FS7: Post workflow

mainstreetprod

mainstreetprod

Veteran
I transitioned from the FS700 and Final Cut 7 to the FS7 and Premiere CC (I don't have any of the extras like AE, media encoder, etc.). I understand that XAVC-I is not an "editing" codec- so what should I transpose to for the edit? Premiere does not come with Prores and it seems you must have Media Encoder to install the codec. DNXHD will not even play back in Quicktime. What's the alternative?
 
You should be able to read prores on either a PC or a Mac. What you can't do is encode to prores if you're on a PC. There is someone who sells a proRes facimile for a PC, but, it isn't officially supported by Apple. Having said that, if you have premiere, you should also have AME, since it comes with Premiere. Take a look in your installation directory, because it isn't installed on your desktop when Premiere is installed.

As for Avid's DNxHD, you can download a free copy of DNxHD from Avid's website. That needs to be installed before you can transcode to it. Be aware that there are some limitations to the free DNxHD codec.

Another alternative is Cineform's digital intermediate, but, it isn't free; and, it works on both a PC and a Mac.

Hope this helps.
 
I don't understand the point still to converting to an intermediate file when in my situation I am the sole editor on the project, my computer is fast enough, and I prefer not to fill up my hard drive. I just don't understand the need when Premiere CC edits XAVC native with no problem. I worked on a short shot on the F55 with native 4k XAVC-I files and was fine. The quality was really nice too. Is it just something for older editors or maintaining a file across multiple platforms? Does the quality degrade when you edit XAVC-I native and export? I feel like I am missing the big ah-ha moment. I understood the point of transcoding to ProRes when editing with Final Cut 7 since it had to render every single time you wanted to change an edit but now that I use the newest Premiere, I don't have that problem anymore.
 
If you are working in PremierePro, there is no reason to transcode the XAVC-I until you reach the deliverable stage-- then transcode into whatever format/codec is your intended deliverable.
 
I've seen posts saying that XAVC -I is not an "editing" format, but I've had no problem cutting it at all in Premiere, at least in 1080. But when I get ready to send this to a distributor they will need it in Prores or other similar high quality format.
 
Whether you have a fast computer, or not, cutting in XAVC is processor intensive. Your CPU may be fast enough to give you real time playback, but, things will slow down for FX, etc. If you edit in FCP, of course you're obligated to use ProRes. If you edit in Media Composer, you're obligated to edit in either ProRes or DNxHD/HR. XAVC is a lossy compression codec. Which means, every time you render a new generation, you're taking a decompression/compression hit in round off error and inaccuracies. If you're happy with your workflow,and, you have RT playback, why listen to anyone else. Personally, I used to use Premiere and it was a constant source of frustration and trouble. YMMV.

Most clients, these days, want footage delivered in Prores or DNxHD. As long as you have to do a LOSSY transcode to those formats, you're better off doing it up front before inserting FX, titles, etc. If nothing else, it will speed your processing times. The most efficient workflow may well be to do the rough cut in XAVC (as an offline), then transcode to your delivery format for CC, FX, titles, etc. That's the way Media Composer works.
 
Last edited:
mainstreetprod said:
No, I switched computers sometime back and no longer have FCP.
Click to expand...

FIRST: Edit in native XAVC - it's a perfectly fine editing codec and works fast even on my 5 year old pc! Just make sure you have a CUDA campatible graphics card (any Geforce will do), if not everything will be slower.

THEN: export in DnxHD - its free - google and find the free download on avids site.
 
Divergent Media just released EditReady v1.2 which is a straightforward transcoder to ProRes or DHxHD. It will take in MXF, Sony Sr, XAVC-I and XAVC-L, and transcode to the codec of your choice. The really cool thing about it is that it will let you input a LUT file and burn that LUT into the transcoded footage. How cool is that?
 
working with my FS7 XVAC-I files in fcpx like it is HD....no problems at all....i am on a 8core new mac pro and am used to handling 5k red raw, so this is a revelation....starting to wonder how a new (top of the line) imac retina would handle these files? any ideas anyone?
 
icarusfilm said:
What would it do what Sony catalyst wouldn't do?
Click to expand...

work properly, and it's considerably cheaper than catalyst prepare. it will do batch processing, as well as several input formats that catalyst won't do. sony is notorious for taking forever to implement updates. Divergent seems to keep their software on the bleeding edge....Edit ready is an example.
 
