Everyone develops their own workflows that work for them. I am saying that the DNxHR is a viable option for folk with a variety of workflows
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe
But for ref playback it doesn't matter if it's progressive only.
|
But when asking an MC editor for DNxHD36 they cannot easily export to this format from an interlace project DNx HD 85 is smallest easily available to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe
Most workflows send a different video to audio as to the colourist
|
Yes but the MC editor sending different formats is probable the same so in life here I can send DNxHR LO to audio Post then DNxHR HQ (12bit) or DNxHR 444 to the colourist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe
DNxHR only officially supports HD resolutions as proxies in 4K projects. For HD Avid still recommended DNxHD and in projects which are HD only resolutions you can't choose DNxHR as your editing CODEC.
|
As an MC editor my MC edit format is irrelevant to the Output (export) format I need to deliver to Audio post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe
HQ is overkill for audio post especially if running large sessions, I frequently run over 100 tracks even for very short things, hence DNxHD 36
|
I only used HQ as an example of one I had just done. It went to a Colourist. FYI I Output from MC this morning a 1 minute file to DNxHD 36 and then to DNxHR LO. File sizes DNxHD 36 was 317 MB's. DNxHR LO was 315 MB's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe
*HD resolutions are only available as a proxy setting in a High-Resolution project. There is no way to select DNxHR resolutions from within a HD project-type*
|
For the video editor neither of these restrictions are relevant. What maters is that the MC editor can export DNxHR LO files to Audio Post from any MC timeline resolution.(SD through to 4K.)
IMO the answers above all used here show that DNxHR LO would be a reasonable
option for some Audio post situations.
Andrew