@itimjim Try 5DtoRGB free version. See if you like it or not. I like it.

Here's a good example of some stuff I just shot with Sedna max detail and converted to Prores422HQ.

Native footage:

5DtoRGB:

Premire:

So yea, 5DtoRGB takes the longest... but it's definitely worth it, IMO. This should also confirm that the chroma reconstruction is real... and not just marketing. It really is happening.

@bwhitz I hope you don't mind but I brought both your GH2 MTS raw and the Prores422HQ image and compared them next to each other at 300%.

It's certainly obvious how well the chroma smoothing has helped the blocking. The Prores422HQ image is on left. (of course..hehe)

@bwhitz: Can you share that worst case scenario MTS file? I would like to see how fares in a full After Effects CS5.5 workflow!

Thanks!

is it necessary to convert into prores 422 hq??? what about just standard prores 422,.. 5dtorpg is it a very good solution for this conversion??

@rajamalik I personally use ProRes 444

@rajamalik So far, no one has demonstrated a converter superior to 5DtoRGB in context of preparing files for FCP. The only arguments have been about whether other approaches (like Cineform) are comparable or not, and whether 5DtoRGB makes sense for Adobe and Sony applications.

In other words, if you are working in FCP, then 5DtoRGB currently appears to be either the best or at worst, one of the best options. I would not spend more money - I do not believe it will get you a better result in this case.

If you needed to go back and forth between Premiere and Vegas, then I might use Cineform .AVI to convert the output from FCP (because Vegas does not support ProRes output and performs more slowly with .MOV files). But 5DtoRGB would be the first thing I would try if I was just working with FCP.

I'll try to make a video and explain everything once and for all today. Too much confusion, varying gamma settings on players vs NLEs and converters vs grading platforms.

In my personal and professional opinion 5DtoRGB is the best option for converting mts to a more robust and stable codec for post production needs. I use it. I endorse it. I don't get paid for my endorsement. (I wish I did). It does come at a cost ($50 for the program, and the need for more storage space) but quality usually comes at a higher cost. In this case it's not a massive hit, and the cost/benefit factor is in your favor.

Video to come later today to show as many of the common options, what they look like, how they withstand extreme grading, and then you can decide for yourself.

Here's my settings

Ok. the video is about 27 minutes long, not my best work in terms of getting to the meat of it quickly, as this was done on the fly without rehearsing it ahead of time so that my findings would be unbiased, as a result the video drags a bit, but everything here was done honestly, and even surprises me in couple of places. I chopped the beginning where I described what the test consisted of, which follows --

I encoded the following:

In FCP

422

422HQ

In 5DtoRGB

422 Broadcast

422 Full

422HQ Broadcast

422HQ Full

444 Broadcast

444 Full

and then compared all of them to the RAW mts file.

The findings in brief:

• MTS sucks
• No need to go 444, so save yourself some drive space.
• Broadcast luma sucks. Encode using full range luminance. (EDIT: Broadcast doesn't suck. I actually prefer it now for less luma compression.)
• Not a TON of difference between FCP and 5DtoRGB except, there's less Chroma smearing in Full Range Luminance encodes which grade MUCH better all around even in terms of how they retain chroma and luma values.
• Again, MTS files jagged edges all over the place, even on skin tones.

Play by play - At first, we don't notice much difference between MTS and the various encodes, as I dig deeper we begin to see that there is indeed an advantage to using ProRes encodes over raw MTS, and then we see there's advantages to using Full Range Luma over Broadcast Luma, and thereby an advantage to using 5DtoRGB over FCP which only delivers Broadcast Luma encodes.

Final verdict - not much of a gain over FCP7 prores encodes, except for full range option. But big advantage over AVC1 FCP X encodes. Big advantage over using raw MTS. With FCP X, sometimes hacked footage cannot be read by "import from camera" 5DtoRGB will save your ass when that happens.

Shot with Quantum v9b

@sebasp1 I wouldn't worry about it. Every video program on the planet has a drag and drop broadcast safe plugin to conform your footage to within tolerances. but yes... It has to be within your region's tolerances in order to be broadcast on TV.

@shian very good test thx for that. I also had noticed that there wasn't too much difference between 444 & 422(HQ) that's why i used 422(HQ). Now i am also surprised to see that there isn't too much difference between fcpx(did u use fcpx or fcp?) import and 5DtoRGB besides the full range thing because before u said that fcp import is not good and fcpx is even worst so do you still think that? Also do you think that importing directly in fcpx and then lifting shadows just to the level you like will get you same result as importing fullrange 5dToRGB or it's still better to go with 5DtoRGB?

@duartix because I'm using FCP, I've always been using a ProRes workflow, and ever since I tried 5DtoRGB, I've been using that. But occasionally, to save time and get stuff into my reel quickly, I've been bypassing the conversion and using mts files. I won't be doing that anymore. I'll be using a 5DtoRGB workflow on everything.

@Swiss_Boy I prefer the full range over the broadcast range for its ability to retain chroma and luma values better, and fcp doesn't do full range. The test was with fcp7, but I'll do one on X this week just to see.