Last edited:
Im actually curious to wheter the XAVC is actually a less lossy codec than ProRes. Its newer and seems like it could be more efficient.
 
stokstad said:
Im actually curious to wheter the XAVC is actually a less lossy codec than ProRes. Its newer and seems like it could be more efficient.
Click to expand...
i was wondering the same thing....i am used to working with "raw" red files and really don't like to shoot anything more compressed then 5:1....the XAVC files out of the FS7 are remarkable...as long as i am careful with exposure i have not seen a reason to shoot raw on the sony yet....i haven't tried raw yet, but the SLOG3 files look amazing....
 
stokstad said:
Im actually curious to whether the XAVC is actually a less lossy codec than ProRes. Its newer and seems like it could be more efficient.
Click to expand...

This is really a pretty rediculous question without specifying the flavors of each codec. XAVC comes in two fundamental flavors, "interframe" and "long". In the "long" form, there are again two subcategories, one of which is 8-bit 420. So, right off the bat, there's no way an 8-bit 420 can even be compared to a 10 bit 422. As for the prores variations, there's 422(HQ), 4444, and lesser varieties. The 444 version can be recorded in RGB or YPrPb color spaces.

With that background, feature films have been cut in ProRes444(RGB). I doubt any serious film would ever be cut in XAVC.

So, I suppose the question is relevant for home movies and internet distribution where file size is a priority, but, can't be serious where quality is a priority.
 
cuervo said:
This is really a pretty rediculous question without specifying the flavors of each codec. XAVC comes in two fundamental flavors, "interframe" and "long". In the "long" form, there are again two subcategories, one of which is 8-bit 420. So, right off the bat, there's no way an 8-bit 420 can even be compared to a 10 bit 422. As for the prores variations, there's 422(HQ), 4444, and lesser varieties. The 444 version can be recorded in RGB or YPrPb color spaces.

With that background, feature films have been cut in ProRes444(RGB). I doubt any serious film would ever be cut in XAVC.

So, I suppose the question is relevant for home movies and internet distribution where file size is a priority, but, can't be serious where quality is a priority.
Click to expand...

This seems off the mark reference the FS7 - that camera choice specifies both the flavour of XAVC and the flavour of pro-res.

The FS7 cant output 444 to proRes, or 4k (UHD).. It can record 4kUHD XAVC-I

With the addition of the back unit it will most likely record 422HD pro-res.

So in terms of quality from the FS7 one is comparing XAVCi4k vs 422HD proRes, unless one records raw and does some form of conversion later.

I cannot see that the proRes option will not be bettered by the 4k option.

S
 
With the numbers of high quality codecs available, these days, and variations within each codec type, it's unfortunate, Sam, that there isn't some general metric to rate them. Bit rate is no longer a valid determinant. Each of the high end codecs handles different image qualities differently. For example, high motion vs. static shots. What one codec does well, another codec does not do as well. And it really takes a fair amount of pixel peeping to see the differences. For myself, i would never use a long form codec over an interframe. You can never make more out of what isn't there to start with.
 
We are not talking about what codecs may or may not be available in general - just what the FS7 can do.

Im personally sure that the 4k proRes from the cion and BMC is 'better' than the 4kXAVCi from the FS7, but that is not relevant to the FS7 as a stand alone device.

S
 
What would possibly be the advantages of shooting RAW vs XAVC?
If using PP will grading be looseless?

Can this be compared to photography where a JPEG does not have much room for post processing but a RAW file does?

Many thanks for some clarification
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top