FS7: XAVC-I 4K in premiere?
- Thread starter LennyLevy
- Start date
broughtonfilm
Well-known member
It what machine? Stutters because of disks speeds, ram, precessing power. Long GOP codecs (XAVC-L for example ) decoding requires more computer power in general than intraframe.
There are plenty of things that can slow Premiere (or any of the other NLEs) down. Many of the bottlenecks are mentioned above. To avoid some of the bottlenecks you need not only a really fast processor and a machine loaded with RAM, but a high end graphics card with plenty of graphics RAM as well so the graphics card can do much of the heavy lifting. At this point you'll probably also want to have your footage playing back from SSDs -- or even better from a Raided ssd system. I saw things get a lot smoother when I switched all my edit source drives over to SSDs.
But the real question is whether our files are again beginning to be so large and unmanageable that it makes more sense to go back to editing with Proxy files?
But the real question is whether our files are again beginning to be so large and unmanageable that it makes more sense to go back to editing with Proxy files?
The background for my question is that I do a lot of work for a tech company with a very sophisticated video production Department. They are technically very savy and while I don't know the specs on their main processor, I know its very high end and they certainly are using the fastest graphics cards around. in fact they switched to windows from mac because they needed more processing power than they could get with Macs. They own a RED Epic and FS7's and edit on Premiere. They tell me that they are very frustrated with the FS7's because the 4K XAVC-I doesn't play well on their machines at least not in Slog though I don't know if Slog itself makes any difference. It stutters and and is unreliable while their RED files play smoothly. I don't know why they are not simply transcoding into ProRes or recording it directly with the XDCA ( I think they have those). I've tried to get more specific information but I just don't have it now.
I care about this because I own an FS7. I often shoot with their RED but would like my own camera to get more work with them and stop getting bashed. I also just want to know what the heck is going on. I mentioned this to a friend today and he immediately replied - "Sure, XAVC stutters in Premiere and you need to transcode to ProRes files or use Proxy or 1/4 quality playback to make it work". I had another client complain recently of stuttering with XAVC 4K fixed with ProRes - unfortunately also no more details. (People are often quick to complain and just as quick to disappear when you try to ask detailed questions about the problem). I've heard that Premiere had problems with XAVC in the past but that was fixed.
So all I really want to know here is - Does Premiere have trouble with XAVC 4K? Wa this perhaps a problem in the past that's been fixed or does it continue? Does it matter if their running on Windows or Mac?
Lenny
I care about this because I own an FS7. I often shoot with their RED but would like my own camera to get more work with them and stop getting bashed. I also just want to know what the heck is going on. I mentioned this to a friend today and he immediately replied - "Sure, XAVC stutters in Premiere and you need to transcode to ProRes files or use Proxy or 1/4 quality playback to make it work". I had another client complain recently of stuttering with XAVC 4K fixed with ProRes - unfortunately also no more details. (People are often quick to complain and just as quick to disappear when you try to ask detailed questions about the problem). I've heard that Premiere had problems with XAVC in the past but that was fixed.
So all I really want to know here is - Does Premiere have trouble with XAVC 4K? Wa this perhaps a problem in the past that's been fixed or does it continue? Does it matter if their running on Windows or Mac?
Lenny
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I can use Premire CC to edit 4K XAVC-I on both of my mid-2014 MacBook Pro laptops with no playback problems at all at full resolution. Smooth playback and cutting 4K is as easy as it is with HD and they don't even have the fastest processors that were available at the time I bought them. However, this is a non-issue for me anyway because I almost never run footage through Premiere until it has been graded in Resolve first and exported as ProRes so I rarely bring XAVC straight into Premiere. In Resolve on my system, 4K XAVC-I and RAW playback is nearly flawless until a grade has been applied and then it sometimes stutters a little bit depending on the complexity of the grade. But playback still plenty good enough for my purposes and I can always bypass the grade with a simple keystroke if I need to see smooth playback.
I question whether your client is as technically savvy as you think they are. Mistake #1: They traded their Macs for PC. Mistake #2: They think playback speed requires big processing power. Mistake #3: They think S-LOG plays back slower than non-S-LOG when they actually playback exactly the same. Mistake #4: They have failed to isolate and fix a problem that should be very easy to narrow down.
Sounds like office politics. Maybe there is a Red fan? I should try to find out if this problem is technical or political. Doug is almost right this time, except for #1, because their choice for PC is good of course, more power for the buck. And if they are really sophisticated they should use Davinci.
My 2p:
I upgraded to the highest spec 5k retina IMac with 32 gig RAM a few months back. Drive is a thunderbolt G Raid.
For me, 4K XAVC performance is somewhere between tolerable and crap. Add some LUTs in Lumetri and it's somewhere between crap and total bollocks.
