimize these frames in Resolve (to DNxHR) and/or use proxy mode.ġ) Am I losing any source quality by transcoding my 10-bit AVC camera footage to DNxHR HQX?Ģ) If I were to upgrade to Resolve Studio to allow me to directly import 10-bit AVC footage, I would probably need to generate optimized media in order to edit smoothly. Some of my clips are UHD which being only 8-bit 420, import directly to Resolve. However, the clips generally play back smoothly in Resolve without further optimization. I've been using Batch FFmpeg to transcode to DNxHR HQX which works well, but adds significant time to my workflow (my 6-core PC transcodes the UHD clips at about a quarter real-time). I'm using the free version of Resolve 16 for editing 10-bit footage from my Panasonic GH5, and would like to understand how to optimize my workflow for both time and quality.Īs you know, the free version won't directly import 10-bit 422 UHD clips from the GH5 into the media pool and requires them to be transcoded prior to import. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |