Can you edit HD with Premiere Pro? [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

View Full Version : Can you edit HD with Premiere Pro?

reflex

02-27-2006, 01:32 PM

Im a little unclear about the subject. I have PP and if I shot something in 1440 x 1080, am I able to edit that with what I have? My computer should be plently fast enough to handle it

3.0gHz P4
2.5 RAM
380 HD space
nVidea GeForce fx 5200 VC
etc...

The setting for editing in PP give 720 x 480 in either 4:3 or 16:9.
If you go into custom settings you can select Microsoft video from the dropdown box and then manually type in 1440 x 1080. Is taht it? or do I have to still capture in 720 x 480? AND if so, is that all taht I have to do to downconvert to SD? ( captureing in SD mode? 720 x 480)

dregenthal

02-27-2006, 08:24 PM

reflex

03-01-2006, 04:29 PM

ok. good to know.

BUT I dont have 2.0, in fact I dont even know what i have. Mine says version 7.0. It came part of a education bundle so I"m guessing that it's like 1.0 or something. So my question was, can you edit HD with 1.0? or even 1.5?

SoundMaster

03-04-2006, 01:03 AM

mvb

03-04-2006, 10:38 AM

The Raylight Codec (http://dvfilm.com/raylight) has a helper
application RayMaker that converts MXF files into AVIs. RayMaker is technically
a Win32 console application. That means it runs on Win XP or Win2000 and it
does not have a graphical user interface.

It's very simple and easy to use, you just drop it into the folder with the
MXF files and double-click on it to run.

Then you edit in Premiere in Video for Windows mode, just like you
would with any AVI file.

reflex

03-04-2006, 01:24 PM

alright thanks!

SoundMaster

03-09-2006, 12:21 AM

adam powell

03-09-2006, 02:13 AM

I find it hard to believe there is no solution for a PC based HD workflow using premiere pro?

are we waiting for codecs?

mvb

03-09-2006, 08:42 AM

Raylight is fine as long as you do NOT want to shoot HI-DEF. Raylight is only good for upto DVCPRO50. It will not handle 720 or 1080 modes.

Sorry that's just flat wrong

Raylight supports DVCPROHD 1080 and 720

soarprod

03-09-2006, 09:51 AM

Yes 1080 and 720 at INCREDIBLY slow rendering speeds. Playback on the timeline is fine until you apply a color correction - then render that - SLOW like 1 fps.

adam powell

03-09-2006, 10:55 AM

soarprod...

do you have a solution?

beggers cant be choosers here, I see you saying that its SLOW....but not suggesting anything better? or anything at all.

soarprod

03-09-2006, 11:17 AM

I am a die hard PPro user (since premiere 4.2). I would love a workable solution for it. In my opinion, you either go FCP or Edius Broadcast for the best solutions. Alternate for Raylight is if you have Aspect HD from Cineform, you convert from raylight to Cineform using Canopus Procoder (but this is still slow and you are losing a recompression generation). Cineform is working on a solution for us HVX users but who knows how long that might take.

In terms of FCP vs. Edius, I think FCP has a big advantage. The Edius interface seems clunky and a little too old school. It would probably limit the creativity that I have with PPro and even AVID. Edius is only $1K and the Mac setup is around $3300. FCP is pretty mature and I may go to the dark side (ThinkExpensive).

There are going to be some reviews of Edius soon and I would check back here for those. Also, you can download the demo for Edius from canopus.com

adam powell

03-09-2006, 11:37 AM

dont make me go to the MAC.

also look at the cost you just mentioned there.....It might have to be a 1fps render until something better comes up. :(

Adobe need to take a long hard look at the name they gave their product Premiere PRO and get with the times. those hippies.

all my life learning premiere they make pro and everyone is like "oh, yeah actually it's not bad...hang on....wait, wait, what's that over there?? oh look HD is coming"

and then premiere is stood there like *all those friends right within my grasp*

so he gets like a page on myspace and tries to HD it up a bit, maybe puts on some black eye liner and gets his penis out...

but to no avail,

MACs and FCP finally won the day.

or did they??

to be continued......

reflex

03-10-2006, 11:53 AM

I have PPRO 2.0 now and with my specs.. ( see 1st post ) it does ok.. a little jittery at times. I downloaded the trial for aspect HD with plans to buy it, but for the amount of stuff that I would use outof the program.. it's not worth the 500 bucks to me. Some others yes, but I really dont do anything 24p and encore doens't accept an avi with teh cineform codec to author a DVD. The stuff does play a little faster and all there included stuff does happen in realtime withno rendering, but it's all stuff I would rarely use if ever. Like I would use the cross dissolve if anything, but not the star wars style transitions.

