Oh! and i would definitely shoot IPB
Why IPB rather than ALI?
I've shot with both and have found that ALL-I is not any better in terms of quality, but is only better for editing, and only if you edit with the raw footage and don't do any transcode or conversion. If you do transcode the for editing, then save the space on your memory card if your shooting a long day and use IBP. I have found ALL-I doesn't help color correction and actually has more artifacts than IBP. If you are editing in FCP X or Premier, and only use the the h.264 footage for editing out of camera, then ALL-I will be more friendly for editing - for the most part the only benefit, which is great for come people. Someone else's opinion may differ from mine, but that is just my experience.
Hmm....well, I just dump my 'raw' footage from the camera into FCPX and try to do roundtrip with Davinci Resolve Lite. I don't do any transcoding.
On one thread on the forums here, I'd found that you didn't need to transcode anything before using FCPX (I believe it was Axelrod that told me about that).
So, if doing it the way I do it...ALI-I is the way to go?
Exactly, you technically don't need to transcode, but if you do, then rending is faster and final export is faster. So it's really just opinion based. I prefer IPB to save space on cards for long days of shooting (I primarily shoot weddings = long days and lots of footage) that way I only need 1/3rd the number of cards. but then I put the time in for transcoding.. So it goes both ways and just depends on where you want to invest.
I think shooting IPB for long events and long "uncontrolled" shoots is best to save you card space.
I think ALL-I is better for shorter and controlled shoots to save time in post.
I've noticed just a couple more artifacts in ALL-I so I always use IPB and just deal with the transcoding time so I can be editing in FCPs "true" native format.
And again neither way is wrong. It's all just about preference.