EDITING H-264 easier

ROCKMORE

ROCKMORE

Veteran
I've been editing H-264 for a while on an i7 and it works well, but when I drag too many files on the timeline at one time my CS4 freezes up.
About 15 GB or 50 minutes of 1080 25fps will cause problems. The more of the timeline that is showing the worse it gets. I really want as much of my project on the timeline as possible.

I discovered a simple way to work it out. I divided my project into 8 folders before importing and imported them into 8 bins in the order the files were shot.

Then I drag one bin of files to the timeline and trim the shots with no trouble.

After I cut the shots down to what I want to edit, I drag that group of shots up to another track and turn off the eye icon so only the audio plays. I continued the process with all 8 bins and put each group on a different from track 2 to track 9 with the images off. This way I can just turn on one set of files at a time to scan for shots.

This may sound like a pain in the ass, but I was able to work much faster with no crashes or restarts, and it's very organized when you get used to it.

When I started editing the footage together, I just drag the section I want to work with to the bottom track which stays on all the time.

This has really lightened the load on my system, so I decided to try turning off all the track visuals before saving and closing the project. Now when I open my project again it starts much faster because it's not trying to read and open every image on the timeline.

Before doing my final edit I save the trimmed projects with the visuals off. I usually have to do additional edits, so this allows me to return to a project with all my trimmed shots ready to edit.

CS5 may be better, we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Simple huh? You know what the best, simplest way is? Transcode your footage! Editing in a long-GOP codec on any NLE will never be as fast, reliable, or high quality as editing footage that has been transcoded to an I-frame codec. It's a mostly painless, easy step, that will help you a ton in the long run. You're getting to shoot with a sub-$2,000 or even $1,000 camera that produces great images....at that point is it really worth complaining about having to do one extra step in post. (which isn't even REALLY an extra step, as digital acquisition has almost always had some step or another between the card and editing, and when shooting with a Canon or editing AVCHD on a CS system there is just one step, transcoding...no log and transfer like us FCP AVCHD guys have to deal with.) Just transcode your footage to an I-frame codec. It's good for the mind and soul...also body if you're into that, but I am more of an MPEG-2 guy when it comes to my body. Ok sorry, it's early, I'm confused. But not by this: Long story short: transcode.
 
Ben_B said:
Transcode your footage!
Click to expand...

Never. I've tested many transcoding programs and they all degrade the image. At the same time add a new set of files to the storage system at least 4 times larger. Everyone believes in their own method, and should work with what they feel comfortable with.
When editing native H-264 files this system is helpful.
 
Last edited:
No ones explained yet why i can edit raw 550D 1920P files with Pinnacle 14 with perfect quality,ive compared an avchd to live camera play back, i did not expect to be able to.:beer:
 
subtleinspiration said:
What transcoding "programs" have you tested?
Click to expand...

I tested every file type in Canopus Procoder 3, every export file type out of CS4, but spent the most time with Avid DNxHD and Streamclip which seems to be the highest rated. I tried many side by side tests with different subjects from skin tones to chrome bumpers and was not able to match the two pictures exactly. With corrections the conversion looked good, but was not the original balance of color and contrast. It changed the values between objects and shadows. It became a different image.
The additional corrections also takes more time and timeline rendering plus an additional 2nd file to log, manage and store at 4 times the size.
If you add up the time it takes to transcode every file you shoot, make folders, make duplicate copies of your new files, it takes much longer than editing the native files directly, which are far better.
Like I said, everybody should work with the option they feel comfortable.
With the simple system I listed in the beginning of this post I was able to load and edit all of my 15 GB 1080 files on the timeline at once with zero crashes, in about the time it would take to load and edit a DV project.

Transcode or don't transcode, that is the question.

I have never found it the case that a duplicate of a film negative, chrome transparency, or transcoded HD file is as good as the original.
 
Last edited:
hey rockmore, i'm not on a pc but if i were i would try to get cineform and transcode
no need to transcode every file, I only transcode the takes that make the select
h264 gamma is wrong anyway plus you run the risk of corruption on crossfade edits
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
I tested every file type in Canopus Procoder 3, every export file type out of CS4, but spent the most time with Avid DNxHD and Streamclip which seems to be the highest rated. I tried many side by side tests with different subjects from skin tones to chrome bumpers and was not able to match the two pictures exactly. With corrections the conversion looked good, but was not the original balance of color and contrast. It changed the values between objects and shadows. It became a different image.
The additional corrections also takes more time and timeline rendering plus an additional 2nd file to log, manage and store at 4 times the size.
If you add up the time it takes to transcode every file you shoot, make folders, make duplicate copies of your new files, it takes much longer than editing the native files directly, which are far better.
Like I said, everybody should work with the option they feel comfortable.
With the simple system I listed in the beginning of this post I was able to load and edit all of my 15 GB 1080 files on the timeline at once with zero crashes, in about the time it would take to load and edit a DV project.