Like everyone knows, most people right now wouldn't need anything in HD anyway, only like 5 channels broadcast in HD now cuz of the cost, so I just have to downconvert anyway. Basically I'm thinking that Aspect HD isn't for me. Glad I downloaded the trial before just running out and buying it. Im mean it does what it does well, but I just dont have a use for all the features so I dont' think I will be buying it.

also, when people downconvert 'in camera' , what are they doing? are they just switching the camera to DV mode and then capturing to a NTSC 720 x 480 thing? or..?

juancha

03-13-2006, 04:54 AM

The new solution is convert MXF files in Avid to QT, then import and use in PPro

soarprod

03-14-2006, 01:46 AM

Dont do DV mode, do DV50/DVCpro50 because you get a lot more color information. I bought the mac because I didnt want to have to wait for a solution that would end up being like $1K

reflex

03-14-2006, 04:13 PM

Man, unless you downres to 720 x 480... render times are insane! If you do any sort of Magic bullet work, man.... plan on days or weeks out of your time for any real project. I had a aprox 50 sec sequence in PPRO 2.0 with soem magic bullet adjustments ( not a preset , just my own stuff ) and say you wanted to create a WMV HD clip of that... it was going to take a minimum of 8 hours to render on a 2 pass encode. geez...

If you wanted to encode a hour long thing iwth magic bullet at 1440 x 1080 as a WMV, i figured it out, I would have to have my computer rendering 24 hours a day for 10 days straight. That's nuts! almost a week and a half for a hour long video. And that goes for anything really. I did some magic bullet stuff on a 20 sec clip and tried to doa render on the timeline. 4 hours! just for the 20 sec clip. WTF That's just totally unacceptable. So HDV is workable if your only exporting raw footage, but anytyhing else I just have to forget about.

my computer is :

3.0gHz P4
2.5 gb ram

ASpect HD doesn't do anything for rendering other than playing back clips raw and/or using basic effects like transitions and stuff like that. I guess I'm only going to be shooting in DV mode from now on.

soarprod

03-14-2006, 06:01 PM

Reflex, I hate to say it but for dvcprohd, buy a mac.

stabwound

03-14-2006, 06:32 PM

PPRO 1.5.1 or 2.0 can only edit footage from the HVX in tape mode. P2 mode is NOT supported. Anything you shoot in P2 mode needs to be dubbed to tape for downconversion and format conversion (including DVCPRO25).

The only other alternative requires conversion of DVCPRO50 from P2 to avi using special DOS (yes DOS) based software.

Does this mean PPRO can capture stream HD footage from the HVX through firewire?

I'm still waiting for my P2 card... and the wait is killing me.

SoundMaster

03-15-2006, 12:28 AM

It only LOOKS like it supports HD. A 30sec 720P clip converted using Raylight came out to 1min. THAT IS BAD CODE!!!!

Even Panasonics P2 viewer only does DVCPRO50!!!!!

Barry_Green

03-15-2006, 12:45 AM

Soundmaster, I don't know what you're talking about, and I would hesitate to employ 9 exclamation points in the same message, but:

Raylight works fine. And the P2 Viewer supports DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, and DVCPRO-HD in both 720 and 1080 varieties.

SoundMaster

03-16-2006, 08:09 PM

And the P2 Viewer supports DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, and DVCPRO-HD in both 720 and 1080 varieties.

