Importing to FCPro

Larry Cohen · August 29th, 2010, 02:59 PM

Hi,
Someone out there who REALLY knows what they're doing will know this. We "kinda" know what we're doing!

OK, when we shoot with the XF300 and import into FCPro (say through our pretty new MacBook Pro) - we've of course installed the Canon XF utility - everything works perfectly. FCPro just seems to 'know' to use ProRes422. No rendering necessary - everything works great!

BUT . . . the imported .mov files are about 30% LARGER than the original XF files the camera shoots.
No big deal, but I guess that's what ProRes does. And when we export from the FCPro timelne as a Self Contained movie, it plays at about 70mbs - despite the fact that the camera "shoots" at 50mbs!
So a little wasted disk space! No big deal!

We find on a MacBook Pro, it seems to import each clip about 1/2 as long as the actual clip. A 30 second clip takes about 15 seconds to import. GOOD!

BUT I was told when you're in the Log &Transfer window - if you click the little gear thing at the top - and change the 'codec' to "NATIVE" and not ProRes 422 - the files would be 1/3 smaller - AND would import much faster.

So we tried that, and they DO! OMG - smaller files by 30% and the import much FASTER then before, too. We love it!

EXCEPT . . . we're noticing an orange bar over the clips requiring, of course some serious rendering - which takes a long time and adds lots of "big" files in the 'render' folders :(

Well - seems like we're kinda going backwards here.

We tried opening a new timeline, dragging one clip of the "native" import into it hoping FCPro will change the parameters of the timeLine to match - but for some reason it doesn't! (It usually will.)

So if we go the easy setup route, could somebody tell me exactly what parameters to use to setup the TL so it doesn't have to be rendered. THEN, we're thinking we'll have the best of both worlds. Files 30% smaller and faster import times and smaller exported SC movies!

Does anyone know the "Easy Setup" parameters we need to tell FCPro what it's doing? I hope I'm saying all this correctly!

Thanks,
Larry

Josh Dahlberg · August 31st, 2010, 03:13 AM

Prores is a more robust format, so I would use that for jobs that require lots of colour correction, but for day to day work it's great not having to transcode, and super fast. After using log & transfer with the "native" 50mb setting, I've been popping clips in a new sequence and letting FCP determine the sequence settings. They look like the attached (yes, a Sony XDCAM sequence).

When you create a new sequence, drop a clip into the timeline - FCP should ask you if you would like to change the sequence settings to match the clip. I've been editing the native files with a three year old macbook pro, and they work just fine, no rendering needed. Not sure why you're getting the orange line, good luck!

Mark Moreve · August 31st, 2010, 01:45 PM

I have found that editing natively using the Log & Transfer it a lot quicker than pro res but when I export the timeline as a quick time I always get a lot of image degradation. I think its because FCP & Quick time dont really like .mxf files. Maybe I'm wrong but it would be great if Apple could release an update to sort this out. Hopefully we will see something from IBC. Who's going by the way?

Doug Jensen · August 31st, 2010, 04:13 PM

Hi Mark.

You must be doing something wrong because the XF files are basically identical to XDCAM files and I've been exporting those for several years and the output looks fantastic. I've had the same experience with the XF files over the last two months, and they look great whether I'm exporting HD or downconverted SD. You need to check your workflow and find out what you need to change. There is no reason the XF files shouldn't look fantastic.

FYI, I always use native for import and never use ProRes for anything.

Larry Cohen · August 31st, 2010, 05:50 PM

Thanks, Doug. Now that you've confirmed you've been doing it - importing as Native - I'll try again. Good to hear your experiences are so positive. I'll try it again. Thanks.

Can't wait for your new DVD on the XF to be released. I feel like it'll just save me weeks of experimenting and tinkering!

Larry

Larry Cohen · August 31st, 2010, 05:51 PM

Thanks, Mark. I'll try to get this to work and tests the results. But you've at least made me suspicious! :)

Good!

Larry

Larry Cohen · August 31st, 2010, 05:52 PM

Thanks, Josh. Not sure what I'm doing wrong - but I'll try again knowing you've done it!

