-
Transcoding to ProRes 422 LT for Optimised Media
-
That was pretty much my thinking about the whole thing.
After originally being pretty appaled by FCPX (a lot of that had to do with the launch) I’ve taken a second look recently. There are things I like about it. There are certain edits that I do that I think could be done faster in X than anything else out there once I get to grips with it. I think there is no doubt that what has been built is potentially an incredibly powerful foundation for the future.
But I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to ask for a simple transcode option to be added, and why some people seem so dead against it. LT works great. I understand not everyone will want to use it, but for those that it works well for, why deprive them of the option?
Some will probably disagree, but I don’t think I’m being backwards in thinking that this would be a nice option to have. Seems like it would be super simple to implement, too.
-
[Adam White] “and why some people seem so dead against it. LT works great. I understand not everyone will want to use it, but for those that it works well for, why deprive them of the option? “
Submit a feature request, Apple certainly pay attention to these. It may even get added in the next update anyway. I can’t think how it would be difficult to implement a greater range of codec choices to transcode to, but who knows what goes on under the hood of FCPX!
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
[Andy Branner] “Edit with your native files and only the ones with “render worthy” changes will be rendered or “transcoded” to LT if you will. That saves even MORE space. And you can output to any format you want.
“That’s exactly what I do, but some people like the OP would like to have all the camera files transcoded on input so the rushes are stored as LT, as he stated this currently isn’t an option.
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
[Andy Branner] “For what purpose? Seriously. For archiving?”
No idea, sometimes other people like to work in a way that doesn’t make sense to you
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
For me, working natively isn’t really an option. My current hardware is a DOG when working with native files (2009 iMac). Especially those from 7Ds (which I have to work with a lot). The performance I get is laggy and unacceptable for editing with. Fine for marking selects/organising whilst transcoding goes on in the background (something I love about both FCPX and Media Composer 7), but when it gets to the nitty gritty of cutting it drives me crazy. So native editing is not something I want to do. I’ve tried it with both FCPX and PP, and whilst FCPX seems to handle it a bit better neither is really acceptable. Avid was probably worse still.
I’m aware that is almost certainly time to upgrade my system, but I had been holding out to see what happened with the Mac Pro. And frankly, when working in ProRes I have no complaints about performance at all. If it ain’t broke…
So for now working with 422 is fine, but ultimately I would like the option for LT for the as discussed space savings, and I have also noticed that the performance I get does seem to be smoother still with LT as opposed to standard 422.
So that’s my reasoning. And this was in no way intended to be a rant against FCPX more broadly. As I’ve said, I am giving the software a fair hearing and being as open minded as possible. This is all just part of getting under the hood a bit.
-
Hopefully Steve. I’m sure I’m not the only person out there to have thought about this.
To be fair to Apple, there record of updating FCPX has actually been pretty impressive so far. Some of the smaller updates have been what have helped me get comfortable with the software after initially being aghast (dual monitors for example, huge for me, can’t imagine not having them now they are back). That in mind there’s no reason to assume they won’t add this little thing back in.
-
Background transcoding was a great new feature in MC7. Have made use of it a few times with good results. As I said in another post, my ageing hardware handicaps it a little but it still works and what I like about it is that you can at least begin the process of organising your rushes right away as opposed to having to wait around for a transcode to complete.
When I’m super busy it can be really helpful to dip into a new project for an hour or two in-between other things and get all set for an edit to begin later. It takes away the burden of planning your transcoding time around your day so you’re not wasting time that could be spent working.
-
Cool. Thanks for the input.
-
Starting to think X and Avid are the best options available at the moment. Both obviously very different – but they each seem to do what they do best very well indeed.
Just did a short film in Avid – loved it. Can’t think of a better tool for that kind of job.
Likewise, have been testing out X for some short form stuff and it seems to fly with that kind of edit. Still getting to grips with it but I like what I’ve seen so far. Particularly love the range of finishing tools, I would say they are essential for smaller budget stuff that I do where as the editor I have to be master of numerous trades. Beats going out to After Effects for quick little tasks!
-
Well, I don’t edit in proxy mode if I have titles from our graphics guy. And this is not for finishing. And we don’t use Motion. The nicest fix would be for Apple to allow an alpha channel in all flavors of ProRes, but they’ve had plenty of time to accomplish that so I guess that won’t happen.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up