New Final Cut Studio out Today

[Mark R.]

Here's the link,

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/

"Native AVC-Intra support
Final Cut Pro 7 makes it easy to work with the latest high-quality cameras from Panasonic. Native support for the AVC-Intra format means you can ingest footage directly into Final Cut Pro at high speeds — without transcoding. Work with real-time effects and edit with multiple streams, thanks to ultrafast decoding of both 50-Mbps and 100-Mbps formats."

[Nik Manning]

second! Finally I am checking it now!

[AdrianF]

From the tech specs

"AVCHD editing support using Apple ProRes"

No native editing until the next OS update I guess.
Nice to see that they finally addressed speed changes in the timeline

[Sneakle]

Has some interesting enhancements. Minimum system requirements is computer with an Intel processor so guess I'll have stick it out with my old G5 Quad powermac for another year or so.

[Rayzrsharp]

A new G5: $3000 dollars
Panasonic GH 1 with Nikon Lenses: $2500 dollars
Final Cut Pro 7:$1000

Geek heaven = Priceless.

All I have to do now is figure out how to actually pay for all this. HA!

[Mike@AF]

No such thing as a new G5 anymore. You'll be looking for a Mac Pro.

[Rayzrsharp]

No such thing as a new G5 anymore. You'll be looking for a Mac Pro.

Um... Thanks.

[Mike@AF]

From the tech specs

"AVCHD editing support using Apple ProRes"

No native editing until the next OS update I guess.

I really don't understand why anyone wants this feature. AVCHD is terrible for post work. You're much better off transcoding to ProRes or Cineform.

[Isaac_Brody]

I really don't understand why anyone wants this feature. AVCHD is terrible for post work. You're much better off transcoding to ProRes or Cineform.

It would mean one less step in generation loss. Transcoding does make a difference in what's already a very compressed image.

[Mike@AF]

Doubt you'd really notice a difference in the end when you're transcoding to a far superior codec. Even if FCP supported native editing of AVCHD most systems won't handle it, especially with a larger project. Premiere Pro CS4 proves this.

[dglasgal]

http://archives.subscribermail.com/msg/62945b8ab7f2464a9afaf53c33025f7a.htm

[Martti Ekstrand]

Doubt you'd really notice a difference in the end when you're transcoding to a far superior codec. Even if FCP supported native editing of AVCHD most systems won't handle it, especially with a larger project. Premiere Pro CS4 proves this.

I would rather edit from the small native files, creating a cuts-only rough edit and then transcode that to a better codec for colour correction and post effects. Transcoding all my source takes to a very much larger file size codec for the first selection is a waste of harddisk space and even more importantly my time. Will check out Premiere before upgrading FCP now.

[AdrianF]

It's arguable what is the most hassle on a big project, having to encode all of the footage and possibly loose some quality and have the headache of dealing with the large files or editing files natively, which might slow down the timeline, but have the ability to re encode some shots which might require it.
I'm planning on using my GH1 on a documentary project, which already has a bunch of different formats to be mixed. I don't fancy the prospect of encoding all the interview and b roll to Pro Res when I may only end up using 5% of it.

[Oedipax]

It's arguable what is the most hassle on a big project, having to encode all of the footage and possibly loose some quality and have the headache of dealing with the large files or editing files natively, which might slow down the timeline, but have the ability to re encode some shots which might require it.
I'm planning on using my GH1 on a documentary project, which already has a bunch of different formats to be mixed. I don't fancy the prospect of encoding all the interview and b roll to Pro Res when I may only end up using 5% of it.

I hear you, I'd love native editing for this reason as well. At least in the new FCS you could use the ProRes Proxy codec, assuming you plan on keeping your original files for the final online. Same pain in the neck transcoding, but at least you won't need as much storage.

[Isaac_Brody]

Doubt you'd really notice a difference in the end when you're transcoding to a far superior codec. Even if FCP supported native editing of AVCHD most systems won't handle it, especially with a larger project. Premiere Pro CS4 proves this.

It is quite noticeable. Prores adds some sharpening artifacts, and while neoscene gives a nice color space bump there is still a little sharpening that takes place that can introduce some unpleasant image artifacts.

[pailes]

It is quite noticeable. Prores adds some sharpening artifacts
I've been transcoding a lot of AVCHD footage since the HMC came out last year. There is no notable visual difference, I can post pictures if you like (but I did this already, go find the thread).
It might be very well dependent on the transcoding tool. There are good ones and bad ones.

Post your footage (AVCHD) and images (before/after) and name your tool to prove your claim, otherwise it's just FUD.

