WORKFLOW / PC / HELP!

Hi guys,

I understand all the "roundtrip" workflow. From resolve "Quicktime uncompressed 10 bit" to premiere, making the cut and than back to resolve with XML files, than back to resolve with XML and exported "Quicktime uncompressed 10 bit" and link it.

THE PROBLEM is that on my PC, PREMIERE CS6 says, that CODEC is missing and it doesn`t open "Quicktime uncompressed 10 bit".

I know it`s an APPLE codec, but is there any way, or an apple codec package, with wich I can open it?

THANK YOU ALL!

Have you installed QuickTime?

Adam, sure I do have istalled Quicktime.. The latest version..

Hi guys,

I understand all the "roundtrip" workflow. From resolve "Quicktime uncompressed 10 bit" to premiere, making the cut and than back to resolve with XML files, than back to resolve with XML and exported "Quicktime uncompressed 10 bit" and link it.

If you are round tripping can i ask why you went with Quicktime UNCOMPRESSED ? That's a huge data rate and seems perhaps unnecessary especially when you intend to go back into Resolve ? Uncompressed would be more for mastering rather than editing. You'd need some mighty fast hard drives to make that work.

Also, I don't know the PC side of things at all well, but I do know that uncompressed quicktime is one of the more obscure codecs that wouldn't get a lot of common use. You're perhaps more likely to find one of the compressed codecs like ProRes would work ?

jb

I'd agree with John. Uncompressed is not ideal and completely overkill.

ADAM & JOHN

Thanks for your answers.

SURE it is huge a not ideal for editing. I can edit in h.264 or eve lower quality codec, but after grading, I want to get back with XML files to Premiere and link my edit to UNCOMPRESSED QUICKTIME, JUST TO LINK my edited work in premiere to the best graded quality pictures. And than I can export from premiere whatever codec. Why do I own a BMCC if I`m only able to use codec like h.264..maybe for youtube. BUT I want to do a feature film with this camera. But as long as my pc doesn`t support a better codec than h.264, I just can`t go to cinema with it.

Do you know what I mean?

ProRes is visually lossless. It's a robust codec designed for the postproduction workflow. I'd use that rather than uncompressed. The bandwidth requirements for uncompressed are huge. Even high end postproduction houses avoid it.

But being on a PC, you don't have the luxury of encoding to ProRes out of Resove (thanks Apple). You may want to look to another codec such as DNxHD which is freely available, downloadable, for both platforms and allows decoded/encode. Just be aware as seen in other threads, that in 9.1 Resolve, the DNxHD codecs seem to be missing from Resolve Lite. I would expect a 9.1.1 very soon..

Download DNxHD codecs from:
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_U ... d/en423319

Michael

I use sequential DPX files for uncompressed in Windows. They are far simpler than Quicktime, faster than DNG (already de-Bayered), and supported by most programs. If you are doing effects, individual files are great for rendering because you can re-render individual frames rather than the whole file.

Cheers.

..Well Michael, thank you..

I don`t know if I`m doing it right, but even with the DNG codecs, the DNxHD export doesn`t work.

Premiere cs6 just doesn`t wanna import the file. It says "generic error".

Not ProRes, DNxHX, Uncompressed Quicktime.

Only h.264 is working, but thats a joke.

I`ve got the system Win7 on C: (SSD) and Adobe on D: (SSD).. can it be that Premiere doesn`t see that codecs, cause its on C:? ..Cause I don`t get a option when installing the codecs, where I want it to be installed..

Noel, there is a Codec "DPX RGB 10bits" in Davinci.. You mean its uncompressed?

And you know whats weird? Original footage "RAW" on BMCC is 1,96 GB and DPX from resolve is 3,25 GB.. ITS BIGGER THAN ORIGINAL FILE?!

thx

DNX HD in resolve is an option
i use it every day on resolve 8

it was a 500$ extra
http://silverado.cc/shop/product.php?pr ... t=8&page=1

Maybe there a little thing you miss in the post prod process...
You can use any light codec to make your edit and when you finish you relink to hi res files in resolve in raw for grading and delivery!
Or get a huge powerfull computer to edit 2K uncompressed files QT !

You have to download and install the DNxHD codec first, to make Premiere read it.

No need anymore to purchase $500 plug ins anymore - Resolve can play and write it, the codec package is free from the Avid site.

No need anymore to purchase $500 plug ins anymore - Resolve can play and write it, the codec package is free from the Avid site.

And that work with resolve 9?
are you sure?

Last year i was working in avid MC6, with dnxHD codec installed and when i send it to Resolve it wont work!
I purchase the dnx option to get this roundtrip working!

Maybe it's include now with resolve9
i did'nt had the time to upgrade!

If you launch an application like MPEGStreamclip, do you get the option to output DNxHD? Can it read a DNxHD .mov clip? If so, then there is some setting in CS6 that is not happy if the OS can see such a file.

Michael

..now at least QT DNxHD is working in CS6.. How much worse is it than ProRes? It compressed the original file RAW from 1,96 GB to 386 MB Quicktime DNxHD...

Where exactly is the difference between the two codecs?

PS: THX guys for all your answers!

Noel, there is a Codec "DPX RGB 10bits" in Davinci.. You mean its uncompressed?

And you know whats weird? Original footage "RAW" on BMCC is 1,96 GB and DPX from resolve is 3,25 GB.. ITS BIGGER THAN ORIGINAL FILE?!

thx

DPX RGB 10bit is an uncompressed format. That is, no de-compression takes place when directly reading the bits as RGB values in the file.

In order to convert to DPX, the 12 bit RAW DNG files must be de-Bayered, and transcoded to 10 bit RGB.

The 12 bit DNG RAW frames are 2432 x 1366 x 12 = 3.3Mb.

The 10 bit DPX RGB frames are 2432 x 1366 x (10+10+10) = 8.3Mb.

The irony is that even though the DPX files are much larger, data has been discarded in the translation from RAW to RGB.

Many choose compressed formats for this reason. I prefer to stay with DNG as long as possible. If Resolve could handle split video/audio editing, I'd rarely leave DNG.

Cheers.