Canon 7D in FCP – Codec transcoding?

[Shane Ross]

Converting H.264 to ProRes causes VERY LITTLE loss in quality. Nothing you’d be able to see. Don’t be dubious, it is what professionals do…convert to ProRes or to DNxHD (on the Avid side). Because H.264 is not an editing codec. And now you see why.

[Niko Kuehnel] ” i was wondering if anyone knows of a way to change only the material in my timeline to a codec that fcp is more happy with any will playback smoothly.”

Yes…use the MEDIA MANAGER and the RECOMPRESS option. Choose ProRes 422 (NOT HQ! too much for this format) as the codec. This will recompress the footage used in the sequence ONLY. Now, if you want ONLY the small bits used in the sequence, and not the FULL CLIPS that you used part of, then choose DELETE UNUSED, and give yourself 2 second handles. Now, that means that ONLY the footage already used in the cut will be converted. Want to add more footage to the cut? Gotta convert it first.

[Niko Kuehnel] “converting all the material i have is out of the question anyway, it’s about 500gb.”

DOn’t see why…it is what you SHOULD do. But it will balloon to about 1.5TB or more. So yes, you need bigger drives. If you want to go about things the right way, you need to bite the bullet and get the stuff you need to do it right.

And I HOPE you backed up all those CF cards FULLY. Those are your archives.

Want to know the proper workflow for this? Watch this tutorial: Tapeless Workflow for FCP 7 Tutorial

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def

[Phil Balsdon]

Ha!
Coincidently I’m right now putting a project back together where something did go wrong, lost the drive with the ProRes conversions on it.

Fortunately I have two duplicated copies of the original cards on seperate drives, created as New Images dmg. files from the original CF cards using Disk Utility.

The original Log and Transfer into FCP was done using the Canon Movie Plugin so time of day data is translated into time code which has helped a lot. Whilst its a bit of pain everything is falling back into place quite easily.

Take Shane’s words seriously, watch his workflow tutorial, watch all his tutorials and absorb the information he’s an expert with a lot of experience.

By the way you’d probably be working much more efficiently if you’d converted the H264 to ProRes before you started.

Shane you are remarkably patient with your time and replies, I can’t believe how often this is coming up.

Wonder if people buy cars and after they crash them read the manual (or then go for a driving lesson).

Cinematographer, Steadicam Operator, Final Cut Pro Post Production.
https://www.steadi-onfilms.com.au/

[Niko Kuehnel]

hey guys, thanks for all the help,

i have already realized that there would have been a better way to do what i did, but when i saw i could just import the files i shot into fcp i was quite excited to have no kind of capturing time. also i’m doing the rough cut on a 3-year-old macbook and originally figured it’s probably too slow to handle all this hd-material anyway. so i was quite happy when i ended up with only a little jittering. like i said, it’s really not bad at all for only a rough cut.

but i’m really glad to hear there’s a way to transcode from the timeline, so thanks a lot for that.

by the way, of course i made back-ups of my material. i got all my movie files on three different drives, but obviously they’re all in the h.264 codec, not the pro res. so don’t worry too much. i might not have read all the way through the manual, but at least i got my driver’s license before i got behind the wheel.

one last thing i was wondering about though, shane, what did you mean that the HQ pro res codec is too much for this format? so with the smaller pro res codecs there also won’t be much loss in quality?

and yes, i will have a good look at those tutorials. it’s just not always easy to know what problems will come up before you meet them.

thank you guys a lot.

niko

[Shane Ross]

[Niko Kuehnel] “one last thing i was wondering about though, shane, what did you mean that the HQ pro res codec is too much for this format?”

DSLRs shoot an 8-bit format. ProRes HQ is for really high end 10-bit formats like RED, or AVCIntra…meant for much higher bit rates. ProRes 422 is perfect for 8-bit formats. There is ZERO quality gain between ProRes and ProRes HQ in your situation…even when you color correct. All you do is increase the file size.

My favorite analogy is this. YOu have a can of beer. If you pour that can of beer into a KEG, you still only have a can of beer, but it takes up a LOT more space in the refrigerator.

[Niko Kuehnel] “so with the smaller pro res codecs there also won’t be much loss in quality?”

Only if you go to ProRes proxy. ProRes 422 is the standard high quality codec…there is no loss in quality. And if you intend to make a DVD or go to the web, ProRes LT is recommended.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def

[Dennis Radeke]

[Shane Ross] “Because H.264 is not an editing codec. And now you see why.”

CS5: Cutting off the Card from Clint Milby on Vimeo.

[Shane Ross]

Dennis, we aren’t talking about CS5. And that does it because of the Mercury Engine, which is cool. But we are talking about FCP

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def

[Rafael Amador]

[Shane Ross] ” And that does it because of the Mercury Engine, which is cool.”
Up to the next doc, the famous “mercury Engine” doesn’t work with QT files:

“QuickTime isn’t 64 bit…….Adobe seems to have worked around the problem by spinning off a 32 bit thread for QuickTime support so you lose that Mercury Engine goodness”.

https://www.philiphodgetts.com/2010/09/what-should-apple-do-with-final-cut-pro/

rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Dennis Radeke]

With apologies – I posted when I meant to ‘preview’

My point was only to counter that you CAN edit H.264 and that the video I posted happens to be timely in the context of this statement.

I would say in a general sense that any temporally based codec does present more challenges for editing in general. 10 years ago, we didn’t think we could edit MPEG-2 effectively. Even 5 years later, editing MPEG-2 was a non-issue. H.264 is just more of the same. An issue now, but less so as time goes on.

Let me also thank you for your patient replies on the forums for years. I’ve monitored this forum for at least a year and I’m amazed at your even handed replies.

Cheers, Dennis

[Shane Ross]

[Dennis Radeke] “My point was only to counter that you CAN edit H.264 and that the video I posted happens to be timely in the context of this statement.”

True…and it is a good point to make. SOME NLE’s can edit H.264 natively. But it is a troublesome codec.

[Dennis Radeke] “Even 5 years later, editing MPEG-2 was a non-issue.”

No, Editing MPEG-2 is an issue. Yes, you can do so natively, but it isn’t without pitfalls….pitfalls you don’t have with regular I-Frame codecs. Like don’t add a ton of graphics, don’t mix with other codecs on an MPEG-2 timeline…stuff like that. Convert away from MPEG-2 if you can.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def

[Michael Gissing]

Just curious Dennis. In the past, did FCP fanboys hang around the Premiere Pro forum and snipe from the sidelines? I am wondering if your constant reminders of just how great CS5 has become, are payback for someone’s previous indiscretions on y8ou8r favoured boards?

Yes I am impressed with CS5 and am seriously considering it. And hasn’t AVID stepped up to the plate again. All very interesting but in posts where people are asking for advice on the best way to achieve a result in the editing ap they currently use, it is becoming a bit tired to hear you blowing the CS5 bugle.