@nomad: AVCHD in 24p looks amazing, I recently shot a feature using only that, for that reason. But in 25p (which I must use for 99% of what I shoot), I preferred the look of the Ninja (as the grain and picture was sharper), plus I get a second screen (I have a SmallHD as an AC-monitor) to use for framing, plus many people I work with want stuff in ProRes anyway and lastly, I bought it for a very nice price of a friend, so it wouldn't have been much more than some other monitor.

@RRRR Do it in two steps, first saving a high quality (ProRes, DNxHD) or losses format and then transcode with AME. You'll want a master anyway, don't you?

@Gabel AVCHD is a very good codec if you give it enough data rate and use Intra only. The difference between internal recording with one of Nick's Intra settings and external recording on a Ninja is not worth the extra hazzle taking care of another device on set…

@onionbrain

I´m curious; have you had the chance to do long output renditions (1+ hour footage) from h264 in cs6? This is where I´ve had problems in the past.

Thank you very much for the information. I've just switched to CS6, so haven't had any chance to work with any material in it yet (and most of mine tends to be ProRes anyway, as I almost always use an Atomos Ninja, as I prefer the results for 25p, which I use 99% of the time). Transcoding being able to hold more information could for me make sense, as AVCHD is such a heavy codec, that some could be lost in the "struggle" (in a lack for a better term), but this is false. Again, thanks again for proving me wrong, as it saves me hours of time then (no more transcoding needed).

Yeah, I'm with @LPowell on this one.

I can understand where you, @Gabel, as an intelligent and reasonable professional could be led in that direction, especially if there was some other context concerning the use of uncompressed formats with external recorders. And, the workflow you cited is, essentially, mediocrity that was archaic two years ago -- and could have yielded strange conclusions along the lines you mentioned due to a range of possible issues.

But -- CS6 is a different universe from CS4 relative to AVC/mpeg-4 decoding/encoding -- and I can tell you (based on multiple conversations spanning several years with the Premiere Pro development team) that there's not a "loss of information" when you edit/correct/export AVCHD from Premiere Pro CS6.

And, as you certainly already understand, the transcoding process certainly isn't inventing any information that wasn't already in the camera's AVCHD stream. It's the opposite -- transcoding can introduce various issues -- especially if the process wasn't managed perfectly by the user.

@LPowell: I might be wrong, so please do correct me. I'm basing this on information Andrew (EOSHD) has found and comparing transcoded footage vs. raw AVCHD files in Premiere Pro, After Effects and played through Quicktime 7 (using Panasonic's AVCAM Importer). The difference was very big, with the transcoded ProRes files seeming more flat, having more detail and shadows, seeming to have at least a stop or more of information that was crushed/blown out on the AVCHD file. But as I seemed to have become a laughing stock based on my claims, so then do I ask, are these findings wrong? These are again unrelated to the hack and would be playback issue that I see on OS X.

@LPowell: Thanks for the link. I just tried to explain the problem as I have understood it. The cause I haven't been too keen about, I've cared more about the results. My point still stands: Using AVCHD straight for grading leads to loss of information.

cinestyle hmm first try to have some reference of what you want to achieve, then research to see how the film or look was achieved, afterwards see with what resources available to you it is possible to achieve certain look, (camera moves, lighting, music, etc) cheers

I did this test here http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1795/dynamic-range-test-between-gh2-and-7d/p1

My conclusion is that the hack does not give you better DR. But it preserve the most of what is already there. The other camera suffer because the low bitrate forces the codec to compress details that are less visible in priority like shadows. That is why the Cinestyle picture profile boost the shadows before they are being compressed by the codec engine.

Another to note is that in raw the gh2 only trails the Canon Apsc and 5D by only half a stop of DR. Just look at sensorgen and dxomark. It is only the Nikon and Sony based sensor that have about 2.5 stop of DR.

Definitely! If you shoot a flat scene too flat in 8 bit there is no way pulling it back to more contrast without getting massive banding and macroblocking.

@onionbrain "The real question is why you'd want it to look like Cinestyle. Cinestyle isn't supposed to be a look for delivery -- it's supposed to retain detail in shadow areas and highlights for work in post."

I disagree. I've used the cinestyle look on many short films. Punchy high-contrast images are quickly becoming passé. Even when I don't want the cinestyle look, I prefer beginning with cinestyle, as it's the easiest to get to look how I want it to, and the easiest to match with other footage. I never crush my blacks. Ever. I absolutely hate that aesthetic, and when a client wants it, I convince them otherwise.

@Gabel

false. false false false false false false false

You can also use 5dtoRGB....