I see there is a 16-bit render option for effects in Avid. A lot of the same effect-suites are available for both Avid and After Effects. Is there any advantage in quality between Avid's 16-bit rendering and After Effects? I know AE has 32-bit. But most effects are limited to 16-bit anyhow. And I'm just wondering whether Avid's 16-bit renders truly give the same quality as AE's 16-bit renders.

Apples and oranges.

AE is an FX app working in RGB up to 32 bit. Avid is an editing app working in YCrCb that has some function able to take advantage of 16 bit.

Depending on your needs AE will likely produce better quality digital video. Staying in Avid likely will simplifies your workflow for TV and film editing projects.

Dom Q. Silverio:

Depending on your needs AE will likely produce better quality digital video.

Except that if you're exporting back to Avid, how would you know?  You convert from YUV to RGB going into AE, and from RGB to YUV going back again.  In practice the difference between either workflow is minimal.  The slight losses going to and from AE are usually well and truly outweighed by the power of the tools available there.

 What I'm really trying to get at is whether the 16-bit rendering in Avid is any less effective than AE's 16-bit rendering. If you have the same plug-in for Avid as for AE (Sapphire for example), will Avid's 16-bit render be identical in quality to AE's render?

Since that is dependant on how the plug-in is coded, who can say?  You really would have to do side-by-side objective tests of your planned workflow to have a definitive answer.  I suspect, though, that there wouldn't be any appreciable difference.

sean90291:

 What I'm really trying to get at is whether the 16-bit rendering in Avid is any less effective than AE's 16-bit rendering. If you have the same plug-in for Avid as for AE (Sapphire for example), will Avid's 16-bit render be identical in quality to AE's render?

 There may be a little difference in quality, but i doubt if someone can recognize it without microscop or is someone cares.

The main thing to get good quality video is not to hunt a fraction of a better editing qualityh, the main price is the camera. A good camera with a good lens is paramount.

berga:

There may be a little difference in quality, but i doubt if someone can recognize it without microscop or is someone cares.

Hahahahaha!   Excellent point!

adios,
Carl

berga:

The main thing to get good quality video is not to hunt a fraction of a better editing

...

 Excellent point berga.  It makes little sense to split hairs over bit depth when the source material is 4:2:0. 

Although I completely agree that quality aquisiton of video is important it doesn't really answer the question.

Personally I would choose AE over MC everytime for a final effects sweep that is if you are outputting to another media which supports a high bit depth and don't have to go back into MC.

However in less there was a specific need for the best quality I find effects rendered in MC good enough but it's more clumbersome.  

 Thanks Sasquatch.

Interestingly Avid could push this in their promotion a bit more, since so many folks think that effects need to be done in AE for the best quality (even tho most AE effects are NOT 32 bit compatible).

Still a bit unclear on whether Avid's color correction is rendering in 16-bit or not (while AE's basic color correction IS compatible with 32-bit projects...or you can render in 16-bit too).