Native support fcp?

Lumiere

Lumiere

Well-known member
hi all

as long as i'm not a fcp user but seriosully planning to move through, i just wonder if any video file extension exists which you can just drag to fcp timeline from the bin? Or is it still transcodes to prores whatever you want to edit in fcp..I guess there is a weird way of native support to .r3d files(because the way of understanding "native" is different for fcp) What about P2? Do you need to transcode every single footage to prores you have shot?

One more question, one of my friend said that the avid's dnxHD codec and the prores family uses the same alagortym so thats why prores is very good on its transcodes. Is that thrue?

thanks in advance
 
FCP can edit a number of formats native, although not all formats that are supported natively can utilize FCPs render engine. What this means is that every change you make (such as dropping on a filter or adding a cross dissolve) will have to be rendered before you can see it. For example, I can drop an clip made w/the Animation codec into an Animation timeline in FCP and it will playback fine (assuming you have fast enough drives to support the data rate) but if I put a cross dissolve on the timeline I will have to render the dissolve before I can see it. PS has to re-wrapped from MXF into .mov as everything is based off of QuickTime in Apple land. This re-wrap doesn't cause a quality loss but I do believe some metadata gets lost although don't quote me on that.

Also, file extensions (.avi, .mov, etc.,) are just containers and have no bearing on what codec is inside of them. For example, a .mov file could be DVCPro HD, DV, ProRes, or Animation codec.


-A
 
Ok then fcp wraps everything into qt files which doesn't means transcoding? Ok you even may make larger files then your orginal footage if you like to, but i really dont understand how it can't loose quality? just because of its qt, final cut can import directly all qt files, right. even if it doesnt matter which codec its, or for some codecs it works with others it doesn't?

I know its too technically detailled to catch the difference between wrapped and orginal footage(if its high quality), but this "re-wrapping" issiue is quite sucks on fcp, isn't it? I'm used to edit on premiere so their interface looks amazingly similiar, i thought it won't be a problem to switch to fcp but i'm so used to not wait for re-wrapping and transcoding times on premiere even with .r3d's. Just drag and drop to your timeline:) but i agree, realtime playback and rendering effects are somethingelse.
 
Just try it out at an Apple Store- you're never going to know if it's a good program for you from someone else trying to sell you on it. It's not Adobe Premiere and that has its good and bad points.

Noah
 
Lumiere said:
Ok then fcp wraps everything into qt files which doesn't means transcoding?
Click to expand...
A loose analogy is think of the container (AVI, MOV, etc.,) as an envelope and the codec (Animation, ProRes, H.264, etc.,) as a letter inside the envelope. A re-wrap takes the letter out of one envelope and puts it into another envelope. No changes happened to the letter as it just went from container A to container B. If footage needs to be transcoded though that is akin to translating the letter from one language to another and how this affects the quality of the letter depends on the original language, the new language and the skill of the translator.

Formats like DVCPro HD on P2 or XDCAM EX don't need to be transcoded to work w/FCP just re-wrapped into QT files. Other formats, like AVCHD, have to be transcoded into another format such as ProRes.

Ok you even may make larger files then your orginal footage if you like to, but i really dont understand how it can't loose quality?
Click to expand...
Very strictly speaking every time you transcode, even if it's from DV to Uncompressed, you lose quality (even if it's undetectable) so you might hear people talking about 'paper loss' vs 'real world loss.' A paper loss means, yes, mathematically speaking you did lose quality but in reality it's insignificant (ex. going from DV to Uncompressed) where as a real world loss means the degradation to the footage is apparent and noticeable by eye or by scopes (ex. going from Uncompressed to DV).


just because of its qt, final cut can import directly all qt files, right. even if it doesnt matter which codec its, or for some codecs it works with others it doesn't?
Click to expand...
Not all codecs are supported by FCP even if the codec is wrapped in the QT container.

I know its too technically detailled to catch the difference between wrapped and orginal footage(if its high quality), but this "re-wrapping" issiue is quite sucks on fcp, isn't it? I'm used to edit on premiere so their interface looks amazingly similiar, i thought it won't be a problem to switch to fcp but i'm so used to not wait for re-wrapping and transcoding times on premiere even with .r3d's. Just drag and drop to your timeline:) but i agree, realtime playback and rendering effects are somethingelse.
Click to expand...
All NLEs have their pro's and con's so it's best to pick the one that works best for you and the types of projects you work on. If being able to drag and drop anything you want into the timeline is of paramount importance to you then the current version of FCP is probably not for you.


-A
 
Right now I'd say Adobe is the better product on the market. If your already invested into Premiere CS4, I'd hold off on switching and save your funds until Apple goes gold with a 64bit version. Something we've been expecting for a while now. Right now Adobe is further along in the 64bit route then FCP is, and if you can do what you need to do in Premiere right now I'd say sit tight and be patient to see what both Apple does with the 64bit version of FCS & what Adobe delivers with CS5 which should be even more 64bit native.

More to your question, Most any codec with the exception of h.264 can be played back on the FCP timeline from a simple drag and drop in. But as others have said, any effects applied requires a render. And when FCP renders you're forced to wait. you can't continue working, there is no background rendering right now. Not terrible for small effects, but there are times when complex effects or even whole timelines need a full render.

P2 footage is logged and transferred upon import. If you're shooting DVCProHD, it will import as a DVCProHD. You would then need to transcode it again to make it ProRes.

