New Final Cut and 5Dmk2 footage

[Learvis Templeton Jr.]

Originally Posted by Craig Linssen

Translation please?

Doing to many things at once let me explain. My work flow is pretty simple I import the Canon footage to Final Cut in native format, do all my edits and send my sequence to Color for CC. Once you finish you send it back to Final Cut you will have a new sequence and it's a proress file. The sequence plays pretty solid on my laptop and desktop. So to answer the original question if your machince was fast enough you could just import the Canon footage and play it back in Both Final Cut Studio 2 and version 3. Once you add filters and transitions you have to render the footage for play. Hope this clears things up.

[Darryl Yee]

H264 files from the 5D Mk2 edits and plays smoothly in Final Cut Pro under Snow Leopard. There's still a very slight delay, but the stuttering is gone. Works fine on an 'old' 2008 MBP. For $29, I suggest you go out and buy it on Friday.

[Sean Seah]

woah tha sounds very cool. Would be great to hear from the masses here on the snow leopard + FCPS3 workflow improvement.

[Andrew Clark]

Originally Posted by Darryl Yee

H264 files from the 5D Mk2 edits and plays smoothly in Final Cut Pro under Snow Leopard. There's still a very slight delay, but the stuttering is gone. Works fine on an 'old' 2008 MBP. For $29, I suggest you go out and buy it on Friday.

Is that with FCP6 or FCP7....or if we are talking the bundle...FCS2 or FCS3?

[Darryl Yee]

Originally Posted by Andrew Clark

Is that with FCP6 or FCP7....or if we are talking the bundle...FCS2 or FCS3?

It's with FCP7, but it should be the same with FCP6 as well. Quicktime has been rewritten to handle decoding H264 files more efficiently. I believe you will need at least a 1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU because it makes use of the graphics cards starting with those 64-bit machines.

Apple - Mac OS X - New technologies in Snow Leopard

"QuickTime X is optimized for the latest modern media formats — such as H.264 and AAC — through a new media architecture that delivers stutter-free playback of high-definition content on nearly all Snow Leopard-based Mac systems. QuickTime X maximizes the efficiency of modern media playback by using the graphics processor to scale and display video. QuickTime X further increases efficiency by supporting GPU-accelerated video decoding of H.264 files."

[John Benton]

That's Brilliant !
Thanks,
J

Originally Posted by Darryl Yee

H264 files from the 5D Mk2 edits and plays smoothly in Final Cut Pro under Snow Leopard. There's still a very slight delay, but the stuttering is gone. Works fine on an 'old' 2008 MBP. For $29, I suggest you go out and buy it on Friday.

[Andrew Clark]

....Yes, as long as you have the quicktime update from a few months back (I believe it was the 7.6 update that resolved the range issue)....

Evan -

To utilize and take advantage of working with the 0-255 values, you state that ProRes is able to take advantage of this. So is that applicable to FCS2 + 10.6.1 + QTX....or does it just apply to FCS3 + 10.6.1 + QTX?

[Trevor Meeks]

Vincent Laforet just posted a great article about converting H.264 to ProRes on his blog - check it out here: Converting that H.264 footage… Vincent Laforet’s Blog

[Erik Andersen]

It's worth asking what flavor of prores people are using. I've been using ProRes 422 (LT), but Vincent Laforet seems to be advocating using ProRes HQ. What's the lowest bitrate form of ProRes that retains all of the information of the original H.264 file? What benefits are there of using HQ or prores 444 with this footage?

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Andrew Clark

To utilize and take advantage of working with the 0-255 values, you state that ProRes is able to take advantage of this. So is that applicable to FCS2 + 10.6.1 + QTX....or does it just apply to FCS3 + 10.6.1 + QTX?

As far as I know it's applicable to QT 7.6 or greater - this was resolved long before snow leopard.

Snow leopard + QTX primarily affects the playback performance of native h.264 files in quicktime or FCS (2 or 3). They're much smoother, especially at full screen. I still find that editing with native files in FCP feels kind of unresponsive (at least on my MBP) so I still convert everything.

I stopped using ProRes HQ after the first project with it - I just didn't see any significant difference between it and standard other than file sizes. I haven't upgraded to FCS3 yet so I haven't had a chance to compare the new lower datarate versions of ProRes.

[Mike Watson]

Originally Posted by Erik Andersen

What's the lowest bitrate form of ProRes that retains all of the information of the original H.264 file? What benefits are there of using HQ or prores 444 with this footage?

