Edit natively in H.264 vs intermediate Codec-color me confused!

E

eco_bach

Well-known member
Hi
There seems to be widely varying opinions on this subject, based on hearsay, and conjecture mostly. Whats needed are more Real World Objective tests. I can't even seem to find anywhere a comparison of the pros and cons of editing both ways. At the very least, my understanding is that , if you have a machine older than a couple years, you will be paying a huge performance penalty editing in H.264 because of its CPU requirements.

As for those tests, I plan on conducting my own once the new version of FCP is released (shortly I hope)
Any experienced colorists or post production pros want to chime in?
 
H.264 is a delivery codec. Not an editing codec.

Transcoding to ProRes LT or almost any other codec other than h.264 will make your editing and color correction experience in FCPro much less frustrating.
 
Convert to an editing codec such as pro res or pro res LT.

As Matt states, h.264 is an acquisition and a delivery/distribution codec. It is a computational intensive codec that was not designed for editing, and isn't supported natively by FCP.

This is neither hearsay nor conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Even with a modern multicore computer and an NLE with hardware acceleration, H.264 is a pain to work with if you plan on doing anything beyond basic editing. If you want to grade, if you want to do any compositing or motion graphics, you do not want to edit natively. Today's intermediate codecs are really robust, there's no reason not to use them unless you need a really quick turnaround.

On an older computer, an intermediate codec will be much easier to edit (at the expense of transcoding time). But on any computer with 4 or more cores, new or old, transcoding is virtually instantaneous. With the original 8-core Mac Pro, I could transcode an 8gb SD card in the same time it took me to log and mark up all the clips (about 10-15 minutes real time is my guess for actual speed). I'm sure the newer Mac Pros could do it even faster.
 
eco_bach said:
Hi
There seems to be widely varying opinions on this subject, based on hearsay, and conjecture mostly. Whats needed are more Real World Objective tests. I can't even seem to find anywhere a comparison of the pros and cons of editing both ways. At the very least, my understanding is that , if you have a machine older than a couple years, you will be paying a huge performance penalty editing in H.264 because of its CPU requirements.

As for those tests, I plan on conducting my own once the new version of FCP is released (shortly I hope)
Any experienced colorists or post production pros want to chime in?
Click to expand...


I don't doubt that it is best to use the Apple Pro Res codec when using FCP as of now but I also don't doubt the next version of FCP will eliminate the need for using the Apple Pro Res. Apple will indeed brag about being able to edit several layers of native h.264 but I doubt the new version of FCP will be here anytime soon (10 months away). I say download the trial version of Premiere Pro CS5 and drop some AVCHD (h.264) on the timeline and add some CC. I bet the CC of native h.264 is more than adequate. If you had to do a lot of green screen work (AVCHD would not be wise) then the Apple Pro Res might be of some use but other wise there is no need to use an intermediate codec with most PC software if you have a quad core system.
 
hendosan said:
Even with a modern multicore computer and an NLE with hardware acceleration, H.264 is a pain to work with if you plan on doing anything beyond basic editing. If you want to grade, if you want to do any compositing or motion graphics, you do not want to edit natively. Today's intermediate codecs are really robust, there's no reason not to use them unless you need a really quick turnaround.

On an older computer, an intermediate codec will be much easier to edit (at the expense of transcoding time). But on any computer with 4 or more cores, new or old, transcoding is virtually instantaneous. With the original 8-core Mac Pro, I could transcode an 8gb SD card in the same time it took me to log and mark up all the clips (about 10-15 minutes real time is my guess for actual speed). I'm sure the newer Mac Pros could do it even faster.
Click to expand...

Your are using FCP as the basis for your statement which is not wise because PC programs like Edius,and Premiere Pro CS5 can edit several layers of native AVCHD/h.264 with a mediocre Quad Core. The new Sandy Bridge CPUs will be even better.
 
medeamajic said:
Your are using FCP as the basis for your statement which is not wise because PC programs like Edius,and Premiere Pro CS5 can edit several layers of native AVCHD/h.264 with a mediocre Quad Core. The new Sandy Bridge CPUs will be even better.
Click to expand...

