Gerard Tay
Forum Replies Created
-
Nice one!
-
The difference between this and smart rendering is that for smart rendering, if the clip is the same and no effects are added, the clip will not be re-compressed on output. But for clips with effects added, and if you’re exporting to the same format as your preview format, there is no additional generation loss if “use preview files” is checked.
-
Thanks Tom. You can try this out yourself, actually. Pop a ProRes clip into After Effects, export the same ProRes clip from Premiere (to re-compress it, or you can do it with just about any software including FCP7 or Compressor), and bring that into After Effects. Then pre-comp it, set the top layer to blend mode “difference”, and drop a levels effect with gamma cranked up to max (the levels effect is 32bpc). Any generation loss from ProRes will show up on the matte.
A ProRes export isn’t a smart render (aka “use sequence settings” in FCP, “Same as source” in Avid), so there is a generation loss if the clip has no effects applied to it. However, if a clip has an effect applied and it is rendered (eg. you have broadcast safe or a color correction filter on the clip), when you export that part of the clip, and “use preview files” is checked, the exported file is exactly the same as if you exported it without rendering or if “use preview files” was unchecked. So either the “use preview files” option does nothing, or it copies the frames from the rendered preview files. But one thing PPro does not do is render off the preview files if the export format is the same as the preview format. At least not with a Quicktime Export and a create preview files to ProRes HQ at max bit depth.
-
[John-Michael Seng-Wheeler] “When you check “Use Previews” in Premiere it doesn’t re-render the previously rendered affects, but it still decodes each frame of video and re-encodes it in the output format, even if it’s exactly the same.
“Thanks for the reply. Not to side track the topic, but anyway, I think the idea is that PPro decodes the preview files and re-encodes it in the output format. However, it seems that if the export setting is the same, the decode and encode does not happen.
I did a test on this the other day with a difference matte and gamma adjustment in AE. So I had 1 ProRes clip with a color correction filter on it, and I exported it. Then I rendered it and exported another file telling it to use previews. I also brought in one of the exported clips and exported it with same as source settings (this will re-compress the clip). Maximum render quality is checked for both export and creation of preview files.
The first 2 clips in AE showed a pure black difference matte when put against each other. This shows that there is no difference when “use preview files” is checked. The 3rd clip showed differences due to the re-compression when put against either of the first two exported files.
What the test shows is that if PPro is indeed using preview files on a same as source export, it does not decode and encode the preview file to the final format, otherwise the additional generation loss will show up in the test against the clip that was exported without using preview files. The 3rd clip is a control, and also serves to highlight that exporting even same as source is generationally lossy in PPro. This generation loss is not necessarily the worst of evils as ProRes holds up fairly well through multiple generations.
-
Funny thing is I wrote an article about the FCP7 search tool, and what started that was because I was on a job cutting promos on MC5, and I needed to search for a bunch of item numbers across a bunch of Avid bins. I could have done that in minutes in FCP7, but back then, MC5 only allowed you to sift within a bin, not across many bins. And while I was on that job, Avid released MC5.5 with a search tool and PhraseFind, which was the first time you could search across bins in MC history, and I really wished I could update my machine. Even then, I still felt FCP7’s search tool to be a lot more developed. Here’s the article on the LAFCPUG. (feel free to remove it posting links goes against forum rules)
https://www.lafcpug.org/Tutorials/basic_fcp_search.html
Sad thing about FCP7’s death is that none of the other major NLEs got the search tool right, and it’s especially sad considering that we are living in the age of Google. If there’s one thing I wish everyone could borrow from Apple, that would be search.
-
[Tom Laughlin] “I failed to mention being able to work on and have multiple time-lines open.”
There’s toggle source/record timeline button, which I find much more elegant as a storytelling tool than FCP or PPro’s ability to open multiple timelines, because you can isolate and direct your audio tracks before you insert it into your timeline, also you can see the image on both your source and record monitor. This toggle source/record timeline is probably my favorite MC feature of all time.
I agree with most of Shane’s point. Except perhaps the Title tool. Many Avid editors I know of who are making the transition to FCP7 absolutely loathe the FCP7 title tool. I like the FCP7 default title tool for only 2 reasons- 1) the information in the title tool is exported into XML, not too sure about Avid’s title tool, 2) I can create a text object and get into the text box solely by using keyboard shortcuts, so that’s really fast if all I want to do is to create a placeholder.
