[Chris Walker]

Hi,

I should have made clear that the original footage is 4k but the timeline is 1080p. I’m exporting to prores 1080p, which is a file thats about 100gb in size. This is so when I reduce it down to sd in a separate step to make a dvd, the downscaling looks better. Ive used this workflow a lot with 1080p original footage, and if I export to a 100gb prores file it takes up to several hours. I figured that with 4k footage reduced down on a 108p timeline, it might take several hours more because the 4k has to be transcoded first, but instead its taking much longer than that. Now Im 60% done after 18 hours.

If it is simply that with my relatively old computer and small amount of memory it is typical for it to take this long, I feel like Ive been mislead. Because when I researched this when I was deciding whether to switch to a 4k-to-1080p workflow for better quality, I read articles about how you could even do this on a laptop if you used proxy files, and indeed, the editing process has turned out to be easy when working with these smaller proxy files. But the articles didnt say anything about it taking forever to export the 1080p prores file. Perhaps they were assuming that the export would be to h264, which is a much smaller file size.

So if it is the case that i simply need a faster computer and/or more memory, I’m wondering what workarounds there are. For example, as I get closer to finishing a project, could I periodically switch the view to original/optimized and select a ten-minute section to render overnight? I’ve noticed that when, in order to check what the final version is going to look like, I do a render of a short section, say 30 seconds, with the view option on original/proxy, that takes quite a long time, so maybe it is transcoding at that point. So if I did these periodic renders, would that mean most of the transcoding would already be done when the time came to export, making the exporting a lot quicker? I will do some tests to see, but does anyone know if that would work? I really dont want to get a new computer if i dont have to..

[Chris Walker]

Thanks for that insight. So, how can I check if they are there? By the way, I notice when I go to create a new library, fcpx does list the drive as a “device” where I could save the library. But the import window still considers it to be a camera.

[Chris Walker]

Lists the drive as a camera, not a device like the other external drive I have hooked up. This is after throwing away that new librwry. How do I get fcpx to treat the drive as a device rather than a camera? For now I can move the files I need to import into my other drive, but eventually I will need for fcpx to treat the hard drive normally.

[Chris Walker]

Thanks for the info re compound clips, I hadn’t really tried to find them before. Do you know how I can research what the exclamation point means? I’d hate to lose all the work I’ve done so far. When you are working from a backup, I assume that further backups are still being made so if the event gets corrupted again you can still “restore from backup”?

[Chris Walker]

My bad. I still had auto rendering on. Problem solved, with it off it does only analyze once and I am allowed to change both method and value of parameters without a re-analysis. Thanks!

[Chris Walker]

Guys, I appreciate the advice about having auto render off, but I’m wondering if there’s something about my preferences than what you have, or something. Because I just checked and the problem is worse than I had originally remembered, even if nothing is rendered until the end. I just stabilized a short clip in the timeline, without rendering. The message “analyzing for dominant motion” was displayed as it did so. Fine, that’s once. It chose “automatic” as the method and I didn’t like that result so I toggled to smoothcam. It did indeed have to re-analyze; it displayed the same “analyzing” message as it did so. That’s twice. But then, since when you first choose smoothcam you can’t tell it how much smoothing to apply to the three parameters of translation, rotation, and scale, again it was wrong and I had to change the values to zero on rotation and scale. Now, for those changes it doesn’t have to re-analyze, but still , it’s a third step. So, waiting for analysis twice, applying a parameter change, and then finally rendering. That takes a lot longer than starting with smoothcam with parameters set the way I want, analyzing once and then rendering. How is it that your setup only requires one analysis? Or am I misinterpreting what you said?

[Chris Walker]

I know that the analysis doesn’t have anything to do with which stabilization method it chooses, and so choosing the method before or after analysis makes no difference. My point is that it chooses the method the first time, not me. I’d be fine with having it analyze first, but then not stabilize, and let me choose the method. I don’t want to have it choose the wrong method, and then have to change the method and have it re-do the stabilization. And I know I have to render no matter which type I choose, but if the type of stabilization is correct to begin with I don’t need to re-stabilize and render again.
However, I will go back and see it I can easily check the stabilization results without rendering. If so, at least I will only have to render once. But I will still have to stabilize twice far too frequently. So it still would be nice if the stabilizer let me choose the method the first time, and I wonder if other stabilizers do allow that.

[Chris Walker]

Don’t I need it render it to see if it has been a successful stabilization with no weird artifacts? Kind of hard to tell just scrubbing through an un-rendered clip. Now, it’s analyze, stabilize, render, check results, change method very often because stabilizer used wrong method, stabilize again, render again, check results. I’d like it to be just choose method first, then analyze, render, check results, and then only have to go back change method in rare cases where I chose the wrong one originally. But looks like it can’t be done.

[Chris Walker]

I should have said that it’s always when it’s in the timeline, and only the portion of the clip that needs to be stabilized. You mention choosing the type, but I don’t see a way to choose the type of stabilization until after the stabilizer has analyzed the clip and applied the type it thinks (usually wrongly) is best. If there is a way to specify the type of stabilization beforehand, yes, that’s what I want to know.

[Chris Walker]

Thanks for the helpful advice Joe Marier.
Regarding camera settings aggravating noise, yes, I was using a setting that raised shadows and brought down highlights a little, and I’m going to test how much that is increasing my noise at high ISOs.
Regarding exposing to the right, that’s really not an option with the LX100 which seems to have an overexposure bias and blows out highlights easily. Indeed, that’s why I was using that setting that raised shadows and brought down highlights. I’ve been doing that in tandem with exposing a bit to the left, since blown highlights are much worse to me than noise. (Actually, I wanted a setting that only brought down highlights without raising shadows, but the LX100 doesn’t have such a setting, unlike the GH4.)
Regarding low light imitations of the m43 sensor, that’s never bothered me as much as inadequate dynamic range. ISO 3200 produces acceptable results for me with 1080p 60fps, and is all I need for almost all lighting situations I come across for my event work (mostly weddings) using a constant f2.8 zoom. When I can afford it, my next upgrade will be to sell my GH3, which I use now with 35-100 f2.8 zoom in tandem with the LX100, and get a GH4 along with a speed booster, a 50mm f1.4, and a 17-50mm f2.8 zoom. That way I’ll have f1.0 when I need it, and be able to use 1600 ISO in the situations like wedding receptions where I’m having to use 3200 now. 1600 is substantially cleaner. Even thinking about using the BMPCC version of the speed booster, which would turn that f2.8 zoom into a ridiculously fast f1.7, while also getting rid of the extra crop factor you have with 4k on a GH4. Then I could shoot in 4K all the time and not worry about noise making it look worse rather than better than 1080p!
Regarding de-noisers, yes, I think I need to take the plunge. Going to read the article you linked to now..