Timelines are usually no more than 5 mins.
Not a technical assessment - but I'm really a film editor at heart and I can't stand the interface getting in the way.
Thankfully, I'm doing less editing as my production company gradually grows.
Overall, I'd say PP performance on a high spec Mac with 4K XAVC is unacceptable.
Ben.
I upgraded to the highest spec 5k retina IMac with 32 gig RAM a few months back. Drive is a thunderbolt G Raid.
For me, 4K XAVC performance is somewhere between tolerable and crap. Add some LUTs in Lumetri and it's somewhere between crap and total bollocks.
Timelines are usually no more than 5 mins.
Not a technical assessment - but I'm really a film editor at heart and I can't stand the interface getting in the way.
Thankfully, I'm doing less editing as my production company gradually grows.
Overall, I'd say PP performance on a high spec Mac with 4K XAVC is unacceptable.
Ben.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Choosing a computer platform because the cost of processing power is cheaper is as just as foolish as choosing a car based purely on the horsepower of the engine, or choosing lights by how many lumens they put out. There are many other factors to be considered, and in the big scheme of things, the cost of the hardware is nothing. Nothing at all. Even the most expensive computer (PC or Mac) you can imagine building costs peanuts for what it can do. Besides, I'll bet Lenny's client spent more for their souped up PC than I paid for my MacBook Pro -- yet which one of us has the better editing exerpience? I don't want to start another PC vs Mac debate so I won't say any more on that topic on this thread.
That is not quite right. I agree that grading in DaVinci absolutley must be part of an S-LOG workflow but there are two paths you can follow: #1 You can do your cutting in Premiere with the original XAVC files and then round-trip to Resolve for grading. Or #2 You can grade in Resolve first and then use the new rendered files as your source clips for editing in Premiere. So in the case of workflow #1, it is very important to have decent playback. Therefore, getting XAVC files to work properly in Premiere is critical -- even if they are going to use Resolve at a later stage anyway.
Last edited:
I said more power for the buck, I did not say a PC is cheaper, just faster and better for the same money. And I don't know what you mean by the big scheme of things.
That was retorical I suppose. And of course your Macbook Pro is the fastest and the best, you keep telling that. A powerful professional editing system doesn't cost peanuts. A fully configurated supermicro will cost you about $33.000 without mouse, keyboard and monitors.
But I use both mac and pc, I like them both. But that is exactly my point, XAVX-i or Prores could be office politics. Technology can start wars, pc/mac, Red/Sony etc. And before digging in to the specs of the hardware I should inform about that.
The Belgian Police once got Harley Davidsons to test, they wrecked them because they were BMW fans.
[Opinion alert]: I think PP is losing battle in speed and innovation compared to Davinci. [Opinion Alert]
Last edited:
Grug
Veteran
I've just cut a feature on Premiere that was shot 4k XAVC on the FS7, my system is a maxed out 2010 Mac Pro with 12-core 3.46Ghz Xeons, 64GB RAM, a 12GB Titan X GPU, and a 4-drive RAID 5 internally (gets around 300MB/s).
It's a very powerful machine, but pretty hardware dated really. That said, it was one of the smoothest editing experiences I've had on a longform project. Playback was smooth, and the timeline was easy to scrub through and work on.
So I think so long as you have a halfway decent machine, you'll be just fine.
It's a very powerful machine, but pretty hardware dated really. That said, it was one of the smoothest editing experiences I've had on a longform project. Playback was smooth, and the timeline was easy to scrub through and work on.
So I think so long as you have a halfway decent machine, you'll be just fine.
Hmm , between Bengiles and Grug 2 completely opposite experiences. That leaves me confused. I assume both of you were using Slog.
Re: My client - there are no office politics involved. However while very tech savvy they are always overwhelmed, short on patience and grading is their weakest point which is why Im trying to do some problem solving myself.
For some reason RED has been a much easier workflow for them and speed in Post matters for them. I'll try to find out more about their bottleneck.
just to reiterate an earlier question - Did Premiere have difficulty with XAVC in the past and was that ironed out, or did I totally invent that memory?
Re: My client - there are no office politics involved. However while very tech savvy they are always overwhelmed, short on patience and grading is their weakest point which is why Im trying to do some problem solving myself.
For some reason RED has been a much easier workflow for them and speed in Post matters for them. I'll try to find out more about their bottleneck.
just to reiterate an earlier question - Did Premiere have difficulty with XAVC in the past and was that ironed out, or did I totally invent that memory?
No early memory problems 
The premiere XAVC-i problem is/was real.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-339192.html
The premiere XAVC-i problem is/was real.http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-339192.html
Yes, Slog 3 - although that won't change the system speed per se, except that you may want add a LUT, which then bogs things down.