Transcode or don't transcode, that is the question.

I have never found it the case that a duplicate of a film negative, chrome transparency, or transcoded HD file is as good as the original.
Click to expand...

Try adobe media encoder. In any case, there are many transcoding methods that are visually lossless, and since you're converting to a 422 color space (if you go that route) your footage will handle color correction a bit better since you'll be working in that color space.

In any case if you can't match the two pictures exactly in terms of color, etc, you're doing something wrong.
 
Ben_B said:
Try adobe media encoder. In any case, there are many transcoding methods that are visually lossless, and since you're converting to a 422 color space (if you go that route) your footage will handle color correction a bit better since you'll be working in that color space.
Click to expand...

I do export my rough edit to an Uncompressed Quicktime 32bit file before grading.
Adobe Media Encoder is what I use to export.
 
Last edited:
Ben_B said:
In any case if you can't match the two pictures exactly in terms of color, etc, you're doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

Side by side they can appear very close, but the straight transcoded files still needs extra time to correct, and then the corrections need to be rendered.

I just don't see the reason to go through all those extra steps of transcoding and correcting, when I can edit the original file.
 
Last edited:
It depends on what your editing and the extensiveness of the edit.
If I have simple edits, family stuff I throw h264 files on a timeline, cut, ripple, export, done.
If I'm on a job where we are continually altering in/out points, cross fade edits, dip to color edits,
lower thirds you name it there is no way h264 would fly.
Remember in 24p, h264 is only two frames a second. The other 22 frames are interpreted sequentially from those two.
eg to see frame 4 you get frame 1, calculate frame 2, from that the processor calculates frame 3, from that the processor calculates frame 4.
a mental picture it would kinda look like this
i..........i...........i..........i...........
(where the i represents the i frame and the . represents the next eleven calculated frames)

if you edit and your second clip starts on frame 4 then it may look like this
i...........i...........i...(edit point).......i...........i...........
so you see the frames after the edit point are now dependent on an i frame that is not even in the timeline!
And that's just on a simple cut. Dissolves are the worst and most prone to errors.

h264 is a great delivery codec and was never meant to be an editing codec.
 
hey Michael, I wouldn't bother typing up that explanation for just anyone .. I like you bro, not trying to rain on your parade
 
J Davis said:
h264 is a great delivery codec and was never meant to be an editing codec.
Click to expand...

Coming from the broadcast industry myself, this is the truth. The only exception might be premiere cs5 and it's native h.264 editing feature. But Im solely FCP at my job.
 
Last edited:
J Davis said:
hey Michael, I wouldn't bother typing up that explanation for just anyone .. I like you bro, not trying to rain on your parade
Click to expand...

No worries, if it saves one person out of a hundred a little trouble it was worth it. That's what we're all here for, to share useful information.
 
Last edited:
Michael,
Thanks for the post and some good tips. I work on mostly on a old laptop and my main editing PC is now 3yrs old. Raw H.264 edits just does not work for me right now.

Cineform is amazing on these machines for editing. Cineform HD files cut and color corrects real time like butter. Where the raw files can not even play real time.
The file size for a medium quality CF file is only 1.2 - 1.5 times the size of most.
I also like the "grain" quality of the wavelet compression. Right now I'm keep the raw files as well as CF files. So I do need over twice the storage space for both files.

Any one editing on a i7 laptop? I'm kind of leaning to making a laptop my new editing machine.
 
RyanFilms said:
Any one editing on a i7 laptop? I'm kind of leaning to making a laptop my new editing machine.
Click to expand...



This is the thread that got me started with the i7 back in January. I have a tower but this guy uses a laptop. The i7 is very fast. I also upgraded my backup PC to a Quadcore last month. It's good, but the i7 is at least 2x faster.
Posted by nextwave. I can't find his thread in the i7 setup but these are a few of his posts. He's a good guy and posts a lot of useful info.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=201528
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=192338
 
Last edited:
i have a question, cs5 allows you to edit native files easily now correct?! But if all J.Davis (and others say is true...and i believe it is) why then is editing the native files in cs5 advantageous? (apart from convenience). Wont you have the same problems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top