I’m glad someone here mentioned the find tool. Avid’s find tool is not as developed as FCP7’s, but at the same time, it has very nice integration with phrasefind. And the find tool in FCP7 can be a very useful tool for categorizing footage, not so in Avid, which really is designed purely as an editorial tool.
Most of the points raised seem to actually peg Avid into an FCP hole. That doesn’t work very well. Avid has very unique strengths. I agree that Avid has some catching up to do, but age of a software does not necessarily mean that it’s a bad thing. Many people frown upon it. At times it may make it harder for developers to add a feature. But at the same time, you could also see it as a work of art that took years to perfect, and the job is still ongoing. OS X is pretty old too, it started from NeXT, so is the coding language C, which dates back quite a few decades. So old is not necessarily bad.
The fonts? Ever tried squinting at the fonts in PPro? In Avid you can change the size of the font in your bins, or even change the font. Only thing you can’t change is the size of the font in effects panel. That’s WAY too small.
If you are talking about the look of the interface, Avid has a much nicer interface than FCP7, and in many cases, it’s a lot more pragmatic too. Take the customizable timecode windows. MUCH more options than in FCP7.
The smart tool? Avid actually had a pretty nice way of working, although it takes some getting used to if you are coming from FCP7. Option drag to lasso a clip or a few clips, option drag to lasso edit points, option drag right to left to lasso a edit points across a few clips.
Avid’s bin system limited as it seems, facilitates the seamless sharing of bins. It’s not something you’ll understand until you are working on a Unity/Isis, and you need to open the bin of another editor to pull a shot or a rough cut. Having a file locking system and separate Finder level file objects facilitates this. There is no way for editors to share bins within a project in FCP7 or Premiere in the same way that you can in Avid. In Premiere, you need to import a bin, you cannot open a bin while someone is working on it. In FCP7, to do the same thing, you need to create a project file just for sharing, and if you pull rushes from another FCP project, you lose the ability to “reveal master clip” or “reveal bin”.
The Avid media management system is the most complete one out there. When you copy media into Avid, it automatically fast imports/transcode media into your media drive. Relinking offline to online media is a snap, although it gets to be a bit of a dance with AMA with hiding folders and all, but once you hide the folders, re-linking is one push of the button. FCP’s media management is akin to flying by the seat of your pants, same with Premiere. In Premiere, it’s slightly worse, because you have to decide on your workflow before deciding whether to transcode, and XMP is still a work in progress. FCP in some ways got more Avid-like over the years, if you compare Quicktime the FCP equivalent of Avid’s MXF. For FCP, you had to convert all media into an editable Quicktime format. Timecode and reel name information is stored in both the Quicktime file and in FCP itself. Adobe on the other hand owns neither a high quality intermediate codec nor a file container, hence it has been working with native for a long time, and that’s why native works so well in Premiere, but yea, media management, re-linking, offline/online, all that needs to be much improved in Premiere, but I guess they laid the foundations with XMP.
Compound clips? How is compound clips different from a nest? Aside from the fact that if you change the child/parent clip, it is able to automatically update across projects? When I think of that, I think of the text tool in Premiere, where you copy and paste the text, change the text, then it changes the previous one. Oops. Need to “make new based on current”. I never really liked nests because you couldn’t make a change to the edit instantly. You had to step into nests to change an edit.
But I agree that Avid needs to continue improving their software, background importing would be nice, also, encourage 3rd party developers to develop apps and plugins for their software. They still need to improve AMA in Avid, both in terms of performance and reliability, as well as in offline/online integration. I like Avid for editorial work, but not so much for editorial work with effects.
-
>The keywords there are “Render” and “Exporting.”
There are some similarities between the two. For “render”, there is also real time playback, which is what the software does to display the image with effects. For this process, the software does a decode and renders the effect so we can see the image on a monitor. FCP7 calls it the RT Extreme engine, Premiere Pro calls it the Mercury Playback engine. MPE is more sophisticated and is able to offload the processing of certain effects to the GPU.
