C200: A definitive fcpx proxy workflow

M

madeprime

Member
I use Multicam on 70% of my shoots and prefer to shoot RAW on 100% of all of my shoots. After pretending that the requirements for Raw weren't that ad, I've now come to the sad realization that it's slowing me down and is going to be expensive. However I could never go back. No way. Raw or nothing. But I think proxies can help bridge the gap between no 10-bit. So these are the following questions I have:
1. What is the workflow for renaming, importing and replacing raw files with, proxy footage shot on the C200 in FCPX?
2. Will this workflow for with multicam?
3. Will this be significantly faster than directly editing RAW on a 2017MBBP with touch bar?
 
madeprime said:
I have but the problem is I have to wait on the computer to make them.
Click to expand...

This is the correct solution. Wait for the computer to make them. Or rather, keep working while the computer makes them—it happens in the background—and try to complete some organisational tasks that you're bound to have in the meantime, like setting up the project the way you like and organising/keywording footage.

If that still doesn't work for you, make sure your in-camera proxies are named exactly like your imported 'masters' and try opening up your FCPX library and drop the proxies into the proxy folder manually. As long as the naming of the files is IDENTICAL, it should… hmmm… might work. You might need to restart FCPX after you've done this, if it was open during the copying process for it to render the files correctly. Just keep it closed for this operation. When you then reopen FCPX and switch to proxy mode, it should recognise the files present and just accept those as proxies.

But honestly, the internal proxy generation is great and you'll get light weight ProRes files that will work with anything. If you have large amounts of data to offload from memory cards it will take a while (even if it's CFast), so don't watch that water slowly come to a boil... do something else in the meantime and let the proxy creation be a part of that process.
 
madeprime said:
I have but the problem is I have to wait on the computer to make them. Any way around this using the camera created proxies?
Click to expand...

As mentioned, I would just let them go. I personally always create them at the end of the day (usually at night) and they have always been ready the next morning. I know that's not always possible especially if you're working a lot and/or traveling, but this is really the best way. Super smooth on the system and your high-quality RAW is ready for a master with the click of a button.

If you're going to try what Andree suggested above, you might want to make a copy of your library. FCPX can be weird sometimes and putting files into the proxy folder (which aren't generated by the software) may or may not cause it to crash. It could totally work, but just saying.
 
madeprime said:
I have but the problem is I have to wait on the computer to make them. Any way around this using the camera created proxies?
Click to expand...

Final Cut Pro X does not support any proxy workflow other than the one where it generates its own proxies.

The proxy workflow (with generated proxies) does work with Multicam clips, but I can imagine how if you have a lot of footage, it is kind of annoying to wait to render.

The only workaround I have heard of is to trick Final Cut Pro X into thinking camera generated proxies are actually original media. This requires your to manage your media externally and is not something I would suggest attempting. It requires a fair amount of effort and time to execute, and if you make a mistake, it can be hard to figure out what went wrong. Meanwhile, you get to freak out because your footage is all showing red and unlinked.
 
If the OP provides a link to a .crm and the accompanying .mp4 (camera internal proxy), I can test the workflow on my machine. Doesn't have to be a long clip, just make sure it's the recording setup that's intended later.
 
Something was mentioned today (related to your proxy question) on the upcoming firmware update!
 
ntouched said:
Something was mentioned today (related to your proxy question) on the upcoming firmware update!
Click to expand...

The new firmware allows you to have identically named files between .crm and internal XF-AVC proxy (the way it should have been from the beginning). That will save you from the manual renaming I suggested above.

The OP gave me a test file in .crm that was 3.5GB. The normal internal proxy transcoding in FCPX just took a few seconds and rendered a 104MB ProRes HD file.

Apart from the automatic workflow, I like the fact that since FCPX renders the proxy internally in a format it properly understands, the handling/look of the files should be really consistent between proxy/original. Obviously, this is what we all expect, but if you start integrating 'in camera proxies' that might have various types of flags or settings from the camera, there is a small risk that something goes slightly sideways.
 
Thanks for the ask and answers. I am shooting two documentaries, long term over the next couple of years in Cinema RAW Light and had the exact same question. I will test the new XF-AVC workflow when it becomes available but my producing partner is saying to just generate the proxies in FCP X. Problem is, if we get all set up in FCP X, what if we end up hiring an editor who is adamant about editing in Premiere or AVID? I would always hire a documentary editor based upon their work, not their choice of editing platform.

Guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Our hope is that we can do most of the work of a good AE as we shoot, labeling, inputting metadata, subclipping, etc. and then just turn over the project to a killer documentary editor without having to hire an AE for a few weeks to get all of the material organized. Since they are our stories that we will know inside out, makes sense to have us organize and categorize the footage to us? I know a good AE is worth their weight in Gold but on a low to no budget documentary, we may barely be able to afford an editor, probably not an AE. We've come to the conclusion that if we try to edit it ourselves, it will never get done, but we can organize as we do each shoot and somewhat fulfill the role of an AE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top