Larry

Mark Moreve · September 2nd, 2010, 02:32 AM

HI Doug,
Thanks, Maybe you could tell us your workflow in a step by step way if you don't mind. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. It would be good to check it against your way of working so that I can get this sorted out as I would prefer to work native as well.
Many Thanks
Mark

Doug Jensen · September 2nd, 2010, 04:34 AM

Mark, I was afraid you'd ask that. :-)

I should have prefaced my first comments by saying that I only work with 30P. If you're doing 60i or 24P, then you might be right that the output looks bad. Fortunately, I have no use for those formats. I see now that you're in London, and I have no experience with 25P, but I'm sure the workflow is rock solid when done right. There's plenty of people who have been using XDCAM 25P for years with no complaints.

Maybe this workflow for NTSC DVD output will help. Vortex Media: VIDEO & PHOTO Tools and Training
It was originally written for XDCAM, but as I said, XF files are basically identical to XDCAM.

To get the XF footage into FCP, you should use Log & Transfer and choose "native" as the import setting.
Then you can start going down my 8 step workflow.

FYI, you can't accurately judge what you are seeing until you do your final output to DVD, Blu-ray, XDCAM optical , tape, etc. so so don't make any judgements based soley on what you are seeing on your computer screen. Just because it might not look ideal in FCP, Compressor, or QuickTime doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I hope that helps, I don't have the time right now to write something more elaborate than that.

Mark Moreve · September 2nd, 2010, 07:26 AM

Thanks Doug. Much appreciated
All the best
Mark

Reinhard Kungel · September 4th, 2010, 07:53 AM

Working with native 50i-XF-Files and Final Cut Pro 7 since 2 month and there are nearly no problems.

It is faster then ProRes, the quality is great, no problems at all. The plug-in works fine and I only use XF-Utility for copying the files from CF-Card to harddisk.

By the way: The only thing I don´t understand: does it make sense to store the original MXF-Files beside the so called "native" files converted with the final-cut-plug-In?

How do you handle it?

Best wishes,
Reinhard

Larry Cohen · September 4th, 2010, 04:13 PM

Hi Reinhard,
I just read your reply. Hmmmm . . . I'm just curious - I might be doing this wrong! We just "copy" the contents file of the CF card to a folder on an external firewire drive, than we import to FCPro.

But you're saying "and I only use XF-Utility for copying the files from CF-Card to harddisk."

When we use a firewire CF card reader (a Lexor) it seems to copy about 2 to 3 gig/minute.
Is there an advantage to using XF utility to copy the CF card contents to an external drive that I don't know about?

I figure, why clutter the workflow up with another "un needed" program like XF utility. Copying a folder is pretty straight forward - Is there something I should know?

Thank you,

Larry

Reinhard Kungel · September 10th, 2010, 06:41 AM

Hi Larry,

you are not wrong, I´m wrong. I was just doubtful with the workflow and therefor I did it like Canon recommented. You are right: there is no need to use XF-Utility. I remember when I was working the first time with Canon DSLRs I also have used Canon Software. Of course you don´t need it just to copy files from the CF-Card onto a harddisk.

Anyway: Do you store also the "original MXF-Files" beside the so called "native" files imported via FCP? I´m not shure if they are really identically and therefor I store both. But thats double space:-(

Kind regards, Reinhard

Doug Jensen · September 10th, 2010, 06:01 PM

There are several reasons to use XF Utility. I don't have time to explain why in detail, but I would not recommend skipping that step in your normal workflow.
Did you customarily throw away your 35mm negatives after you had your prints made?

Josh Dahlberg · September 10th, 2010, 07:44 PM

I transfer the entire card (including file structure) to a hard drive (i). I then use Log and Transfer with the "native" setting to ingest the clips into final cut - this copies them to my capture scratch, a completely separate drive.

So I now have the "native" copies ready for use in my FCP project, and I have the original "negatives" as you put it Doug for safe keeping on another drive.

If there is some benefit of adding XF utility to this workflow it would be good to know - I can't see what I'm missing.

