What is the Best Way to Transcode the F3's Native MP4 Files to ProResHQ?

U

Unicorn Power

Member
What is the Best Method to Transcode the F3's Native MP4 Files to ProResHQ?

Or is there a better codec to edit in? If so, what do you use?
 
I just did a test and the Final_Cut XDcam Utility will see those file by themselves. So you should be OK. I had not tried that with the files outside of the structure, many programs don't like the missing file structure.
 
You should seriously look at switching to Avid or Premiere. CS5.5 just imports the native files without transcoding and you start editing. I hate the method that FCP uses with log and transfer. Avid does this log thing also. Edit XDCAM EX in PPro, then export to uncompressed at the end.
 
powervideo said:
You should seriously look at switching to Avid or Premiere. CS5.5 just imports the native files without transcoding and you start editing. I hate the method that FCP uses with log and transfer. Avid does this log thing also. Edit XDCAM EX in PPro, then export to uncompressed at the end.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is why I use all the above, but a lot depends on if it is a past client and what there stuff was edited with before. Now that Apple has gone away (for now) from the Pro side with Final Cut X I even see a lot of recorders and gear moving away from PRO_RES. I have edited off an on with Premier for several years and just wish they had a few more Pro features that are missing, compared to Avid. I have not used the new MC6 yet, but maybe upgrading soon.
 
Backfocus92 said:
I agree. That is why I use all the above, but a lot depends on if it is a past client and what there stuff was edited with before. Now that Apple has gone away (for now) from the Pro side with Final Cut X I even see a lot of recorders and gear moving away from PRO_RES. I have edited off an on with Premier for several years and just wish they had a few more Pro features that are missing, compared to Avid. I have not used the new MC6 yet, but maybe upgrading soon.
Click to expand...

I too have a client with a whole series of TVC's originally cut on FCP, so I have to use it from time-to-time, but I find myself slowing down every time I do use it. It's not just the crappy titler or the rings you have to jump through just to scale images, it's that damned log-and-transfer system. I've got MC6 as well, but the differences from 5.5 don't blow me away. MC5 is still a different way of working than with Final Cut or Premiere.
 
I think there is a ton of codec confusion out there. First of all, you may not even need to transcode. MPEG2 Long-GOP 35 Mbps can look very good if you are not doing extensive grading, going to web, or don't have extensive compositing. And frankly the visual difference between ProRes 422 to ProRes HQ transcoded from XDCAM EX material is negligible. But the storage requirements increase tremendously. We're drowning in data now and I think it makes sense to look at the job, the deliverable and the workflow and plan codec from there.

Ned Soltz
 
Ned,
Hear, hear. For a while I was recording EVERYTHING to both XDCAM and ProRes on my KiPro. Now, if it's not SLOG, it's not going to ProRes.
I've come to my senses!
 
nsoltz said:
I think there is a ton of codec confusion out there. First of all, you may not even need to transcode. MPEG2 Long-GOP 35 Mbps can look very good if you are not doing extensive grading, going to web, or don't have extensive compositing. And frankly the visual difference between ProRes 422 to ProRes HQ transcoded from XDCAM EX material is negligible. But the storage requirements increase tremendously. We're drowning in data now and I think it makes sense to look at the job, the deliverable and the workflow and plan codec from there.

Ned Soltz
Click to expand...

This is not really true. Confusion comes from fact that most tests on the web are done for very static footage- this will look fine with XDCAM HD as 35Mbit MPEG2 can handle it.
Try to shoot live concert, trees from moving car, waterfall and you will see the difference very easily, even without any zooming.

XDCAM HD is no near ProRes HQ quality when you watch real footage on big screen- if your delivery is highly compressed/downscaled format for web than you may not see much difference. All depends on needs, but ProRes or DNxHD is way ahead compared to 35Mbit MPEG2. If you want something decent you would need 100Mbit (Long GOP) 4:2:2 MPEG2.
Just a note- 50Mbit I frame is not much better than 35Mbit Long GOP.

XDCAM HD can be edited natively in most available NLEs- GV's Edius has far the best performance. If you need to convert than you can do it with free ffmpg going straight to ProRes or DNxHD.
 