This does not change the fact that h.264 was not intended to be an editing codec. It is a GOP codec, which means that very few actual frames of video are recorded. Each frame contains elements on which all the frames between it and the next recorded frame are recreated. Even though other NLEs now offer h.264 editing capability, it isn't without its cost. The further you try to push the footage in post, the more artifacting you'll encounter. It's always better to transcode to an i-frame codec for proper editing.
 
C2V said:
This does not change the fact that h.264 was not intended to be an editing codec. It is a GOP codec, which means that very few actual frames of video are recorded. Each frame contains elements on which all the frames between it and the next recorded frame are recreated. Even though other NLEs now offer h.264 editing capability, it isn't without its cost. The further you try to push the footage in post, the more artifacting you'll encounter. It's always better to transcode to an i-frame codec for proper editing.
Click to expand...

I now what GOP is. I think if you were to use Premiere Pro or Edius with native AVCHD/h.264 you would change your mind. Infact you might even change your software. You have to accept the fact that AVCHD/h.264 is the new Mini DV rather than stating it is not an editing codcec. Is AVCHD/h.264 as good as AVC-intra? Of course not but it can be edited just fine. Apple will be able to do it one of these days and you will think it is way cool. Seven years ago people were converting HDV into intermediate codecs but who would do that now days?
 
medeamajic said:
I now what GOP is. I think if you were to use Premiere Pro or Edius with native AVCHD/h.264 you would change your mind. Infact you might even change your software.
Click to expand...

The GOP explanation was really for the edification of others who read this thread. As for Premiere or Edius... bully for them. We are, after all, in the FCP forum, so we need to examine the reality of editing h.264 in FCP.

medeamajic said:
You have to accept the fact that AVCHD/h.264 is the new Mini DV rather than stating it is not an editing codcec. Is AVCHD/h.264 as good as AVC-intra? Of course not but it can be edited just fine. Apple will be able to do it one of these days and you will think it is way cool.
Click to expand...

h.264 being "the new miniDV" has nothing to do with its being an editing codec or not. It was developed as a distribution format, but has been adapted and adopted as an acquisition codec (still not the same as an editing codec). The fact is, whether or not your NLE can edit h.264 files, the footage cannot be pushed as far in post as true editing codecs without suffering some pretty noticeable quality loss.

medeamajic said:
Seven years ago people were converting HDV into intermediate codecs but who would do that now days?
Click to expand...

Editing in HDV is also editing in a GOP codec, which isn't as robust in post processing. Cuts-only, or editing with little/no color correction or grading? Fine. Still, I wouldn't want to do it because there's a huge difference between can and should. But then, tapeless is fast becoming the rule anyway and HDV acquisition is dropping fast.
 
C2V said:
The GOP explanation was really for the edification of others who read this thread. As for Premiere or Edius... bully for them. We are, after all, in the FCP forum, so we need to examine the reality of editing h.264 in FCP.



h.264 being "the new miniDV" has nothing to do with its being an editing codec or not. It was developed as a distribution format, but has been adapted and adopted as an acquisition codec (still not the same as an editing codec). The fact is, whether or not your NLE can edit h.264 files, the footage cannot be pushed as far in post as true editing codecs without suffering some pretty noticeable quality loss.



Editing in HDV is also editing in a GOP codec, which isn't as robust in post processing. Cuts-only, or editing with little/no color correction or grading? Fine. Still, I wouldn't want to do it because there's a huge difference between can and should. But then, tapeless is fast becoming the rule anyway and HDV acquisition is dropping fast.
Click to expand...


It is a FCP forum but the original poster had questions of editing h.264. He was wondering if it was hype or not. It is not hype. Most editing programs other than FCP can do it with ease.