P2 Viewer specs right from Panasonic:

System requirements: Microsoft(R) Windows 2000 SP4 or later, Windows XP Professional SP1 or later, or DirectX 9.0b or later; full-color (32-bit) display; sound card; and P2 driver (comes bundled with the P2 cam, P2 deck, and P2 drive)
*An MPEG4 decoder must be separately downloaded for proxy files.

Main Features
• Plays P2 clips (DVCPRO 50, DVCPRO, DV)
• Plays proxy files
• Displays a mark over icons of clips containing shot markers, voice memos, 16:9 wide images, and proxy data
• Displays metadata-based clip filtering
• Displays clip properties, allows partial editing of properties
• Uploads metadata to a P2 cam using an SD Memory Card
• Records, plays, moves and deletes voice memos
• Writes, displays, moves and deletes text memos
• Copies clips to another P2 card or to a hard drive
• Reformats P2 cards

reflex

03-24-2006, 12:46 PM

Do all macs handle HD better or something? Whats teh reason?

SoundMaster

03-30-2006, 11:11 PM

Do all macs handle HD better or something? Whats teh reason?
Presently the Macs use a microprocessor that was specifically designed from the ground up to do graphics. Therefore, the CPU is more efficient at doing photo graphics, and video graphics at the micro instruction level. Additionally, the author of Premiere Pro is also the author of Final Cut Pro. But FCP has benefitted from the mistakes he made in the Premiere Pro design. Every developer will usually get better at the same product types with time especially when he DOESN't have to continue trying to build new functions on top of poor code.

However, a Premiere P2 solution is in the works and we should see results at NAB.

HagerNYC

03-31-2006, 08:21 AM

adam powell

03-31-2006, 09:06 AM

HagerNYC tell me about it bro!

you KNOW premiere are gonna catch up but I need a solution now! It will be too late by the time ive gone to mac (although apple are making that difficult by not supporting us PAL peeps)

MrPolarBare

03-31-2006, 09:37 AM

Presently the Macs use a microprocessor that was specifically designed from the ground up to do graphics. Therefore, the CPU is more efficient at doing photo graphics, and video graphics at the micro instruction level. Additionally, the author of Premiere Pro is also the author of Final Cut Pro. But FCP has benefitted from the mistakes he made in the Premiere Pro design. Every developer will usually get better at the same product types with time especially when he DOESN't have to continue trying to build new functions on top of poor code.

However, a Premiere P2 solution is in the works and we should see results at NAB.
Are your talking about their Intel CPUs?

Wasn't FCP created well before Premiere Pro?

Wasn't Premiere Pro a major re-design from the ground up?

You keep saying "he". Are you saying that Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro were made by a single programmer?

Just want to clear some of this stuff up... Thanks.

SoundMaster

03-31-2006, 09:28 PM

Are your talking about their Intel CPUs?

Wasn't FCP created well before Premiere Pro?

Wasn't Premiere Pro a major re-design from the ground up?

You keep saying "he". Are you saying that Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro were made by a single programmer?

Just want to clear some of this stuff up... Thanks.

INTEL processors are just now being introduced to the Macs. Mac processors have always been made by Motorola until just recently.

Yes, Randy Ubillos and other members of his team originally created Adobe Premiere. Its ironic though that they were hired by Macromedia to create what is now known as Final Cut. Yes, Adobe remade Premiere Pro in 2003 from a new codebase, copying many FCP features, and then Macromedia BOUGHT Adobe!
See the history of final Cut Pro at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro
See the history of Premiere Pro at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Premiere_Pro

BigMike

03-31-2006, 10:38 PM

from a new codebase, copying many FCP features, and then Macromedia BOUGHT Adobe!

Actually, Adobe bought Macromedia last year.

A lot of inbreeding going on out there, ya'll.

reflex

03-31-2006, 11:18 PM

Oh great! I just broke a got Avid. :( Grrrrr. Having to learn the navigation is very hard for me since being a straight PPro user, but my 1080i files play great. I can even grab the timeline marker and scrub fast forward and back again and my machine keeps up without stutter. If PPro comes up with a solution that is just as good, I'm gonna kick myself in the butt. When is NAB? Grrrrrrr.