[Mike@AF]

I would rather edit from the small native files, creating a cuts-only rough edit and then transcode that to a better codec for colour correction and post effects. Transcoding all my source takes to a very much larger file size codec for the first selection is a waste of harddisk space and even more importantly my time. Will check out Premiere before upgrading FCP now.

If you transcode your finished project you will have trouble doing proper pulldown removal. Some shots with look right and others will have interlacing artifacts and/or jittery motion.

[Mike@AF]

I hear you, I'd love native editing for this reason as well. At least in the new FCS you could use the ProRes Proxy codec, assuming you plan on keeping your original files for the final online. Same pain in the neck transcoding, but at least you won't need as much storage.

Storage is VERY cheap these days. That should be the least of your worries. You can spend less on the storage to hold all the ProRes footage than you would on a machine that can actually handle the AVCHD native footage.

[Mike@AF]

I've been transcoding a lot of AVCHD footage since the HMC came out last year. There is no notable visual difference, I can post pictures if you like (but I did this already, go find the thread).
It might be very well dependent on the transcoding tool. There are good ones and bad ones.

Post your footage (AVCHD) and images (before/after) and name your tool to prove your claim, otherwise it's just FUD.

I agree with this. I downloaded some native GH1 footage and tested the transcoding. I couldn't tell the difference on normal playback on my Mac or on my 60" plasma. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, I'm just saying it's not noticeable on normal playback. Sure, if you scale it you'll see something, but are you going to scale it when you're screening it? Doubtful. Plus, you'll have to transcode to something eventually. Might as well do it early and make your entire post process go smoother.

[Isaac_Brody]

I've been transcoding a lot of AVCHD footage since the HMC came out last year. There is no notable visual difference, I can post pictures if you like (but I did this already, go find the thread).
It might be very well dependent on the transcoding tool. There are good ones and bad ones.

Post your footage (AVCHD) and images (before/after) and name your tool to prove your claim, otherwise it's just FUD.


There is a big difference between the HMC's AVC implementation and the GH1. I uploaded stills here.

http://www.isaacbrody.com/transcode/

These are untouched and unresized screen captures from Toast playing AVC natively, and a transcode from VoltaicHD to Prores and Cineform's Neoscene. Original footage was a PAL clip.

I notice the artifacts on playback. If I had to choose between native and transcoding I'd choose native just to avoid that little hit in quality. It's most noticeable on 1080 footage, on 720 footage it's not really an issue or something I'd really worry about.

What's interesting is mud really isn't that noticeable when you play the original footage, it's one of the reasons why people playing their native clips on PS3 are not bothered with quick pans. I really think mud is exacerbated on transcoding. That little bit of sharpening can make it look really bad.

[Martti Ekstrand]

If you transcode your finished project you will have trouble doing proper pulldown removal. Some shots with look right and others will have interlacing artifacts and/or jittery motion.

Luckily I'm in PAL land so don't have to deal with that pulldown silliness. I'd venture as far as to say that even in US if you aim for some sort of cinema release you might be better off using a PAL GH1 shooting 25 for 24 and deal with the 6% slowdown in the last stage. That's a artifact which a general audience notices a lot less than interlace errors.

As for ProRes, it does add sharpening artifacts. It might not be as noticeable on footage from HMC150 as on GH1. It's certainly noticeable on 35mm or CGI originated footage compared to lossless codecs especially when moving gamma point, forcing contrast or upping saturation. For commercials I've never used ProRes for final post, CC and effects but opted for a lossless codec. In my opinion it would have been better for film makers if Apple had built on PhotoJPEG instead and expanded it's real-time capacities in FCP but then they wouldn't have a proprietary codec to control and use as a selling point. I've hacked FCP's "RT Software Enabler" settings file to enable full SD PJPEG playback with real-time effects - haven't gotten around yet to see if I can do it for 720 or 1080 yet but will report back when I do.

When I tried various transcoding methods for GH1 footage I did notice that the Cineform files looked more like how the original looked in Toast Video Player than ProRes and could be pushed just a little bit more in CC. Not surprising as with ProRes you add one DCT compression method on top of a variation of DCT while Cineform uses wavelet compression which has less of a tendency to sharpen edges in the material. PhotoJPEG was somewhere in between and with smaller file sizes than either one.

For obvious reasons I have yet to check out the new variants of ProRes so can't speak on their quality yet. The tools I used were FCP, Toast, Voltaic and NeoScene. Test for yourself to see what adds the least amount of flies to your ointment is my advice - this is a area highly influenced by individual setups, methods, footage content and gut feeling.