I'd say ProRes is the preferred codec. Mostly because I do a lot of Color work and when you mix DVCProHD footage with other codecs on the timeline, Color can't output back to the original DVCProHD Codec. And with the slightly odd resolution of DVCProHD, it can cause graphics and other elemets to shift and change properties when your Color-ed timeline footage is now ProRes HD, which again is a slightly different resolution and pixel ratio. You typically don't render your graphics, or you loose their transparency matte, so they get migrated from the original timeline. The footage/sequence settings are then different and the graphics are slightly off and your need to readjust.


Starting with a complete ProRes timeline from the start will save some pain further down the workflow path. Been there done that. But it does take an extra step upon import, running the clips though compressor to transcode everything to ProRes before editing a single clip. We shoot with HVX200's and I've not been able to find a way to import their P2 footage as ProRes from the start unless we do a real time capture. ( its in the FCP manual )
 
Last edited:
ok thanks for your replies.I'm so used to premiere but the suspicious export engine of it always irritated me.Its very hard to get 40 minutes finished timeline without any problem.Even in fastest pc's, so i'm thinking to move fcp as i mentioned before, but it also means to change my paltform from pc to Mac, as well:)Which makes me very excited and very scared..

I do undertand the way of fcp's working logic and this wrapping thing is not that much deal i guess so.According to con's.
 
I'm not sure you'll find much of a speed increase in FCP right now compared to Premiere. Unless you are creating h.264 copies, for which Compressor has a great trick of utilizing multi core machines.

I'd sit tight for at least a few months if your planning on buying new hardware. Especially if you are in the budget for a Mac Pro.

The 6core / 12core towers are expected to be the next Mac Pro release. And that's due in within the next 6 months... ( possibly even today alongside the tablet announcement?? :~)
 
>Right now I'd say Adobe is the better product on the market.

For what purpose? Editing what types of projects? Feature films? No. I don't know of one feature film edited with Premiere. Maybe a small indie, but nothing major. Long form documentary? No... Premiere isn't good with long form. Narrative broadcast television? I haven't seen it used yet on any long form cable series or documentary.

SHORT FORM? Commercials, corporate video, music video? Yes, I have seen it there a lot.

When you say BEST, you need to qualify it. Because every NLE is good at some things, but not others. I cannot see using premiere for long form anything in my future. The media management is worse than FCP, that is worse than Avid, and tracking large amounts of footage is key with those types of shows.
 
I thought I did qualify it when talking about how much further along they are in their adoption of 64bit & taking more advantage of current multi-core Mac Pros then FCS currently does. At least publicly, and with a product you can actually use now.

I use FCS every day and I don't see us ever swapping out to Premiere either. We've been invested into the FCS workflow for a while. It works and we're used to it. We have no logical reason to jump ship over to Premiere. But I'm not going to tell people that it's perfect when it isn't. And I'm certainly not going to underestimate the competition based on a popularity ego complex.

If you're already invested into Premiere it and it's working, why should you jump ship to FCP? It might be wise to wait it out a little while to see what the next versions of both programs will bring before pulling the trigger prematurely. Unless you got plenty of money to burn and don't really care about how much it costs to keep buying applications.

I've seen that kind of jump ship thinking before in the DSLR camp when everyone jumped over to Canon because they had the better sensors. I stuck with Nikon and now I'm having the last laugh because many who jumped ship are now looking at the latest Nikon cameras I'm using with jealousy. The D700 & D3s are better then Canon's offering. Specifically in the low light category. Which is where much of my shooting takes place. You can't always control the lighting, especially in live events such as weddings. But of course that could all change again though this year. Canon might just leap frog ahead again. That's just how this stuff works. Impulsive decisions are not always the best decisions long term. Especially in an industry where the gear is quite expensive.


I don't know why premiere wouldn't be a good program. I've read plenty of good reviews on Premiere CS4. You could be right, but you didn't explain why yourself with the exception of a FCP fanboy mentality. Why isn't it good for long form? You didn't exactly qualify your statements either. Why is CS4 only good for short commercials or corporate projects? Even if it is, what's so wrong about that? Plenty of people make their living off of those projects. But are you saying that if you don't work on movie productions or other story driven projects then your not a real editor?

Just because more folks are heavily invested into FCS or AVID doesn't mean that Premiere is junk.

To me it's so advertised ability to edit more formats natively makes it a strong viable option. Background rendering support seems quite appealing. FCS 2009's background export is awful. It's way too slow. Adobe is further along in it's adoption to 64bit & multi-core programming in their current retail product. With a guarantee from Adobe that ALL of Adobe's next product versions will be 64bit applications. So we know which direction Adobe is heading and we have a pretty good idea what time frame we can expect to see this all happening. It's in their NEXT version. Adobe has publicly and officially stated this.

Which is much more then what we get from Apple's secret society policy. We can put a puzzle together based on other developments Apple is working on. But you gotta be a detective, read the tea leaves and make a prediction that may or may not happen. We have no idea what kind of time frame to expect for the next big FCS development.

It makes it easier to plan ahead when we know what's on the way. It's nice that at least one company see's value in letting their customers know exactly what their long term plans are. I hope the next version of FCS is that shinny new 64 bit version. But it could very well be the same kind of mundane disappointment that FCS 2009 is. Which really wasn't much of an update. There are a few small details that I'm glad they did. But bottom line is there is still a lot of horsepower in our Mac Pro towers that FCS simply isn't utilizing properly.

There's no reason FCS shouldn't be able to do live, background rendering. I mean iMovie can even do it. Why do I have to stop and wait for my clips to render? And why are those renders only using 1/3 of the total CPU power available in my tower? Why does a background export take twice as long as a dedicated export? Why does turning on audio waveforms take so long to load? It's all in the program code and Adobe is again further along in their efforts to adapt to modern systems in their current retail product. IMO it makes them a pretty strong contender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top