One thing I realised that I've overlooked - I'm delivering in HD, so all shots are scaled at 50% as well.
However, I bought the 5K IMac to try and solve playback issues on a slightly older MacBook Pro - but the outcome was very underwhelming.
I'd love to be able to say differently, but my user journey so far with XAVC and Prem Pro (both HD and 4K) has been disappointing.
Ben.
One thing I realised that I've overlooked - I'm delivering in HD, so all shots are scaled at 50% as well.
However, I bought the 5K IMac to try and solve playback issues on a slightly older MacBook Pro - but the outcome was very underwhelming.
I'd love to be able to say differently, but my user journey so far with XAVC and Prem Pro (both HD and 4K) has been disappointing.
Ben.
broughtonfilm
Well-known member
My outdated 2013 MBP with 2.6Ghz i5 processor and only 8GB of RAM, integrated Intel GPU with 1.5GB RAM plays 4K DCI smoothly. I can even apply 200% scaling and 180 image flip as an effect and it plays it back in real time. Something is very wrong with your system. Mind you I don't edit long form projects, only short things for which I find it perfectly acceptable.
broughtonfilm
Well-known member
What does it mean in this context?
If I understand your problem, then your codec isn't the codec your client wants. Isn't converting your XAVC-i files to prores an easier option? Or deliver RAW?
Last edited:
Liam Hall
Veteran
That's probably what's killing you.
I meant it in a lighthearted way.
I'm not sure I can answer your question adequately.
Other than to say I've been a supervising film editor and post producer for 30 years. I'm an imposter on a camera, having only dabbled in various camera formats since 1987 and more recently, having got bored with broadcast telly.
I've edited feature films, docs, drama and light entertainment with multiple Bafta/Emmy noms/awards, I'm a voting member of the BAFTA cinema jury and a fellow of the Guild of British editors.
So I can be quite demanding of any system I work on, as I'm used to working to demanding publishing schedules.
A mate of mine is one of the grown ups at Adobe and he got one of their top demonstrators, a bloke called Jason, to talk through my Mac tech setup. So I'm pretty confident it's optimal.
I tend to run up to 10 channels of audio plus maybe 2 or 3 layers of video. I don't use a lot of video effects, but I do want to run some kind of technical grade on log clips, so clients don't whinge.
My opinion, after working with many different NLEs since 1992, when I worked with one of the first Lightworks in London, is that XAVC on Prem Pro and Mac is a poor experience, even if I run it in low res proxy mode. It needs constant rendering and constantly makes me question the whole log/lut workflow. I want to be able to chuck a lut on there and for it to behave/cut/play like a regular baked-in 709 clip.
But, as I say, it's subjective and probably depends on whether you're a spoilt princess like me.
Ben.
I'm not sure I can answer your question adequately.
Other than to say I've been a supervising film editor and post producer for 30 years. I'm an imposter on a camera, having only dabbled in various camera formats since 1987 and more recently, having got bored with broadcast telly.
I've edited feature films, docs, drama and light entertainment with multiple Bafta/Emmy noms/awards, I'm a voting member of the BAFTA cinema jury and a fellow of the Guild of British editors.
So I can be quite demanding of any system I work on, as I'm used to working to demanding publishing schedules.
A mate of mine is one of the grown ups at Adobe and he got one of their top demonstrators, a bloke called Jason, to talk through my Mac tech setup. So I'm pretty confident it's optimal.
I tend to run up to 10 channels of audio plus maybe 2 or 3 layers of video. I don't use a lot of video effects, but I do want to run some kind of technical grade on log clips, so clients don't whinge.
My opinion, after working with many different NLEs since 1992, when I worked with one of the first Lightworks in London, is that XAVC on Prem Pro and Mac is a poor experience, even if I run it in low res proxy mode. It needs constant rendering and constantly makes me question the whole log/lut workflow. I want to be able to chuck a lut on there and for it to behave/cut/play like a regular baked-in 709 clip.
But, as I say, it's subjective and probably depends on whether you're a spoilt princess like me
.Ben.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Not necessarily. I usually edit with 4K footage scaled to 50% on an HD timline so that I can view what I'm editing on my HD program monitors. And then at the very end of the project I switch the timeline to 4K and render it out. So in my case, scaling 4K to HD makes no difference in the playback performance. I can't speak about PC problems but it has been my experience that the main reason people might have trouble playing back 4K on a Mac is because they don't have fast enough drives or else don't have them connected properly. In other words, the computer is not the problem -- it is your drives. All you need fast SSDs (you don't even need a RAID) and Thunderbolt. Works great on both of my Macs.