Anyone know about the new Final Cut working directly with the footage or do we still need to convert it to ProRes first?
Thanks
J

You must convert.

My bet is that mPeg Streamclip is still faster.
Thanks Tom,
izza shame. No FCP upgrade for me

Why do people convert the clips? I've edited the raw files in FCP without any problems. What a I missing here?

Thanks.

I made this in FCP without any transcoding.

http://vimeo.com/5435379

You don't have to transcode the files if your Mac is fast and powerful enough. On my Mac Pro which is a year old the clips play fine. When I add transitions it slows down somewhat.
On my MacBook Pro I just got the 17 inch last week you can play the clips but as soon as you add any transitions or effects you have to render for play back. What I do it make all my cuts add transitions and send it to color on the round trip it return the sequence as proress so you can play it on your laptop or desktop. It works the same in FCS 2 and the New FCS version 3

NeoScene from Cineform will work as well...maybe better that Streamclip...as NeoScene retains the 0-255 range while using FC ..... or even iMovie 09 for that matter.

I read on another forum that when used with final cut server, it automatically creates prores proxy which you can edit directly. Maybe someone using the prores proxy can chime in on whether or not this is a better solution. I would particularly like to know if fc server converts to prores proxy any faster than mpeg streamclip.

as NeoScene retains the 0-255 range while using FC

So does MPEG Streamclip.

What I do it make all my cuts add transitions and send it to color on the round trip it return the sequence as proress so you can play it on your laptop or desktop. It works the same in FCS 2 and the New FCS version 3

Translation please?

NeoScene from Cineform will work as well...maybe better that Streamclip...as NeoScene retains the 0-255 range while using FC ..... or even iMovie 09 for that matter.Neoscene costs an extra $129 for the basic version. However the Neoscene CODEC does not work in Color so if you want to use Neoscene & do professional colour correction then you need to pay $499 for Neoscen HD which includes Cineform's own colour correction application 'First Light'.

ProRes is part of Final Cut Pro at no extra cost.

Why do people convert the clips? I've edited the raw files in FCP without any problems. What a I missing here? Unlike any Windows video editing applications that I know of it is possible to edit the native 5DII files in FCP. However it is much easier to first convert them to ProRes otherwise the editing process takes much longer & is more difficult because of the requirement to render the footage. In my experience it also leads to the odd glitch, twitch or other problem in the final output that is avoided by converting to ProRes.

Unlike any Windows video editing applications that I know of it is possible to edit the native 5DII files in FCP.You can edit the native files (sort of) in Vegas, though you need to open them in QuickTime and save them without conversion as MP4 files in order to not clip the blacks and whites. It's just a re-wrap, not a conversion.

Of course, Cineform files play back much more efficiently. When using the re-wrapped files, it's best to use proxies (or RAM renders) to find the edit points, though you can use the originals for color correction.

Whatever. Cineform makes the whole process much more enjoyable on the PC.

Neoscene costs an extra $129 for the basic version. However the Neoscene CODEC does not work in Color so if you want to use Neoscene & do professional colour correction then you need to pay $499 for Neoscen HD which includes Cineform's own colour correction application 'First Light'.


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?

Neoscene costs an extra $129 for the basic version. However the Neoscene CODEC does not work in Color so if you want to use Neoscene & do professional colour correction then you need to pay $499 for Neoscen HD which includes Cineform's own colour correction application 'First Light'.

ProRes is part of Final Cut Pro at no extra cost.

Is ProRes able to retain the 0-255 range?

Is ProRes able to retain the 0-255 range?

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)

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.

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.

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

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?

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 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#quicktimex)

"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."

That's Brilliant !
Thanks,
J

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.

....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?

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 (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/11/02/converting-that-h264-footage/)

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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).

Weeeeelll.... =)

Don't forget that if you have lots of grading and dissolves and effects, when you later on reconnect with your original footage, the computations will be made directly on that footage- in that codec and color space (4-2-0)

And that is probably the main reason for going intermediate: to avoid laying effects and grading on a delivery codec such as h.264.

Normally the proxys would be used as replacement for the chosen intermediate (422, 422 HQ... ) and NOT as a replacement for the original footage.

I think some even discard the original footage after converting to an intermediate and then call the intermediate the new Digital Master.