Anybody have success editing H264 in Premiere Pro?
 

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;)

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.

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.

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.

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;)

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.

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;)

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

Re-installing anything on PCs isn't fun, esp something as huge as CS5, and it takes time. Just not worth the risk or extra time and money for transcoding when CS5 works out the box.

Pretty much everything works out of the box, it's the additional you do with it that enhances your experience.

Time spent transcoding to an edit-friendly codec can save you more time later when working with the footage, at least in my experience. Personally, a smooth editing experience is preferable to stop-start-stop-start. All it takes is leaving your footage to transcode whilst you sleep or play a game of footy with the kids.

The excuse that it takes up extra hard disk space is a little weak also. Memory, especially physical storage memory is dirt cheap these days. Also, the original footage can be deleted post-transcoding, if necessary.

I've only just made the switch myself recently. So I may be singing its praises now, but let's see how I feel after a few more projects!

Re: Anybody have success editing H264 in Premiere Pro?
 

Hey Kris,

I used Cineform last night and converted a file or two but they did not play any better in CS4 than the original 5D H.264, in fact after conversion the files were nearly 4 times larger than the original (225mb to 798mb). That's a huge file to play for just a 43 second clip.

Any Ideas?

Thanks.

Re: Anybody have success editing H264 in Premiere Pro?
 

Hi

I have been using the Cineform over past year for the 5D footage and also used it on the D7000 footage and they work fantastic in CS5 after conversion and my biggest file handled has been nearly 4 GB each
I love Cineform to work with the 5D and the CS5, it worked nicely with the CS4 earlier.

best regards
Vishal

Re: Anybody have success editing H264 in Premiere Pro?
 

Hey thanks Vishal,

I was told that you don't need to convert your 5D files if you're using CS5. Do you still have problems with the 5D footage in CS5 if you don't convert?

Thanks.

Re: Anybody have success editing H264 in Premiere Pro?
 

In my tests, CPU speed is the determining factor when dealing with AVCHD files. Running CS5 64bit, this is what I've been able to achieve:

Interface: USB 2.0
RAM: 4GB
Core2Duo 2.8 (90-100% CPU usage) stutters occasionally, ok for cuts only, once transition is applied stutters alot.
Core2Quad 2.66 (50-60% CPU usage) plays back smoothly even with transitions.

I would consider the Quad Core the minimum spec when editing native files. Anything above that will yield even better results.