newbie wants to edit Canon ML Raw in FCPX-how?
- Thread starter robfilms
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
There's no native support for the metadata in FCPX. You need to do the editing in a third party software and then convert the clips to ProRes (for example) to start cutting. Technically you can import .DNGs (for example) into FCPX, but you probably don't want to do that with lots of footage.
I haven't been following all of the latest developments in ML or recommended software (old and new), but you should definitely check out YouTube...there have always been a lot of tutorials and workflows out there.
I haven't been following all of the latest developments in ML or recommended software (old and new), but you should definitely check out YouTube...there have always been a lot of tutorials and workflows out there.
El Director
Veteran
Look up Cinema DNG workflows
I use Raw4Pro to write Prores or Cineform video codecs, proxies and master quality, to edit.
Or I use Resolve to do a "best Light" grade match of all shots, scene by scene and export that to a 16 bit 4:4:4 RGB Cineform master for editing.
I don't edit DNG raw files directly. It takes a pretty powerful computer and fast raid arrays to edit CDNG raw files directly.
NLE's compromise deBayer quality for real time speed, so you won't get your best IQ editing raw files. Resolve is currently the best compromise for high quality and time efficiency.
I use PC's, so Cineform is a more practical DI codec for me.
For absolute best IQ I use Rawtherapee or Capture One Pro for their much more sophisticated processing algorithms. But they require roughly 200 times the processing power of Resolve. For most computers we are talking about seconds per frame, not frames per second. The output is 8-bit JPEG or 16 bit TIFF frame stacks.
Or I use Resolve to do a "best Light" grade match of all shots, scene by scene and export that to a 16 bit 4:4:4 RGB Cineform master for editing.
I don't edit DNG raw files directly. It takes a pretty powerful computer and fast raid arrays to edit CDNG raw files directly.
NLE's compromise deBayer quality for real time speed, so you won't get your best IQ editing raw files. Resolve is currently the best compromise for high quality and time efficiency.
I use PC's, so Cineform is a more practical DI codec for me.
For absolute best IQ I use Rawtherapee or Capture One Pro for their much more sophisticated processing algorithms. But they require roughly 200 times the processing power of Resolve. For most computers we are talking about seconds per frame, not frames per second. The output is 8-bit JPEG or 16 bit TIFF frame stacks.
Last edited:
thanks all for sharing your thoughts.
i don't fully understand the benefit of shooting in mlv RAW if you are not grading in RAW.
i have read several posts where the mlv footage is immediately converted to ProRes and then graded as ProRes files in FCPX.
if done that way, then they didn't take any advantage of all that latitude in the mlv RAW files. right?
why wouldn't someone do an initial grade in Resolve (as does razz16mm) on the transcoded mlv RAW files?
seems to me if you don't grade in Resolve before the transcoding to prores and edited in fcpx, then someone would have gotten the exact same result by capturing in ProRes straight off the camera and saved all that disk space and conversion process time.
if you don't grade before the pro res transcoding does shooting in mlv raw files even make sense?
thanks in advance.
be well.
rob
smalltalk.productions
i don't fully understand the benefit of shooting in mlv RAW if you are not grading in RAW.
i have read several posts where the mlv footage is immediately converted to ProRes and then graded as ProRes files in FCPX.
if done that way, then they didn't take any advantage of all that latitude in the mlv RAW files. right?
why wouldn't someone do an initial grade in Resolve (as does razz16mm) on the transcoded mlv RAW files?
seems to me if you don't grade in Resolve before the transcoding to prores and edited in fcpx, then someone would have gotten the exact same result by capturing in ProRes straight off the camera and saved all that disk space and conversion process time.
if you don't grade before the pro res transcoding does shooting in mlv raw files even make sense?
thanks in advance.
be well.
rob
smalltalk.productions
NorBro
Major Contributor
Yea, there's no point in transcoding right away before making adjustments to the RAW data...only way I would see anyone doing that is if they have a workflow where they need to edit quickly and will later replace those transcoded/ProRes files with ones that had the RAW data edited. This would update all of the clips in your FCP X timeline.
kohl-sudduth
Well-known member
Hey Rob,
MLV (ML Raw) video processing has come a very long way in the last few years. Despite owning other cinema cameras, I still shoot with it from time to time because, at least for me, it's just really really fun. Utterly remarkable what these developers have done and continue to do.
There's a number of different workflows to 'develop' MLV. QuickHitRecord has a lot of experience with various workflows. If you read this QHR, could you chime in?
This is the one I've been exploring lately called MLP (Magic Lantern Processor): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13512.0
It includes a very clearly laid out 'how-to' guide in Power Point.
I used to use MLVFS - an ingenious Fuse-based application to get DNGs to show up in Resolve, adjusting exposure and white balance, then rendered 10 bit Prores XQ masters to use in FCPX into a log format called Cinelog-C. These 'masters' are pretty robust and can withstand serious grading. That said, with current processors and updates to Resolve, I don't think that transforming into the Cinelog-C is necessary. Unfortunately I'm not up-to-date with that. I just use the old workflow since I already paid for the LUTs.
Anyway, wish you well with your experiments. I've learned much about image post processing by tinkering on my own with MLV than I likely would have otherwise. Hope it proves useful for you.
MLV (ML Raw) video processing has come a very long way in the last few years. Despite owning other cinema cameras, I still shoot with it from time to time because, at least for me, it's just really really fun. Utterly remarkable what these developers have done and continue to do.
There's a number of different workflows to 'develop' MLV. QuickHitRecord has a lot of experience with various workflows. If you read this QHR, could you chime in?
This is the one I've been exploring lately called MLP (Magic Lantern Processor): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13512.0
It includes a very clearly laid out 'how-to' guide in Power Point.
I used to use MLVFS - an ingenious Fuse-based application to get DNGs to show up in Resolve, adjusting exposure and white balance, then rendered 10 bit Prores XQ masters to use in FCPX into a log format called Cinelog-C. These 'masters' are pretty robust and can withstand serious grading. That said, with current processors and updates to Resolve, I don't think that transforming into the Cinelog-C is necessary. Unfortunately I'm not up-to-date with that. I just use the old workflow since I already paid for the LUTs.
Anyway, wish you well with your experiments. I've learned much about image post processing by tinkering on my own with MLV than I likely would have otherwise. Hope it proves useful for you.