Anybody have success editing H264 in Premiere Pro?

[Danny Winn]

Is there anybody here having any success editing in Premiere Pro with the H264 file format or do you always have to convert?

I've read several threads on here about people having trouble editing the H264 footage in Premiere Pro and FCP just wondering if anybody HAS had NO problems with it though.

I currently own the Canon XH A1s and the files are captured as Mpeg2's, sure would be nice if the 5D had that option as they edit with no problems.

I'll be getting my 5D in a few weeks, should I just accept the fact that I will have to always convert my files before editing???

Thanks;)

[Bill Hamell]

In CS4 I import and edit, no conversion, no problems from the 5D

[Danny Winn]

Originally Posted by Bill Hamell

In CS4 I import and edit, no conversion, no problems from the 5D

That's great news Bill. In CS4 I always set my editing setting to "Draft Quality" for HD instead of Highest Quality, that may be something everyone should do when dealing with HD footage in CS4.

Thanks Bill.

[Kris Koster]

Danny,

I have both the XH A1 and 5D2 and edit in Premiere all the time. I have CS5 64-bit and the 5D's AVCHD H.264 can be edited smoothly (but not always RT) in its native form within this latest version of Premiere. However, it starts to get slow once fx/transitions and colour correction are added.

I've only recently discovered that converting using Cineform first prior to editing make it even faster. It doesn't take long to do either. Just transfer your clips over from the camera, start up HDlink to convert them and go have a coffee or take a nap. I'm so happy I gave Cineform a try.

I've found this to be especially effective when mixing XH A1 and 5D2 footage. Upscaling the 1440 to 1920 and converting from, 4.2.0 to 4.2.2 makes a tremendous difference when working with the VT.

[Pete Bauer]

Since h.264 takes a lot of CPU power to decode, you might find performance poor if you have an older system. With CS5 and an i7 with lots of RAM, no problem. The GPU accelerated effects won't be a problem as long as you have the hardware portion of Mercury working for you.

[Danny Winn]

Thanks so much Pete and Kris!

I have CS4 and a real nice computer. 99% of my work is 30 to 60 second commercials with little effects but a fair amount of CC. I can't wait to get some hands on experience with all the 5D has to offer;)

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Danny Winn

Is there anybody here having any success editing in Premiere Pro with the H264 file format or do you always have to convert?...

I'll be getting my 5D in a few weeks, should I just accept the fact that I will have to always convert my files before editing?

I edit AVCHD with Premiere Pro CS5 all the time. Not a problem. I'm on an i7 system, but with only 6MB of RAM. It would be considerably faster with considerably more RAM. But as it is it's faster than I am, so it's not getting in my way as I work.

So no, don't assume you have to transcode AVCHD into something else to work with Premiere Pro.

[Paul Joy]

For small scale projects Premiere does a much better job working with the native files from the 5D than FCP. I can playback the source material at full res with multiple effects applied in real time. FCP struggles to get through a cross dissolve with native DSLR material, even on my 12-core mac.

If however I have a lot of DSLR footage to work with and need to scrub through sequences I'll still transcode to ProRes as it makes things work a lot faster and allows me to scrub through longer sequences without the lagging that happens when doing the same with the h.264 files.

[Danny Winn]

Originally Posted by Paul Joy

For small scale projects Premiere does a much better job working with the native files from the 5D than FCP. I can playback the source material at full res with multiple effects applied in real time. FCP struggles to get through a cross dissolve with native DSLR material, even on my 12-core mac.

If however I have a lot of DSLR footage to work with and need to scrub through sequences I'll still transcode to ProRes as it makes things work a lot faster and allows me to scrub through longer sequences without the lagging that happens when doing the same with the h.264 files.

Thanks so much Paul, that's really good the hear;)

[Ethan Lane]

I'm continually amazed at how hesitant people are to transcode footage. If you aren't going to manipulate the footage that much, it's not a huge deal, but even running CS5 on a high end system there are still advantages to transcoding. ProRes, cineform, etc are designed to be modified, unlike h.264.

[Kris Koster]

Originally Posted by Ethan Lane

I'm continually amazed at how hesitant people are to transcode footage. If you aren't going to manipulate the footage that much, it's not a huge deal, but even running CS5 on a high end system there are still advantages to transcoding. ProRes, cineform, etc are designed to be modified, unlike h.264.

Indeed, and I was one of those hesitant people until recently when I discovered Cineform. It's radically changed my workflow for the better when editing, although I am currently experiencing some problems with Premiere -> Encore DVD output transcoding (which could well be unrelated to Cineform codec).

[Noa Put]

Eventhough my system allows realtime edit of a few layers fast scrolling the timeline is not very smooth, I do have premiere pro cs5 and edius pro 5.51 I prefer to do fast edits with edius in the canopus hq avi codec. Working with a intermediair codec gives me much faster workflow, even 8 multicam of dslr footage is possible without any problem even with colorcourrection and such. Render times are also very fast as long as you stay in that codec. I'm also thinking about getting the cineform codec for premiere, it makes the editing experience so much better, you only need to consider harddrive space but that's cheap these days.

[Ethan Lane]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

you only need to consider harddrive space but that's cheap these days.

Yep it's true transcoding takes a LOT of space, but SO worth it imho

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by Ethan Lane

I'm continually amazed at how hesitant people are to transcode footage. If you aren't going to manipulate the footage that much, it's not a huge deal, but even running CS5 on a high end system there are still advantages to transcoding. ProRes, cineform, etc are designed to be modified, unlike h.264.

Well, there's negatives too - it takes time (for a feature, it can really start to add up), it requires more drive space (which, again, can really start to add up), and if your system gets a virus or crashes damaging your transcoding program, CS5 won't play you footage. And yes, this does happen, particularly on big, long projects like features (if it sounds like it happened to me, that's 'cause it did).

At this point, for me, the disadvantages pretty much even out the advantages, so I don't transcode anymore.

[Noa Put]

and if your system gets a virus or crashes damaging your transcoding program, CS5 won't play you footage.

How do you mean? if you reinstall premiere, does this not work then? I do keep a copy of all my videofiles and projectfiles of all running projects and allways thought that incase of a crash it was just a matter of using my backup files to rebuild everything.

What you said about long projects is true, I never have more then 3-4 hours of footage per project and then for me it's worthwile to use a intermediare codec but beyond that I can imagine that drive space, even at the prizes of HD's these day's, can together with the timeissue become a problem.