Oliver Peters
2
Apple Final Cut Pro X Coins
6
Avid Coins
17
COW Coins
1
DaVinci Coin
1
Premiere Pro Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Joe Marler] “DaVinci did a good job on this and both Apple and Adobe have work to do. It is even worse for Apple because FCPX is single-platform and that presumed benefit didn’t help in this case. If you stand still long enough even the slowest competitors will eventually pass you and Blackmagic is not slow.”
I totally agree. For whatever reason the Panasonic high-bit-rate codecs (regardless of camera) seem to be slow. I’ve seen that on both Macs and PCs. Indeed, Resolve seems to deal with it much better. It’s one of the camera formats that I generally always transcode before editing, given the time to do that.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
I believe that camera uses two codecs like the EVA1. Normal and higher bitrates. One tougher than the other.
EDIT – Panasonic’s specs:
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-mirrorless-cameras/lumix-s-full-frame-cameras/dc-s1h.specs.html4K is H264, 6K is H265.
Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
When a reviewer says upfront that Premiere gets “buggier” with each release, then it would be nice to back that up with examples. But overall this is a pretty balanced overview. Naturally every experience is based on many variables – especially media – and his seems to be based on the codec from the Lumix DSLR. This is a tough codec to work with. And yes, Resolve handles it well – for that matter, better than FCPX. But that tends to be a limited use case. Nevertheless, he covers some good pros and cons.
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
Bingo. That’s it. Thanks.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
The main issue seems to be that the control room meter next to the timeline is incorrect. The Fairlight metering and the mixer meters on the edit page all appear correct. I’ve tried various configurations and the control room meter on the edit page stays stereo. This is 16.2.2. See the images below.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
I’m not sure what you mean by “rewrites the software.” Basically they update versions as does everyone. You can keep working on older versions and not update if you like. You simply won’t get any newer features. That’s the same as everyone else.
FCPX is on a much slower development path, but it’s very stable. However, often times when you do update FCPX, you will also have to update any active Library files (project files) as they will also not be backwards compatible.
And yes, Avid is compatible now with Catalina, but that OS still has issues, so I would suggest avoiding it.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
A lot of this depends on the display. For example, I’ve found that iMac Pro displays all look wrong except in FCPX and maybe in Quicktime. The only reliable way to compare is with a video output through an AJA or BMD box to an external video display. Then the two outputs should appear the same regardless of how they look in the viewer.
Also, in theory, the same QT exported from each should look the same. Although even there you may find issues because of QT. So you might check an MP4 and view it in a tool like Switch.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Joe Marler] “It is true for some RAW codecs, FCPX and other NLEs show an ISO setting. However in reality there is no adjustable ISO – that is fixed for all time during acquisition. What would be the difference between using exposure controls in FCPX vs Apple adding a separate “ISO” control? Are they not both just applying digital luminance gain to the captured data?”
The absolute best level of control for RAW is RED’s module. Some of these settings are in fact, after the RAW conversion; however, it offers plenty of versatility. As far as what you get in an NLE, Resolve sets the standard.
But remember that Apple is trying to remove the complexity from dealing with RAW. What is being asked for goes against the design ethos. And besides, you get the same effect by adjusting exposure and color space settings.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
I should amend that statement. Camera manufacturers are not embedding ProRes RAW recording (yet). What we don’t know is whether the raw signal output from the camera is configured in a way specific to ProRes RAW versus other raw codecs.
For instance, ARRI cameras can export a raw signal, which is then recorded as ARRIRAW on an external Codex recorder. But (assuming compatible plugs), could the exact same signal be recorded on an Atomos as ProRes RAW? It obviously hasn’t happened so far. Maybe that’s a configuration difference or maybe it requires licensing.
If it does require a codec-specific configuration, then yes, the camera manufacturers are going to an extra effort to support ProRes RAW by way of Atomos.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Mathieu Ghekiere] “and puts more weight behind it so more camera manufacturers would support it out of the box”
Technically, camera manufacturers are not supporting it. They are enabling raw outputs to the Atomos recorder. The camera is recording in ProRes RAW only because of the Atomos device. That might change, but I suspect RED’s patents continue to be the stumbling block.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