The lowest bitrate that retains "all the information" from the H.264 file is sort of misleading. All the information isn't there. When compressed, H.264 is the lowest bitrate that would hold that sort of information, and when uncompressed, "uncompressed" is the only format that would hold it.

That said, I have personally been very impressed with what ProRes (non-HQ) had to offer, and from what I have read, there is very little difference between non-HQ and HQ. I edit in non-HQ, and I've not received any complaints.

[Andree Markefors]

Originally Posted by Peter Damo

Thanks Nigel. That's something I didn't notice on first look. Also, I might as well ask... has anyone used First Light and can give a short review?

Hi,

I'm a hobbyist but I'm currently using Neo HD with First Light.

It is a very interesting solution that works well in Final Cut, Premiere Pro or iMovie or whatever.

You first convert your native h.264 files into CineForm files. You can then open FirstLight and import your files into FirstLight (or rather- reference your files on your HD).

You can now color correct the files in FL as a standalone product. Change exposure, shadows, highlights or gamma. You can also adjust white balance. The interface is good looking and easy to use.

On top of this CineForm has released a "Look package" with pre-made looks (about 30 or so) that you can apply with a single click. Some emulate film stock, there are some day-for-night shots and bleaches.

I feel that the cool thing about FL is that you can leave the program open in the background and start to work in your NLE of choice. In your NLE the CineForm files look like they do in FL. But if you don't like the look, or if you make additional changes in your NLE and need to back off a few settings in FL, you can do this "on the fly". That is:

With both NLE and FL open and with a project up and running- go into FL at any time and make changes, and they are immediately reflected in your NLE. No need for render or anything. No re-import or what have you.

This is the "active meta data" part of how FL works. And everything is 100% non destructive. It's like when you make photo adjustments in Camera RAW to a .dng or raw file. FL is like a filter telling your NLE how to interpret the file.

All of this works well and as advertised. Conversion from native to CF is quick, and with Neo HD you can scale your footage (as opposed to NeoScene).

That being said, your native files are compressed (at pretty high quality) and they do not offer the headroom of a RAW file format. The CF-format is good for grading and looks, but shots where the exposure was really off can't be recovered. Small mistakes can of course be corrected.

If you chose the option to let CF "correct" your native files black and white points (non-destructively), you will find that they end up looking a bit flat in FL. When you look at the histogram there is at bit headroom on the black and white side for you to correct as desired in the 10 bit colorspace of CF.

There is a demo out for your to try.

I went from NeoScene to Neo HD, but as a hobbyist filming for my own pleasure I probably don't get my money's worth with the higher price of Neo HD. I'd probably be willing to let my license go if I get an offer, but this might not be the place for that.

Good luck,

Andrée

[Ben Curtis]

Originally Posted by Mike Watson

The lowest bitrate that retains "all the information" from the H.264 file is sort of misleading. All the information isn't there. When compressed, H.264 is the lowest bitrate that would hold that sort of information, and when uncompressed, "uncompressed" is the only format that would hold it.

That said, I have personally been very impressed with what ProRes (non-HQ) had to offer, and from what I have read, there is very little difference between non-HQ and HQ. I edit in non-HQ, and I've not received any complaints.

I'm not an expert, but if you used "ProRes Proxy" wouldn't it retain all the info? I mean - the ProRes Proxy files would certainly NOT retain the info, but when you came to render it it would seek out the original H.264 files and work from them, so in effect the final version would come from the original files, thus retaining maximum info/quality. Or am I misunderstanding how ProRes Proxy works?

[Andree Markefors]

Editing with Proxy files, normally called "offline editing", implies that they are temporary files referencing the original ones. And as you say- later on, they will be exchanged for the original footage.

One advantage with the new Apple proxy file format is that color information is intact, so you can edit and GRADE the proxy files and replace them just before export.

BUT.. if you go for an intermediate like ProRes 422 LT, 422, 422 HQ or 4444 you normally stay with that format and do not replace the files.

[Ben Curtis]

So in theory, editing with ProRes Proxy would give better (minute difference, probably undetectable, I'm sure) results than with the other ProRes formats.
I think it's a rather attractive option, I'm curious why so many people are using the full ProRes codecs when this sounds like a better solution that also takes up less storage space (assuming those using the full codecs are not deleting the original files after transcoding).