[pailes]

These are untouched and unresized screen captures from Toast playing AVC natively, and a transcode from VoltaicHD to Prores and Cineform's Neoscene. Original footage was a PAL clip.
VoltaicHD is the worst conversion tool I've come across. It uses FFmpeg to convert the AVCHD transport stream to a 24mbps H.264 Quicktime .mov in an intermediate step and afterwards this Quicktime file will be transcoded to whatever codec you specify as target. A good transcoding tool should extract single YUV frames from the AVCHD transport stream and add them to the Quicktime movie one by one. Therefore your conversion results really don't tell anything about the quality of ProRes itself.

[pailes]

In my opinion it would have been better for film makers if Apple had built on PhotoJPEG instead and expanded it's real-time capacities in FCP but then they wouldn't have a proprietary codec to control and use as a selling point.

According to this site

http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperGraph/video/codecs/JPEG.html

both Photo-JPG and MJPEG codecs originated at Apple. So they have the knowledge already in the company, do you really think they made ProRes (a new and truly pro codec) worse than a rather simple legacy codec that has been around for years already?

I can hardly believe that.

(Besides the link also tells that Photo-JPG and MJPEG are essentially the same codecs, so I'm still not sure if there is an inherent visual difference between them or if the visual outcome is simply based on the final encoder implementation)

[bluesgeek]

I've hacked FCP's "RT Software Enabler" settings file to enable full SD PJPEG playback with real-time effects - haven't gotten around yet to see if I can do it for 720 or 1080 yet but will report back when I do.


Look forward to hearing of your success with that.

I have noticed that going from pJPEG to H.264 seems to change gamma curves or saturation. I haven't figured out which, but I haven't dialed in grading in pJPEG where my final output will be H.264. I like the look of pJPEG. But I'm fairly new at digital video. Anyone else notice this?

[AdrianF]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martti Ekstrand
I've hacked FCP's "RT Software Enabler" settings file to enable full SD PJPEG playback with real-time effects - haven't gotten around yet to see if I can do it for 720 or 1080 yet but will report back when I do.
Look forward to hearing of your success with that.
Me too. I regularly work with PJPEG and feel in some ways it's a better compromise than Pro Res for me.
Bluesgeek, If you're mac based then you might have the washy Quicktime problem, that it seems only seems to affect certain macs. Or if this only happens when outputting from FCP it could be that you need to change the gamma settings in preferences.

[Isaac_Brody]

VoltaicHD is the worst conversion tool I've come across. It uses FFmpeg to convert the AVCHD transport stream to a 24mbps H.264 Quicktime .mov in an intermediate step and afterwards this Quicktime file will be transcoded to whatever codec you specify as target. A good transcoding tool should extract single YUV frames from the AVCHD transport stream and add them to the Quicktime movie one by one. Therefore your conversion results really don't tell anything about the quality of ProRes itself.

I suggest you try your own conversion tests on GH1 footage since HMC footage is not applicable to the GH1. You can choose Prores output from neoscene and of course when ingesting in Final Cut. You might be surprised at the differences from your original footage. I'm finding similar results to Martti and have been surprised at how good PJPEG looks and the small file sizes it creates.

[pailes]

I suggest you try your own conversion tests on GH1 footage since HMC footage is not applicable to the GH1.
I already have made tests with GH1 footage and the results are pretty much the same. And why should the conversion of GH1 footage be any different? The AVCHD implementation of the HMC is much stronger than the one in the GH1 and the HMC has got a higher bitrate too. There is absolutely no reason why GH1 footage should lead to different transcoding results.

Also, how can you actually measure what the true image is like? Even a decoder needs to perform color space conversion and other things which might lead to color/contrast variation. It's easy to blame the codec when it could actually be the transcoder modifying the image.

[Isaac_Brody]

I already have made tests with GH1 footage and the results are pretty much the same. Can you post your results?

Suit yourself, if you don't see a difference it's fine, but plenty of others are noticing sharpening on transcode and other differences. Perhaps it's too subtle for your eyes to pick up on.

[bluesgeek]

Bluesgeek, If you're mac based then you might have the washy Quicktime problem, that it seems only seems to affect certain macs.

Thank you, Adrian. I seem to be doing okay matching exports from FCP of HDV 1080 and H.264 720, but am noticing an issue matching exports from FCP of pJPEG 1080 and H.264 720.

[bluesgeek]

I should also mention that I experience the same kind of gamma change when compressing pJPEG to DVD.