Last edited:
You could argue that ProRes is better than XDCAM all you want, but that is not the issue being discussed here. The original poster was asking about transcoding footage that was already recorded as native MP4 flles and he wants to transcode them to ProRes. In that case, there is no advantage to transcoding at all. Whatever the footage is, it is. You can't suddenly make it better by putting it into a different container. One of the best things about XDCAM vs. other cameras is that you don't have to use ProRes. I've been shooting on XDCAM since 2006 and would never even think of transcoding raw footage to ProRes. Why would I want to waste time converting and at the same time inflate the file sizes by at least 4x? Converting, or rewrapping the footage from native MP4 or MXF to MOV (note: that is NOT transcoding) is simple, fast, and lossless. Once someone understands the proper XDCAM / FCP workflow they will see it is nearly perfect and adds no extra time or hassle to the edit. Since 99% of my raw footage is XDCAM, I edit with an XDCAM sequence and it works great.

As for the belief that XDCAM is nowhere near ProRes HQ quality, I don't agree with that because I have done very controlled testing to see exactly what the difference is, and it is nearly impossible to detect.
http://www.vortexmedia.com/F3_TEST_DRIVE.html
 
Berry Green also has a nice article in the articles section where he stress tests the EX1 XDCAM footage and AVCHD footage, but that looks really nice and thorough Doug. I like that you let people decide for themselves.

IMHO The only place the XDCAM footage falls apart is when there are a huge amount of moving things at one time. If your image is a person moving across a background of a field of moving grass and leaves, or the ocean, you're going to get artifacts. Same with twisting the cam at the same time as panning (but when do you really do that?)

You can even pull a pretty clean key for simple green screen from XDCAM.

The times when an external recorder are really helpful (heavy grading, S-Log grading, green screen with fly away hair, extreme motion) the advantages are the result of the higher bit rates and 4.2.2 color, not using ProRes or not. Its the extra data. Mpeg2 Nano files at >100 Mbps look better in those instances even though they are 8 bit.
 
I'm a compressionist (for last 8 years)- have not much to do with shooting/cameras, so you don't have to convince me how good MPEG2 realtime encoding in camera can be:) I've seen 1000s of masters- from high-end to AVCHD.
It's good for web delivery and maybe DVD, wedding BDs, some TV stuff- for anything above: BD, small cinema etc is way not good enough.

Transcoding is only needed if you can't edit natively.

FCP would be my last choice to edit modern format natively (AVC-I, XDCAM HD), as it's an old and poor performance wise software.
Software like Edius outperforms FCP 10x (or more) in terms of XDCAM, AVC-I handling. If you have decent machine- i7 CPU- than everything is RT- no rendering at all in most cases. If you have 2x CPU machine you can do 12 cameras editing at full quality with color correction filter on each camera (or 4K editing with few filters in RT) once using their HQX codec :)


What were your shots- charts, people faces, etc?
Go and shot live concert, horse racing, busy street, and you will have lots of macrobclocking on XDCAM HD. Still good enogh for some delivery, but not good enough for big screen delivery. We deal with masters from live concerts and opera shooting (quite big productions) and always say- use external recorder! XDCAM HD is not good enough especially when most of this footage goes to BD and digital cinema. Your source should be always better than your delivery format- much better. The same as XDCAM HD makes perfect sense for many scenarios, external recorders make perfect sense for other- it's all depend on delivery format and budget. Disk recorders prices are at the point where it starts making sense- you just have to deal bit more complicated workflow.

Simple test- but real world, not static charts:

http://vimeo.com/33440424

Even after heavy Vimeo compression you can still see difference. It's way more visible on real footage.

some grabs:

http://vimeo.com/33440424

Look at shot with water- massive macroblockign- waste of F3 great sensor possibilities.

This is good example:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/12/atomos-samurai-review/leaves-crop-f3-2/

Bottom right corner has link to ProRes HQ grab.

And here- raw footage from camera:

http://xdcam-user.com/clips/pmw-f3-clips.zip

There are even visible comrpession artefacts on this girl (simple scene) and than big macroblocking on leaves.
 
Last edited:
Kolak, I agree with most of what you have written but disagree that XDCAM HD is not suitable for action. In my experience it holds up very well.
But let's not forget that the OP's question was about transcoding XDCAM to ProRes, and I was just pointing out that there would be no gain in the quality of the footage. Maybe there would be workflow advantages of going to ProRes, but even that depends. If you read his question again, he has not even settled on ProRes as the best format to edit in. My advice is to edit with an XDCAM timeline and only render in ProRes.
 
Yes- if you have some knowledge and know tools you may gain tiny quality, by using some conversion with good 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 upsampling. FCP is terrible with chroma upsampling and sometimes you end up with real mess.
Otherwise there is no need to transcode XDCAM at all- just output to something less lossy to avoid 2nd generation of XDCAM (this is very lossy).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top