August 29th, 2010, 02:59 PM	#1
Larry Cohen Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Watchung New Jersey Posts: 50	Importing to FCPro - BETTER! Hi, Someone out there who REALLY knows what they're doing will know this. We "kinda" know what we're doing! OK, when we shoot with the XF300 and import into FCPro (say through our pretty new MacBook Pro) - we've of course installed the Canon XF utility - everything works perfectly. FCPro just seems to 'know' to use ProRes422. No rendering necessary - everything works great! BUT . . . the imported .mov files are about 30% LARGER than the original XF files the camera shoots. No big deal, but I guess that's what ProRes does. And when we export from the FCPro timelne as a Self Contained movie, it plays at about 70mbs - despite the fact that the camera "shoots" at 50mbs! So a little wasted disk space! No big deal! We find on a MacBook Pro, it seems to import each clip about 1/2 as long as the actual clip. A 30 second clip takes about 15 seconds to import. GOOD! BUT I was told when you're in the Log &Transfer window - if you click the little gear thing at the top - and change the 'codec' to "NATIVE" and not ProRes 422 - the files would be 1/3 smaller - AND would import much faster. So we tried that, and they DO! OMG - smaller files by 30% and the import much FASTER then before, too. We love it! EXCEPT . . . we're noticing an orange bar over the clips requiring, of course some serious rendering - which takes a long time and adds lots of "big" files in the 'render' folders :( Well - seems like we're kinda going backwards here. We tried opening a new timeline, dragging one clip of the "native" import into it hoping FCPro will change the parameters of the timeLine to match - but for some reason it doesn't! (It usually will.) So if we go the easy setup route, could somebody tell me exactly what parameters to use to setup the TL so it doesn't have to be rendered. THEN, we're thinking we'll have the best of both worlds. Files 30% smaller and faster import times and smaller exported SC movies! Does anyone know the "Easy Setup" parameters we need to tell FCPro what it's doing? I hope I'm saying all this correctly! Thanks, Larry

August 31st, 2010, 03:13 AM	#2
Josh Dahlberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 513	Prores is a more robust format, so I would use that for jobs that require lots of colour correction, but for day to day work it's great not having to transcode, and super fast. After using log & transfer with the "native" 50mb setting, I've been popping clips in a new sequence and letting FCP determine the sequence settings. They look like the attached (yes, a Sony XDCAM sequence). When you create a new sequence, drop a clip into the timeline - FCP should ask you if you would like to change the sequence settings to match the clip. I've been editing the native files with a three year old macbook pro, and they work just fine, no rendering needed. Not sure why you're getting the orange line, good luck! Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Josh Dahlberg; August 31st, 2010 at 03:51 AM.

August 31st, 2010, 04:13 PM	#4
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,415	Hi Mark. You must be doing something wrong because the XF files are basically identical to XDCAM files and I've been exporting those for several years and the output looks fantastic. I've had the same experience with the XF files over the last two months, and they look great whether I'm exporting HD or downconverted SD. You need to check your workflow and find out what you need to change. There is no reason the XF files shouldn't look fantastic. FYI, I always use native for import and never use ProRes for anything. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

August 31st, 2010, 05:50 PM	#5
Larry Cohen Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Watchung New Jersey Posts: 50	FCPro import Thanks, Doug. Now that you've confirmed you've been doing it - importing as Native - I'll try again. Good to hear your experiences are so positive. I'll try it again. Thanks. Can't wait for your new DVD on the XF to be released. I feel like it'll just save me weeks of experimenting and tinkering! Larry

August 31st, 2010, 05:51 PM	#6
Larry Cohen Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Watchung New Jersey Posts: 50	FCPro import Thanks, Mark. I'll try to get this to work and tests the results. But you've at least made me suspicious! :) Good! Larry

August 31st, 2010, 01:45 PM	#3
Mark Moreve Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 125	I have found that editing natively using the Log & Transfer it a lot quicker than pro res but when I export the timeline as a quick time I always get a lot of image degradation. I think its because FCP & Quick time dont really like .mxf files. Maybe I'm wrong but it would be great if Apple could release an update to sort this out. Hopefully we will see something from IBC. Who's going by the way?