I don't know.. my PPRO 2.0 plays the naitive HDV clips just find now. At first they seemed kind of studdery...but I dont know what happened but it works great.

my system is

P4 3.0GHz
2.5GB ram
128 MB videocard

I can have multiply clips play back in realtime and adding cross dissolves and all that is quick. I just put a bunch of clips on a timeline, threw 9 cross dissolves in there and hit enter.. only took like 20 sec to render them out. I'm very happy with PPRO 2.0 now.

MrPolarBare

03-31-2006, 11:51 PM

INTEL processors are just now being introduced to the Macs. Mac processors have always been made by Motorola until just recently.

Yes, Randy Ubillos and other members of his team originally created Adobe Premiere. Its ironic though that they were hired by Macromedia to create what is now known as Final Cut. Yes, Adobe remade Premiere Pro in 2003 from a new codebase, copying many FCP features, and then Macromedia BOUGHT Adobe!
See the history of final Cut Pro at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro
See the history of Premiere Pro at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Premiere_Pro
So you are saying that the Power PC processors are built from the ground up for graphics. And that they perform better than Intel and AMD. Then why is Apple bragging about all of their performance boosts they are now getting with Intel? The reason why Apple changed to Intel was because the PowerPC processor overheats, is an energy hog, and is currently unable to get to the 3GHz benchmark. Doesn't sound like a great design to me. Apparently it doesn't sound like a great design to Apple anymore either.

You said the guy that created Premiere Pro created FCP. So now you are saying the guy that created Premiere (not Pro) is the guy that created FCP, and Adobe actually copied FCP to make Premiere Pro. You seemed mixed up. Your two responses are conflicting. Your second response is correct. Thats why I wanted you to clarify yourself before I chopped away.

And like it was already mentioned Adobe acquired Macromedia, not the other way around.

adam powell

04-01-2006, 03:58 AM

I don't know.. my PPRO 2.0 plays the naitive HDV clips just find now. At first they seemed kind of studdery...but I dont know what happened but it works great.

my system is

P4 3.0GHz
2.5GB ram
128 MB videocard

I can have multiply clips play back in realtime and adding cross dissolves and all that is quick. I just put a bunch of clips on a timeline, threw 9 cross dissolves in there and hit enter.. only took like 20 sec to render them out. I'm very happy with PPRO 2.0 now.

reflex....so the Raylight/PPro 2.0 system is working well for you?

what about render times with some colour correction?

thanks for your help mate.

xray

04-01-2006, 10:07 AM

Mac processors have always been made by Motorola until just recently.

I do not spend to much time here, but Motorola fade away starting with the G5 processors in 2003:

a) original PowerPC processors are IBM (AIM group)
b) G3 processors made by IBM and Motorola
b) G4 processors are Motorola (IBM helped with non altivec procs)
c) G5 processors are IBM
d) new core duo processors are Intel

MrPolarBare

04-01-2006, 11:15 AM

reflex....so the Raylight/PPro 2.0 system is working well for you?

what about render times with some colour correction?

thanks for your help mate.
For a 1 minute sequence, it takes me 12 minutes to render (720/24P). That is without any color correction though. And that is rendering out as a Quicktime with Avid DV100 codec.

My system is Athlon 64 X2 4200 with 2GB of ram.

Demistate

04-01-2006, 11:31 AM

Presently the Macs use a microprocessor that was specifically designed from the ground up to do graphics. Therefore, the CPU is more efficient at doing photo graphics, and video graphics at the micro instruction level.
Because thats why Apple is switching to Intel processors.

Right now the software support is on the Mac for p2 because the demand is there. Many professional houses are using Macs, because for a while they were the fastest to do the video work, but with the advent of some of the newer AMD X2 processors, and their price, alot of editors have been going PC.

Avid 5+ supports p2 (1080i DVCPROHD) I'm not sure of the performance because My company doesn't have a HVX-200. However AVID is the only PC editing solution right now that supports p2 format as of RIGHT NOW. There are other work arounds, but the workflow isn't going to be worth the speed.

Give it a year, there are going to be many solutions for P2 on PC.