HDV is a type of MPEG II to and does use GOP but I can pull of green screens with native HDV and AVCHD using Premiere Pro because Premiere Pro edits AVCHD and HDV in a 4:4:4 color space on the fly in realtime. AVCHD is tape less and that is why AVCHD is the new Mini DV of HD so to speak. The color space of AVCHD is not as good as AVC-Intra but many editing programs can edit native AVCHD just as easy as editing Mini DV tapes six years ago. I don't use an intermediate codec and my clients are happy. FCP usesr who have made the switch admit that the CC of Premiere Pro make intermediate codecs obsolete.

So the answer is yes. You can edit native AVCHD/h.264 just fine. You just can not do it using FCP. I hope this answers the question.
 
We are here to assist with the original question posed by the OP.

He is or will be using FCP, and asked about converting versus editing h.264 natively.

Let's try to assist with the interrogatory and not debate the relative merits of Premiere on a Mac, or Edius, etc. on a PC.
 
David S. said:
We are here to assist with the original question posed by the OP.

He is or will be using FCP, and asked about converting versus editing h.264 natively.

Let's try to assist with the interrogatory and not debate the relative merits of Premiere on a Mac, or Edius, etc. on a PC.
Click to expand...



I don't think there was ever a debate of the merits of FCP, Premiere or Edius. I think there was a lot of missleading info stating that you should not edit native AVCH/h.264 but that is not true. That is why I gave examples. Using the Apple Pro Res is just a waste of time but it is a step that must be done when using FCP. I think the original poster is hoping FCP will be able to edit native h.264 soon. I am letting him know that it can be done (this should be good news). I am sure the next version of FCP will be able to do it. If not FCP will become obsolete. Wouldn't you agree?
 
No I don't agree that lack of native h.264 editing is going make FCP obsolete.

h.264 is a acquisition format for many consumer camcorders and the DSLR crowd, among others. It's hardly a robust codec when compared to other available codecs, especially when color space is factored in.

I do believe that if FCP doesn't meet your needs for native h.264 editing, get something that does. There is more to the editing experience than native editing of computational intensive, LONG GOP, interframe, acquisition/delivery codecs.
 
David S. said:
No I don't agree that lack of native h.264 editing is going make FCP obsolete.

h.264 is a acquisition format for many consumer camcorders and the DSLR crowd, among others. It's hardly a robust codec when compared to other available codecs, especially when color space is factored in.

I do believe that if FCP doesn't meet your needs for native h.264 editing, get something that does. There is more to the editing experience than native editing of computational intensive, LONG GOP, interframe, acquisition/delivery codecs.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to be rude but I think you are giving bad advise and dodging the issue at hand reguarding h.264. AVCHD has been used for broadcast by the BBC and even some of the Discovery Channel shows have used AVCHD cameras but this is realy a non issue and I will explain why later. Is AVCHD as good as the Red One camera? Of couse not. Is it being used in the field of broadcast? Yes it is. The fact that the h.264 codec is not as robust as AVC-Intra or the Red One codec is a non issue. Why? Because it is obviously being used. In fact many FCP users are editng AVCHD/h.264. Do all FCP users edit h.264? Of course not but from reading the forums here and many other forums there are a lot of FCP users that do edit h.264. The question is not if h.264 is as robust as AVC-Intra or the Red One codec. The question is if natvie AVCHD can be edit with out the need for an intermediate codec. Stating h.264 is not as robust as AVC-Intra is not an answer to the question. Telling a FCP users that AVCHD/h.264 is not as good as AVC-Intra is irrelevant if they have 6 hours worth of AVCHD/h.264 they need to edit for a client.
 
High end broadcast program editing is not typically done in native H.264 or any other long GOP compressed format. Transcoding to a higher quality intra frame codec like Prores or Cineform 10 bit 4:2:2 is the first step. You have a much easier time in post with FX and grading with a good codec even when the original is long GOP.
 
