What is the difference between importing and linking through ama

I come from a FCP background where you can simply drag and drop any media you want right into your browser. Not having that capability is frustrating to say the least. But back to the main problem.

Is that about right? I guess where I get confused is why you would use one and not the other. And when it comes to transcoding for MC, what exactly is the best format?

For example, whatever media I am given, whether it be low-res QTs, or files from a C, I always immediately just transcode to Prores This is the easy, universal codec to use in FCP. What would be the equivalent in MC? Right now, I wanted to start a project to play around with, so I just ripped a DVD I had to get some footage onto my system.

Not hi quality I know, but it was just to get something on there. So what do I do with it? Is is best to use AMA and link to the source file on my drive? Or import and create another new piece of media? Transcode it as something? I know this is slightly long winded, but I hope my questions are clear! I also came from a FCP background, so I can understand your initial frustration. First off, the import function does what you say — imports and transcodes the footage to the corresponding Avid codecs DNxHD, SD, etc.

Then you would edit the footage from there. You can then edit with the media right there, then transcode on the back-end. You can also just transcode in the media that you used. Say you only used the first 10 seconds of a 2 minute piece, you can set the transcode function to only bring in that first 10 seconds and add handles to it if you like.

There are different flavors of this, such as DNxHD , , or x. The numbers have to do data rates of the codecs. If you are in a multi-user environment, also helps with dealing with bandwidth without any loss of visual quality. As far as importing your test footage, you could try it both ways, import and AMA, to see the difference.

You can then relink to the AMA footage later if you need to…say if you transcoded to an offline editing codec and now want to online. But no…never edit natively with Avid.

FCP, like Avid, requires that you convert the footage to an edit friendly codec. Adobe Premiere did…yes. FCP, not really. Sure, it might work on shorter things, or might possibly work a few times. In my workflow, I routinely output my edit session to Quicktime Reference files for use in a third party authoring or distribution application. My preferred workflow with FCP is to organize the project materials I have on the finder level, then transcode to prores, then set up a new FCP project.

Because I learned to edit by first organizing at the finder level, I would drag those organized files straight into my FCP project and then things stayed organized within and outside FCP.

Thanks again fellas, it is much appreciated! I have been using FCP since and am struggling to adapt to Avid. But trying to understand one piece at a time. This was actually a huge piece I was missing an understanding about. You don't actually work directly with the original media. To import it again at a higher resolution, you must "Batch Import" it - which still doesn't relink to the original media, it just creates new Avid media at a higher resolution than before.

I understand the difference. But it's my understanding that when AMA link and transcoding to DNxHD, you can relink to the original footage when your sequence is done. I'm not sure what the confusion is - you seem to fully understand it. Import never did let you work with the original media. There's no way to link back to it - that's the reason why AMA Link was developed. The only way to up-rez it is to batch import at a higher resolution.

What exactly is the workflow that you're trying to figure out? Specifically the part about the third-party tool. Latest post Wed, Apr 22 PM by usatraveler. Page 1 of 1 4 items. AMA import vs regular import. Reply Contact. Hi, There seems to be a difference in AMA import and regular import.