FCP is going to be your least headache for editing right now. It is very similar to Premiere Pro and you wont have to learn anyhting new to use it. Avid is going to slow you down if you have been on Premiere for a long time, becaue the learning curve for it will be steeper for you as an editor.

If you have to stay PC, you can try buying FCP, OS X, and run it on your INTEL PC (http://www.osx86project.org/). However the current binaries for FCP are still for PPC, so you'll be running them in OSX under rosetta emulation. (its about half speed of a current Mac)

It really all depends on if you can 1: Wait for a PC p2 solution, 2: Buy and learn Avid 5+, or 3: Just break down and buy a Mac+FCP right now.

reflex

04-01-2006, 09:44 PM

reflex....so the Raylight/PPro 2.0 system is working well for you?

what about render times with some colour correction?

thanks for your help mate.

What's raylight again? I just have PPro 2.0 and edit the HDV clips naitively.

again my pc is a:

3.0 GHz P4
2.5 gig's of ram
128MB nVidia geforce fx 5200 V card

clips all play back fine / smooth and transitions like cross dissolves render REALLY quick. (obviously)

When using Magic Bullet.. it renders out at about 1 frame per second. So it takes a bit of time, but if you need it for a serious project then it's worth it, and hell, you can just let it render over night, while you sleep.

Color correcting and gamma , levels etc... those types of things render faster than MB, but not a TON. Noticabally faster though. I tried the Cineform Aspect HD and to me wasn't worth it. Some other people might need it, but for me, I didn't want to shell out 500 bones for features that I won't really use.

I don't convert to 24p. I can edit the clips naitively. Rendering out transitions takes only a second ( realtime ) anyway so it's not like I'm losing precious time waiting for that. I mean that plugin did what it said it would do and well... but it just wasn't for me. I might have thought twice about getting it if it dramatically decreased rendering times with MB.

SoundMaster

04-01-2006, 11:27 PM

So you are saying that the Power PC processors are built from the ground up for graphics. And that they perform better than Intel and AMD. Then why is Apple bragging about all of their performance boosts they are now getting with Intel? The reason why Apple changed to Intel was because the PowerPC processor overheats, is an energy hog, and is currently unable to get to the 3GHz benchmark. Doesn't sound like a great design to me. Apparently it doesn't sound like a great design to Apple anymore either.

You are doing what so many of my programmers do and that is extrapolating one statement into your choice of ideas inspite of what was NOT said. I did NOT say that Motorola processors perform BETTER - that is an extrapolation of "efficient graphics" without bothering to understand what is meant by "efficient graphics". And this is a statement about history not present or future. "Efficient graphics" means fewer instructions are required to produce a result. Since the early 70's when I first began building computers the Intel processor was always the processor of choice even though the x86 model was not necessarily the best design. Even in most of my Masters in Electrical Engineering courses we used Intel processors. However, we also briefly studied the Motorola design as well, which by the nature of its instruction set is more efficient at doing graphics. That does not mean it is the BEST processor, the coolest processor, or the most desired processor. Apple went with the Motorola processor because its instruction set was most efficient at performing graphics. Compared to the 8080 processor (the first x86 CPU) the Motorola processor performed a graphic task faster at the same clock speed. That was 1973! Since then processor designs have improved to where there is little difference now in performance. However, Motorola's quality control is still not much better than it was in the early 80's when Motorola sold their Quasar plant to Matsushita Electric. Which is very disappointing. That's part of why Apple is switching to Intel processors. The major reason is what Steve Jobs and Apple has always been about - graphics and education marketing. Once Mac OSs can use Intel microprocessors, then Apple can start cutting into Windows market share, especially in the graphics and education markets where their market strength has always been high.

Just keep in mind that there is alot more to computer design than the CLOCK speed. Clock speed is NOT the key to high performance computers. The key is in the I/O management. That is where the supercomputers have always had the advantage. The Opteron design comes the closest to what supercomputers have been doing for decades. In fact Cray plans to use Opteron processors in its next generation supercomputer. But their motherboards and communication boards are designed for much higher I/O frequencies than a typical PC motherboard.