Then there is render to preview format, which is what the user can choose to do if the machine is unable to keep up with the real time processing of effects. This means that the original footage is decoded, and the effects rendered and then the video stream is then compressed to whatever the preview file format is. It can be Quicktime ProRes files, or Mpeg I frame, and processed at whatever bit depth accuracy the user has set.
On exporting, Premiere Pro can use preview files if you tick that checkbox. FCP is able to copy frames off the source QT files if no effects are added, without re-compression, on a same as source export. and for frames with effects added, it will copy frames from the render files if that frame has been rendered. Premiere does the latter, but unfortunately, when “use preview files” is checked, the speed bump is not the same as in FCP.
[Kris Merkel] “unless you need a native ProRes file. Then your best bet would be to stick with FCP7 because if your are working with a ProRes file in PrPro, Adobe Media Encoder will actually re-compress and encode the ProRes file into a ProRes file.”
True and not true. If the point is to get a single ProRes Quicktime file out of the NLE, then yes, FCP7 or even Avid is better because they have “same as source” export options to Quicktime.
But if the workflow is to get the cut over to the Resolve or Smoke, you could export an XML/AAF/EDL. Basically, this does nothing to the source media and all PPro does is export an interchange format for another software to read. But of course, with PPro’s wide native support for formats, you may just be working with files that are incompatible with other workstations especially if you do not plan your workflow in advance. Hence, the request for a consolidate/transcode option.
-
16Mbs of RAM? That’s pretty little. 😛
PPro is much faster when it comes to RT performance and rendering of effects, especially if you have multiple processors (which we all do), and a compatible graphics card for Freddie Mercury playback engine to sing.
However, FCP 7 is still faster at exporting a same as source QT from a fully rendered down sequence.
But there are other benefits in PPro, like you can mostly work without rendering and the waveforms are instant because it’s generated on import. Also, PPro is more responsive and crashes less due to it being able to utilize more RAM. So yea, even if I have to transcode to ProRes, I generally prefer PPro to FCP7.
-
The issue with the AE workaround is that you can’t generate 12 frames of handles. And even if you can, you can’t get it back into a sequence that is linked to the trimmed clips in XML/EDL. The Resolve route is relatively easy if you don’t need handles- export a QT in ProRes, export an EDL and use that as a cut list.
One of the things about PPro is that you have to be aware of your workflow before you start editing, partly because of the inability to consolidate/transcode, also in part because re-linking options are limited. The media management is akin to flying by the seat of your pants. It is great in that you can start an edit early, but depending on your workflow, you may choose to transcode. Eg. If you’re editing AVCHD and your workflow involves the Resolve.
-
According to your system specs, your machine is heavily underpowered for what you want to do with it, as Tom mentioned. The Macbook Pro i5 processors are all dual cores. And RAM… 4GB RAM is MINIMUM, not even recommended.
The mantra isn’t “edit anything” on any machine. That’s just nuts. Decoding AvcHD is pretty processor intensive, more so when you are trying to play it back at 5x normal speed.
Transcode your footage if your machine can’t keep up, or get a faster machine that can. If you try using the same workflow that you were using with FCP7 (eg. transcoding to ProRes and editing in ProRes), you will realize that PPro mostly outperforms FCP7.
What sort of user experience? You cannot expect 2 different softwares to work the same way. There will be some parts of every software that is better, and some parts that is worse. And much of it is about getting used to how another software does things. FCP7 was quite a slouch at rendering, and real time performance wasn’t great. Waveforms was pretty slow too, and it crashed quite often when you work with multicam because of the 32 bit architecture.
Premiere Pro is pretty blazingly fast when you try to do some of the same things that you were doing in FCP7. The real time performance is just astounding. I had 5K RED RAW playback over a cross dissolve and a gaussian blur in real time at half rez in a 1080 timeline. No rendering, no Red Rocket. And back in the day, we used to spend an hour doing a full debayer for a minute of 4K footage. The new trim tools beat what FCP7 had to offer, but they take a while to get used to. Rendering is much faster too, as all the cores are in use. There’s also a bunch of really great shortcuts in Premiere, and you need to spend some time to map them. Auto pitch adjustments during fast forward and rewind? That’s a big feature request.