Last edited:
h.264 is a highly efficient and very robust delivery codec, but it is not intended to be nor designed to be an editing codec.

I don't believe many would dispute whether AVCIntra is a more robust acquisition and editing codec than h.264.

Now let's get back to the OP's original question.

If you wish to discuss h.264 here, then start your own thread and couch the issues within it.

Please stay within the parameters of the OP's question.
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
High end broadcast program editing is not typically done in native H.264 or any other long GOP compressed format. Transcoding to a higher quality intra frame codec like Prores or Cineform 10 bit 4:2:2 is the first step. You have a much easier time in post with FX and grading with a good codec even when the original is long GOP.
Click to expand...

At least you are admiting AVCHD is used. I admit it is not the best option but many FCP users have to edit h.264 at times. Most editing software can do CC in 4:4:4 color space on the fly. If I pulled of a good green screen with native AVCHD would that convince you that you can edit native h.264 with out the need to transcode to an intermediate codec?
 
David S. said:
h.264 is a highly efficient and very robust delivery codec, but it is not intended to be nor designed to be an editing codec.

I don't believe many would dispute whether AVCIntra is a more robust acquisition and editing codec than h.264.

Now let's get back to the OP's original question.

If you wish to discuss h.264 here, then start your own thread and couch the issues within it.

Please stay within the parameters of the OP's question.
Click to expand...

I am adressing the OP questions and I think my comments are just a valid as anyone elses if not more valid. What the original intent of h.264 was is a non issue as you can tell. It is not just a delivery codec if they are manufacturing cameras with XLR connects and interchangable lenses that use h.264/AVCHD. I think your post would have some merit if there were no cameras using h.264/AVCHD and no FCP user was asked to edit h.264 but that is not the case? Just stating that AVCHD is not the best codec to use and was not intended to be edited natively does not change the fact that it can be edited natively with many software programs. AVCHD/h.264 has been used for commercials, infomercials and even a few TV shows and we editors are called upon to edit AVCHD/h.264. Learning to accept that AVCHD/h.264 is being used as more than a delivary codcec is a better mind set to have when discussing h.264. AVCHD would not be me first choice for a camera codec but I am glad my system can edit it natively for my clients that do have h.264 cameras.
 
medeamajic said:
At least you are admiting AVCHD is used. I admit it is not the best option but many FCP users have to edit h.264 at times. Most editing software can do CC in 4:4:4 color space on the fly. If I pulled of a good green screen with native AVCHD would that convince you that you can edit native h.264 with out the need to transcode to an intermediate codec?
Click to expand...

If your software and computer can handle the generation of full 4:4:4 frames real time from H.264 for FX and get good results, by all means use it. This does require a faster more processing intensive capable work station to do efficiently than working with an offline transcode though.

I will say that the very best video I have seen from DSLR's so far has been transcoded and edited in Cineform. But as machines and software get more powerful and refined it should become a non-issue. Drop it on the time line and go.
 
Razz16mm said:
If your software and computer can handle the generation of full 4:4:4 frames real time from H.264 for FX and get good results, by all means use it. This does require a faster more processing intensive capable work station to do efficiently than working with an offline transcode though.

I will say that the very best video I have seen from DSLR's so far has been transcoded and edited in Cineform. But as machines and software get more powerful and refined it should become a non-issue. Drop it on the time line and go.
Click to expand...

I can only imagine the next version of FCP will be able to edit native AVCHD with ease. AVCHD/h.264 is much harder to playback than HDV or Mini DV but CPUs will continue to get faster and faster as you have stated. I just have an i7 so I can only imagine what the 8 Core CPUs can do. The new Sandy Bridge CPUs should offer a tad bit more FX to be applied in realtime than what my i7 can offer. I imagine in 2 years from now a brand new a mediocre $600.00 Dell will be able to edit several layers of native AVCHD/h.264. Technology rocks in our favor ; )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top