-
Better to conform 60FPS to 24fps?
-
[Bret Williams] “Last time I checked/tried conform in CT was a one way process”
Conform can go back and forth. You are not modifying the media itself. Reverse telecine is a one-way and is destructive.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I checked and doing a conform just adds the correct retiming effect. Same thing you could accomplish by adding a slow effect and then adjusting to the correct speed. But the latter is definitely less precise, as it will display 40% for a number of different durations.
-
[Bret Williams] “I checked and doing a conform just adds the correct retiming effect.”
But you guys are missing the point. Conforming inside FCP X forces you to render the file. This is both destructive to the image quality and a drag on system performance.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
You can’t go back to 59.94 in CT, hence my point.
I used CT all the time with fcp7. I don’t with FCPX, Pr/Ae.
I have to render anyway, the quick and unprocessed render on fcpx isn’t a bother.
I can do this on orig footage or high quality optimized media with a click.
CT is fine, just know the downsides.
-
[Oliver Peters] “For me it’s a workflow that’s mainly applicable to HDSLR and GoPro footage. “
OP is using a DSLR which is why the conform is necessary.
-
Know what? I misread his post. I thought he was asking if conform was better than just slowing the clip down. Didn’t see that in option 2 he said to put it in a 60p sequence. No wonder I didn’t quite understand your reply!
Anyway it led me to run a test that shows that cinema tools and X’s conform look exactly the same. For progressive at least.
-
I’ll agree, that technically it is getting rendered and technically it would have to be some teeny tiny amount lesser quality. But I can’t find it. In switching between the two I can’t see one pixel of difference on the monitor, the waveform or the vector. And I’m with Jeremy that the simplicity far outweighs the benefit. It simplifies media management much in the way not having to transcode does.
Seems like when things are the other way around that people insist that it’s better to transcode footage to 422 even when completely unnecessary. That transcoding h264 to 422 won’t result in any image degredation anyway. Well, that’s what’s going on. It’s being conformed and transcoded at the same time. Besides, FCP X doesnt’ work like legacy. The entire timeline has to be transcoded to 422 anyway for the master. So there would be no getting around it anyway.
-
You’re absolutely right. Seems like I had a problem once going back, and I always see Shane recommending you duplicate cuz you can’t go back. Hmm.
I just tested cinema tools vs. FCP X’s speed change and I can’t see a pixel of difference. With 7D footage shot at 30p, I conformed to 24p in cinema tools. I also took the same original clip in FCPX and conformed it. Both came out with the same duration. And in placing one above the other at 50% opacity everything matches up perfectly sharp. There’s no frame blending going on in the X version. I can turn the above clip on and off by enabling / disabling it with V, and there isn’t one single pixel of change. Not even on the waveform or vector scope. So I hereby declare X’s conform function just as good as cinema tools. At least on progressive footage 🙂 True you have to render, but you actually don’t. It plays back fine without rendering. It’s just that it’s doing something on the fly so you get the orange bar.
I’d say it’s yet another example of how FCP X is a modern professional editing app that is still lacking in many extra “features” but how FCP 7 is a fully featured editing app that is lacking in actual professional media processing like conforming, multi-frame rate support & pulldown support, and of course the need to transcode.
-
Hi,
Yes, correct – conform only goes back and forth between 24 and 30, not 60. My error. Although I’ve never had the need to go back to 60. I’m in the camp that says transcode first. I feel that editing native from H.264 is both insane and simply lazy – the exception being fast turnaround and really bad YouTube videos of cats 😉 But then I have to do a lot with most of my footage and prefer to have it in a professional codec and wrapper. There’s simply no way I’m sending an outside shop files in H264 format or use that when I have to revisit the project frame-accurately in a year. FWIW – I treat RED footage the same way.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bret Williams] “Besides, FCP X doesnt’ work like legacy. The entire timeline has to be transcoded to 422 anyway for the master”
Not if you start as ProRes in the first place.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up