[Damian O’neill]

Russ / Mark.

Thanks for your replies.

Mark, I possibly didn’t make myself clear.

Whilst I knew about the offline RT workflow, the advent of formats such as XDCAMHD422 and the fact that Avid had offline support for the XDCAM proxy files meant that you were forced down the Avid route if a client wanted to avoid huge digitising bills.

This new codec alone sounds like a good reason to bring out a new version of FCP.

[Damian O’neill]

Ok, I think I might be VERY, VERY excited about this new Proxy Codec.

Even though I have been editing for over 20 years I need someone with a bit more technical know how to confirm things for me.

I do a lot of longform shows, concerts etc which tend to be shot 1080p with a lot of cameras.

A typical show might have 12 – 18 cameras and run for 90 – 180 mins.
Often you shoot 2 performances so you have double the amount of material. That is a lot of heavy duty full bandwidth stuff.

Whilst some people might like to think otherwise, the only practical solution is to offline and then conform the show.

The advent of proxy files meant that that all this material could be ingested in less than a day rather than several days, but it also meant using Avid, which to be honest does the job well, albeit at a high price.

Does this new Prores Proxy codec mean that I can use the traditional offline/online workflow on FCP? And does it also mean that I can ingest offline material at the same sort of speeds (15-20x real time)?

If the answer is yes, and coupled with the remote approval facility, then this version of FCP might well change my life meaning that I can do a lot of my work from home!

PS. I have no interest in making bluray dvds.