EDITING H-264 easier

I don't know much in terms of compression formats and the like, so I apologize in advance, but I believe the best workflow would be to take the t2i footage I have, convert it to prores (using compresser I assume?), edit it in final cut and then export it back to h264? Is that correct?

Right now I just drop the h264 footage from the t2i directly in Final Cut and haven't really noticed any issues while editing but I haven't had the t2i very long and have only done a couple projects with it. I guess this isn't the smartest thing to do? I have about 80-100 gigs of footage for each project and am not too keen on spending hours converting footage to ProRes though unless there are some major tangible benefits for me specifically.
 
cyclonebill said:
Right now I just drop the h264 footage from the t2i directly in Final Cut and haven't really noticed any issues while editing but I haven't had the t2i very long and have only done a couple projects with it. I guess this isn't the smartest thing to do? I have about 80-100 gigs of footage for each project and am not too keen on spending hours converting footage to ProRes though unless there are some major tangible benefits for me specifically.
Click to expand...

Just ask yourself, if you didn't have to transcode all your footage, would you still do it. It seems that you don't have to.

I also work with EX3 files, should I transcode all those files as well? Of course not because CS4 supports them. CS4 also handles H-264 files on a i7 quite well. CS5 should have full support.

The only reason for transcoding files (In my opinion) is if it is impossible for your editing system to handle the load.

I just finished 4 projects using the H-264 files with no issues, and I do export my final shots for grading, but that is exported to uncompressed 32 bit files that suffer no tanscoding degrading of the image.
 
Last edited:
I think its a case of whatever works for you on your system. So long as the job is done to everyone's satisfaction then there is no wrong way or right way.

Tell me Rockmore, because I don't have a PC. If you watch EX3 media and then transcode it to h264 on a PC. Is the gamma still the same ?
 
J Davis said:
I think its a case of whatever works for you on your system. So long as the job is done to everyone's satisfaction then there is no wrong way or right way.

Tell me Rockmore, because I don't have a PC. If you watch EX3 media and then transcode it to h264 on a PC. Is the gamma still the same ?
Click to expand...

I agree 100% what ever works for you and gets the job delivered is golden.

EX3 on the i7 CS4 is as fast and smooth as DV files, if CS5 does H-264 as well, I may do back hand springs down the street.
I haven't been satisfied 100% with any transcoding including back to H-264. As I mentioned they all shift the image and take time to bring back to square one.

To me the only export file the looks exactly the same is uncompressed 32bit. 10bit and 8bit 4:2:2 look as good on my 22 inch monitor.

From my uncompressed export I use Canopus Procoder 3 to convert to what ever the client needs, but the uncompressed final project is beautiful.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, then I suggest you need to either examine the toolset you're using, or maybe switch tool sets. I've done plenty of transcodes without gamma shift. Particularly H.264 to DNxHD for editing purpose, and DNxHD to mpeg4 or WMV for upload. Also to AVC for BluRay or VC1 for BluRay. No color shift to be seen.
 
PerroneFord said:
Hmm, then I suggest you need to either examine the toolset you're using, or maybe switch tool sets. I've done plenty of transcodes without gamma shift. Particularly H.264 to DNxHD for editing purpose, and DNxHD to mpeg4 or WMV for upload. Also to AVC for BluRay or VC1 for BluRay. No color shift to be seen.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but I did try a lot of conversions at many different settings in Avid DNxHD. And when I examined them side by side they were not identical.

I just don't see the need to convert files when they work the way they came from the camera.

You wouldn't convert EX3 files to another file before editing. I look at H-264 files the same way. The only difference to me is the support for EX3 in CS4 and the support for H264 is in CS5 .
 
Last edited:
im using h.264 raw in cs5 on a i7 fine(with no lag of any sort)... im no pro yet but i have not encountered any sort of problems... its like you guys said, whatever works for you...

and this is working for me so im not going to transcode until someone proves that there is a better way like saying the image quality or something of the like will be better if i transcode h.264 to something else
 
Really good posts,i've been going thru transcode headaches for the last 2 weeks so these posts have given me a bit more clarity because the editing after using streamclip has been kicking my machines ass and i hate it.I will definitely do some researching on CS5,hopefully it can ease my editing whoa's.Thanks guys keep the info useful coming.
 
jewlzthedirector said:
editing after using streamclip has been kicking my machines ass and i hate it.
Click to expand...