MrPolarBare

04-02-2006, 12:43 AM

What's raylight again?
Raylight is a special codec that translates the HVX200's MXF files into Windows AVI files. It doesn't create a whole new video file. The codec actually creates a wrapper file that basically acts like a translator between any program that accepts AVI files and the source MXF file. Basically it allows you to use your MXF files that you shoot with your HVX200 on almost any windows based video application (Premiere, Vegas, After Effects, etc). If the application can accept Windows AVIs, then it can accept Raylight. The nice thing is that it keeps 100% quality of the original MXF file, since it doesn't replace the MXF file, but just translates it. Sorry if this is confusing...I am trying to describe it as simple as possible..

Film Division

04-02-2006, 05:15 AM

Stay calm chaps.

reflex

04-02-2006, 11:20 AM

Sorry if this is confusing...I am trying to describe it as simple as possible..

No no not at all, I understand. Basically the same as Aspect HD. it's a good deal if you are using a NLE that doesn't let you edit naitively and you don't wanna drop some cash on another one.

scannon

04-09-2006, 08:04 AM

Presently the Macs use a microprocessor that was specifically designed from the ground up to do graphics. Therefore, the CPU is more efficient at doing photo graphics, and video graphics at the micro instruction level. Additionally, the author of Premiere Pro is also the author of Final Cut Pro. But FCP has benefitted from the mistakes he made in the Premiere Pro design. Every developer will usually get better at the same product types with time especially when he DOESN't have to continue trying to build new functions on top of poor code.

However, a Premiere P2 solution is in the works and we should see results at NAB.

Yeah thats why Apple is now going to intel chips. :)

S Cannon

ROne

04-09-2006, 08:46 AM

I've got to say I'm having really good results with raylight even on a relatively low-end system.

Final output to WMV-HD is about 20x real-time, but PP editing seems pretty fluid to me.

Phalynx

04-09-2006, 10:30 AM

Actually, the correct answer is as follows: Apple has been the only party with interest in the advancement of the PPC processor. The G5 is just the latest version of it. IBM (who tookover the PPC production line and development) has stated to Apple that the G5 processor line has tapped out. The power requirements and heat loading of the processor are too great to advance further. Oddly, Intel ran into the same problem with their processors and thus, the Centrino processors and the new Duo's are the complete redeisgn to compensate for the above problems. Apple was unwilling to pay the $ to IBM to redesign the PPC. Apple had been aware of this limitation for years. OSX was created as a new business model for Apple. Apple's biggest limitation is the hardware lockdown on their OS. You must pay Apple for the hardware to use the software. The new model allows Apple to spread and grow on different levels. That's why they have been compiling OSX on Intel since OSX was created. Intel's redesign was the smartest business decision for Apple at this time. It allows them to concentrate on growing their OS model while still innovating hardware progress without having to create the hardware from scratch. The PPC originally was designed with graphics and sound in mind. That has carried through the upgrades. However, Intel has MORE than caught up to PPC on this as well as surpased the current G5.

Adobe is a more interesting problem. When Apple started directly competing with Adobe with their new software lines, Adobe decided not to directly compete with Apple and rely on their name for innovation. Premiere Pro is turning out to be several steps behind FCP in design. PPRO will support native HD at some point, maybe very soon. I would look to Vegas to advance before Adobe.

I have used Premiere since 4.2 all the way through PPRO 2.0. I loved the original workflow before they changed, now, it's ok but I am used to it. I use FCP now with the HVX and it's simple.

Give it time. There are so many "Standard creations" that want to be mainstream, software companies don't want to spend a lot of money on any 1 over another until a clear winner comes out. It's the Beta vs. VHS debate. As P2 and non HDV HD standards become more popular, support will follow.

reflex

04-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Ppro supports naitive HDV now....

adam powell

04-10-2006, 07:20 AM

Im working with raylight (demo) and Premiere Pro 2.0 on a 3.2 P4 with 2 gigs of ram,

render times are pretty long but it is workable, the whole time im just thinking "im editing HD on my desktop" which is pretty amazing.

reflex

04-10-2006, 10:41 AM

the whole time im just thinking "im editing HD on my desktop" which is pretty amazing.

yeah I guess that IS pretty amazing...when you think about it like that...