August 31st, 2010, 05:52 PM	#7
Larry Cohen Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Watchung New Jersey Posts: 50	FCPro import Thanks, Josh. Not sure what I'm doing wrong - but I'll try again knowing you've done it! Larry

September 2nd, 2010, 02:32 AM	#8
Mark Moreve Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 125	HI Doug, Thanks, Maybe you could tell us your workflow in a step by step way if you don't mind. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. It would be good to check it against your way of working so that I can get this sorted out as I would prefer to work native as well. Many Thanks Mark

September 2nd, 2010, 04:34 AM	#9
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,415	Mark, I was afraid you'd ask that. :-) I should have prefaced my first comments by saying that I only work with 30P. If you're doing 60i or 24P, then you might be right that the output looks bad. Fortunately, I have no use for those formats. I see now that you're in London, and I have no experience with 25P, but I'm sure the workflow is rock solid when done right. There's plenty of people who have been using XDCAM 25P for years with no complaints. Maybe this workflow for NTSC DVD output will help. Vortex Media: VIDEO & PHOTO Tools and Training It was originally written for XDCAM, but as I said, XF files are basically identical to XDCAM. To get the XF footage into FCP, you should use Log & Transfer and choose "native" as the import setting. Then you can start going down my 8 step workflow. FYI, you can't accurately judge what you are seeing until you do your final output to DVD, Blu-ray, XDCAM optical , tape, etc. so so don't make any judgements based soley on what you are seeing on your computer screen. Just because it might not look ideal in FCP, Compressor, or QuickTime doesn't necessarily mean anything. I hope that helps, I don't have the time right now to write something more elaborate than that. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools Last edited by Doug Jensen; September 2nd, 2010 at 07:43 AM. Reason: Fixed typo

September 2nd, 2010, 07:26 AM	#10
Mark Moreve Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 125	Thanks Doug. Much appreciated All the best Mark

September 4th, 2010, 07:53 AM	#11
Reinhard Kungel Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Munich / Hohenschäftlarn, Germany Posts: 36	Working with native 50i-XF-Files and Final Cut Pro 7 since 2 month and there are nearly no problems. It is faster then ProRes, the quality is great, no problems at all. The plug-in works fine and I only use XF-Utility for copying the files from CF-Card to harddisk. By the way: The only thing I don´t understand: does it make sense to store the original MXF-Files beside the so called "native" files converted with the final-cut-plug-In? How do you handle it? Best wishes, Reinhard

September 4th, 2010, 04:13 PM	#12
Larry Cohen Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Watchung New Jersey Posts: 50	FCPro import Hi Reinhard, I just read your reply. Hmmmm . . . I'm just curious - I might be doing this wrong! We just "copy" the contents file of the CF card to a folder on an external firewire drive, than we import to FCPro. But you're saying "and I only use XF-Utility for copying the files from CF-Card to harddisk." When we use a firewire CF card reader (a Lexor) it seems to copy about 2 to 3 gig/minute. Is there an advantage to using XF utility to copy the CF card contents to an external drive that I don't know about? I figure, why clutter the workflow up with another "un needed" program like XF utility. Copying a folder is pretty straight forward - Is there something I should know? Thank you, Larry

September 10th, 2010, 06:41 AM	#13
Reinhard Kungel Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Munich / Hohenschäftlarn, Germany Posts: 36	Hi Larry, you are not wrong, I´m wrong. I was just doubtful with the workflow and therefor I did it like Canon recommented. You are right: there is no need to use XF-Utility. I remember when I was working the first time with Canon DSLRs I also have used Canon Software. Of course you don´t need it just to copy files from the CF-Card onto a harddisk. Anyway: Do you store also the "original MXF-Files" beside the so called "native" files imported via FCP? I´m not shure if they are really identically and therefor I store both. But thats double space:-( Kind regards, Reinhard

September 10th, 2010, 06:01 PM	#14
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,415	There are several reasons to use XF Utility. I don't have time to explain why in detail, but I would not recommend skipping that step in your normal workflow. Did you customarily throw away your 35mm negatives after you had your prints made? __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

September 10th, 2010, 07:44 PM	#15
Josh Dahlberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 513	I transfer the entire card (including file structure) to a hard drive (i). I then use Log and Transfer with the "native" setting to ingest the clips into final cut - this copies them to my capture scratch, a completely separate drive. So I now have the "native" copies ready for use in my FCP project, and I have the original "negatives" as you put it Doug for safe keeping on another drive. If there is some benefit of adding XF utility to this workflow it would be good to know - I can't see what I'm missing.