I also imported Avid DNxHD files, converted in Streamclip, and they worked no easier on my i7 in CS4 than the original H-264 files.
The one thing that has worked perfectly is adding a minimal correction to get the line to turn from yellow to red, then render the timeline. I'll be installing CS5 in another week and get back to you.
 
MajorLeagueEnt said:
im using h.264 raw in cs5 on a i7 fine(with no lag of any sort)... im no pro yet but i have not encountered any sort of problems... its like you guys said, whatever works for you...

and this is working for me so im not going to transcode until someone proves that there is a better way like saying the image quality or something of the like will be better if i transcode h.264 to something else
Click to expand...

That's because there aren't any problems - it works perfectly. There is a split second lag when you start playing on my computer - that's it. I can't wait until FCP and other PC editors catch up with CS5 so that these transcoding conversations will be put to bed.

There's no comparison between CS4 and CS5, btw.

I've exported stills from my timelines in CS5 compared to multiple transcoded formats and they're always better of course. Any format conversion will result in quality loss.
 
ROCKMORE said:
You may be right, but I did try a lot of conversions at many different settings in Avid DNxHD. And when I examined them side by side they were not identical.
Click to expand...

Ok.

ROCKMORE said:
I just don't see the need to convert files when they work the way they came from the camera.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've said as much.

ROCKMORE said:
You wouldn't convert EX3 files to another file before editing.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes I do.

ROCKMORE said:
I look at H-264 files the same way. The only difference to me is the support for EX3 in CS4 and the support for H264 is in CS5 .
Click to expand...

My editors support everything CS5 does. And I still convert. But to each their own.
 
I am very interested in CS5 and I am no apple fanboy, but it is disappointing to see videos like this as they read like one big sale pitch. I would love to see someone independent from adobe put both editors thru their paces.

Sure you can put h264 media on a premier pro timeline and set in/out points. You can also do that in final cut. Whoop-de-do.

I want to see a cross fade edit from one h264 file to another where I-frames don't line up. That would be a good test. And I'm sure CS5 could probably handle it but vid's like this don't give us enough information.
 
I saw that video yesterday and frankly was very disappointed in it. They had an opportunity to really showcase CS5's advantages, and essentially showed us nothing about CS5, and told us something we already knew about FCP... transcoding takes time.

Woeful.
 
Didn't he slip up at one stage? I'm sure I heard him say R3D wrapped in prores... LOL

No offense intended to the dvxuser who posted the vid. Thanks for sharing anyway.
Also none intended to adobe who are awesome. It was adobe programmers who originally wrote final cut after all ...
 
I liked the part where he said 4 4 4 on import. Got a little tired hearing many say how you can't color grade effectively without transcode.
 
videohog said:
I liked the part where he said 4 4 4 on import. Got a little tired hearing many say how you can't color grade effectively without transcode.
Click to expand...

CS5 does this, as does Vegas. But most NLEs do NOT to my knowledge. Thus the transcode is CRUCIAL if you intend to grade.

As with most things, you need to learn your tools. Folks in Hollywood aren't scanning to 4K DPX files for their health. There is a REASON they take the time to transcode both to frame-based files, as well as to ProRes or DNxHD 36 for editorial. Moving around 20TB of ProRes is a HECK of a lot easier than moving around 100TB of ARRIRAW, R3D, or other high end formats.

Just because you don't HAVE to transcode, doesn't mean you shouldn't. There are reasons for doing it even though it adds time to the workflow. Yes, CS5 removes the burden of handling H.264 for basic edits. And if you are a self-contained shop, that may work well for you. But as soon as you start collaborating and having to hand off sequences that you've worked on to others for round-trips, that time you saved by not transcoding up front, will just get tossed out the window.

What are you going to send the guy who's doing your sound mixing? Can he handle your h.264 files? How about the person scoring? Or doing VFX? How's that guy who'd doing your grading in Color or on the new DaVinci Resolve going to handle your H.264? Or just maybe, it makes sense at the beginning of your workflow to get your files into a format that everyone can work with. Again, if you are a one-man-band, probably not so important. By the way, how's After Effects working with h.264 files?
 
lol!

I don't care if you don't transcode, just don't say that working directly with h264 is the "right" way to do it. It is a workaround at best; so many easily influenced people read these posts, it ends up spreading mis-information. People don't tend to remeber the "buts".


I trancode! We transcode! Transcoding rocks!

I am going to make a t-shirt!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top