|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 24th, 2016, 07:07 PM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montara, California
Posts: 127
|
I don't understand Share-->Master options
I have a Sony AX-100 shooting in 4k. What is want to do is shoot clips, import them into Final Cut, trim the footage, then maybe add a title or do minor color correction, and then output the file.
For the output file I want the highest quality possible without adding extra storage space requirements that don't add any image quality value to the footage. I may want to work on the clip at some point in the future so I don't want to lose any real data. But I have a lot of clips to store so storage space is a consideration. Here's what I see: A 10-minute clip, imported into FCX and viewed in the finder is 4.1 GB. If I take a single minute of that clip and output it using share-->master, here are the options I see: 444xQ at 46.1 GB 444 30.8 422 HQ 20.6 422 13.8 422 LT 9.64 422 Prox 4.35 H264 1.6 8 bit uncompressed 91.92 I don't understand what I'm doing, obviously. I would expect am output file, without data loss, to be about the same size as the original file. Given the one-minure excerpt here that would be on the order of 0.4 GB. What option is the right one for my needs? --Darin |
January 24th, 2016, 08:04 PM | #2 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,313
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
The H264 would probably be a good choice for a final deliverable file. FCPX won't render into XAVC-S, so you need to use the presets in FCPX or create your own presets in Compressor.
The H264 file is 20,000 kbps I believe and should look very good for internet/computer/home use. |
January 24th, 2016, 10:30 PM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 400
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
On the Mac platform you have to either export to one of the ProRes formats to preserve the original quality of the imported file or sacrifice some (usually little) of the original quality by exporting to H.264 (Better Quality option) because FCPX cannot export to XAVC-S which is the recording format of the Sony AX100.
IMO, exporting to ProRes LT would be the best compromise if you plan to rely solely on the exported/edited files for future use and have no original files kept in your archive. ProRes 422 could be a better option if your storage space allows but anything higher than this I think is pretty useless in terms of quality preservation due to the limited data recorded by the XAVC-S format. |
January 24th, 2016, 10:49 PM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montara, California
Posts: 127
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Does that mean that I might be better off using a program that does offer XAVC-S as an export option?
I'm surprised about how large these files sizes are getting. The one minute XAVC-S (maybe 0.4 GB) blows up to 13.8 GB with 422--and even at this I think you are suggesting that there is some trivial loss of quality. With these sorts of numbers the tiny original files could easily be stored along with the huge FCX export without additional harm. But if I have, say, fifty of these videos then I'm looking at several hard drives of storage--for video that originally didn't fill the memory chip in the camera! Have I made an error in my numbers? It's a little hard to get my head around. The videos, by the way, are intended for display on a 4k screen in a museum/gallery setting. --Darin |
January 24th, 2016, 10:59 PM | #5 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,650
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Welcome to the world of 4K. Your camera is filming in a highly compressed format with several frames referenced to a key frame while FCPX is exporting into a modestly compressed format, ProRes, where each frame is compressed individually. ProRes is a professional standard for finished projects. For storage you will have to explore your options, I would keep the original files and your FCPX project with the adjustments for future outputs. No need to keep a ProRes version unless you consider it a finished work.
__________________
William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation |
January 25th, 2016, 01:14 PM | #6 | ||
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montara, California
Posts: 127
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Quote:
Quote:
Thank you William, very helpful. --Darin |
||
January 25th, 2016, 10:34 PM | #7 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montara, California
Posts: 127
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Just to update my initial post, I decided to actually export files from that one-minute test video to see what the real-world file sizes would be at various settings vs trusting the estimate.
The first thing I noticed was that the estimates this time were very different--consistently one-third of what I posted in the original post. Here are the actual file sizes of the one-minute clip (again, the original source was a ten minute video at 4.1 GB): ProRes 422: 5 GB ProRes 422 LT: 3.34 GB ProRes 422 Proxy: 1.49 GB H264: 517 MB Uncompressed 8-bit: 32.7 GB --Darin |
January 25th, 2016, 10:56 PM | #8 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,650
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Quote:
__________________
William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation |
|
February 23rd, 2016, 07:40 AM | #9 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Plantation, FL
Posts: 239
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
I would think your starting point would be what device is going to play the video in the gallery/museum and output the best quality that the device supports.
|
March 1st, 2016, 01:51 AM | #10 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montara, California
Posts: 127
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Quote:
I thought I would just export them as 422 but was shocked at how much the file size grew. So now I have a storage problem. My ideal would be a highly compressed format, but as lossless as possible. It would not need to be suitable for fast editing. I would be happy to wait for it to re-encode into some other format should I wish to modify it in some way. --Darin |
|
March 1st, 2016, 05:36 PM | #11 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,650
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Choosing h264 instead of ProRes when you master is a possible route. The files are very good although I personally would rather recompress from ProRes.
__________________
William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation |
April 24th, 2016, 10:25 AM | #12 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Plantation, FL
Posts: 239
|
Re: I don't understand Share-->Master options
Late reply but . . . as far as i know, ProResLT is your only option to reduce size without going to the double compression inherent in a H264 master.
That said . . . any other compression cycles would be going to what? 720p or smaller? Go for it, it will look fine. If it's a master work that you want to preserve, then, you shouldn't even be worried about space; get a 5TB backup drive for $150. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|