FCP Settings HDV - Pro Res

Hello.
Im shooting some video in HDV but i want to edit in Pro Res (HQ)
Might seem like an easy question but how do i set up the project.. there are so may options. And im guessing i want it to be HQ or am I wrong. I want FCP to digitise in Pro Res as well..
Thanks in advance Rob

Sure. But that means you'd have to capture, then convert...and have the drive space to do that. With the method laid out, the capture takes about 40% more than real time (it does some odd encoding process)...and you only have the ProRes file...not HDV AND ProRes. And media managing will take a lot more time than straight capture.
Up to you though..

Similar Messages

HDV to Pro Res 422 HQ, how would you do it?

I am shortly going to short some HDV 1080' and deliver it to the customer after I've edited it, on a hard disc as Pro Res 422 HQ 1920 x 1080.
Last time I simply ingested the HDV in the normal way and exported to Pro Res using "make Quick Time Movie".
Should I have injested the footage from HDV, direct to Pro Res 422 HQ and edited this and then outputed the Pro Res 422 HQ edit master? In other words did I needlessly encode the material twice when I did it before?

Why can't I simply change the "Capture settings" to Pro Res HQ?
Because FCP doesn't do that via firewire. The data rate is too high. It only does ProRes 422 via firewire.
Now you are getting into professional workflows, and for that you need professional hardware.
Why do I need to sling my Macbook Pro in the bin and start all over again, because I presume a capture card wont go in a laptop.
You presume incorrectly. The Matrox MXO2 and MXO2 LE will work on a laptop just fine. I use my MXO2 all the time on mine. BUT...here's the rub. You can't capture 1920x1080 29.97 at ProRes HQ. Well, you can, but not for long durations. Because the encoding of that needs to be handled by the processor, and you need at least a Quad Core to do that, laptops are Dual core. BUT, you can get the AJA IO HD, that works on a laptop too, and has a ProRes encoder built in. Issue is that it is $3400, while the MXO2 LE is $1000 (that encoder adds a lot).
I think it would be best to capture as HDV, then use the Media Manager to Recompress to ProRes HQ. Because they might want full raster ProRes and HDV>ProRes gets you anamorphic ProRes. I believe the Media Manager will make it Full Raster. As will Compressor.
Shane

Trouble exporting Pro Res 4444 at current settings through QT

Hi. I'm editing a sequence with settings at Pro Res 4444, frame size 2048/1024 (footage shot on Red). It's 25 minutes long. The client wants me to deliver a self-contained movie at current settings. When I try to export one (choosing 'export'/'quicktime movie'), after getting 3-5 pct done, it stops and a '! General Error' message appears.
There's plenty of room on my drive.
Anyone know what 'general error' might mean in this case? Is it perhaps impossible to export a file this big (I expect it to be about 60G)? If it is indeed not possible, any tips on what alternate settings I can use to give the client the best possible quality?

First you should know that FCE doesn't work natively with h.264 files. It will try, but in the long run you'll encounter a lot of problems. Since FCE was designed to only work with the QuickTime DV and AIC formats, you'll need to convert the footage prior to importing. If your version has a Log & Transfer function, there might be a plugin you can download from Canon that will transcode the files into the proper format. But whatever you do, when converting the files, the video specs MUST exactly match the specs of your FCE Sequence.
If you want to edit h.264 files natively, use Adobe Premier or FCP-X.
-DH

'movie setting anomoly exporting a qt movie from Pro Res timeline

Shot something in HDV 1080i, captured it all as HDV Pro Res 422 HQ.
My timeline is HDV 1440 x 1080 . I export 'using QT conversion' to get a QT file to send to compressor and in the 'movie settings' box QT describes the 'size' as 608x456 ( current ).
Why does it reports the size as 608 x 456 as 'current', when the actual current size of the footage I'm exporting is 1440 x 1080?
My natural choice is to select the size which I know is 'current' 1440 x 1080.
This default 'movie setting' which QT offers me is re-sizing from 1440 x 1080 to 608 x 456, is this not bound to introduce degradation in the QT file?
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Peter

Hi, well I already tried that workflow and I'm experimenting with this routine as it's advised on kenstone's site. Have you any idea why QT is mis-describing the 'current' dimensions of the footage ?
Peter

Question re :delivery in Pro Res HQ 1920 X 1080

I was just wondering what would be the correct sequence of events if you were shooting in HDV but had to deliver on Pro Res HQ 1920 X 1080.
Would you select "HDV Pro Res HQ" in the "capture settings" edit in this and then export using "Quick Time Movie" and Pro Res HQ 1920X1080?

If you can afford the drive space, yes, this is the best method. Though when you export, Current Settings will be fine rather than specifying ProRes.
If you can't afford the space, then capture in native HDV and export to ProRes HQ when finished. If it doesn't have to be "HQ", you also have the option of rendering to ProRes in your Sequence Settings.

Convert h.264 to Pro Res

I was having a problem editing h.264 shot on a DSLR....
Some on this forum kindly answered my question suggestiong I convert
the video to pro res.
What is the best way to convert the video to ProRes.
I have edited a sequence and do not want to start over again.
Thanks

Try again…
If you've managed tio edit a h.264 sequence, you've already jumped through some hurdles. Try exporting, You may be lucky.
If that gets weird, change the sequence settings to Pro Res – either PR422 or PR LT. Then export.
In the future, best practices are to use Log & Transfer, assuming you have intact card.
If you don't, convert the clips in Compressor or MPEG Streamclip. Then bring them into FCP.
Good luck.
Russ

*** Weird flickering in Pro-res sequence

I'm working in the latest version of FCP with a Pro-res 422 30p sequence. I'm working with 1080/30p footage from the Sony EX1 and the Canon 5D. I'm also working with high-resolution photographs.
When I look at the sequence in FCP it all looks great but when I export it as a full-quality Quicktime Movie I consistently get this weird flicker or pulsate just before a cut from video footage to a still image. It's as-if the someone snaps their finger and the same pic all of a sudden get either slightly darker or lighter for 2 or 3 frames.
I'm not sure why this is happening but I really need to figure it out. Should I convert the sequence to another preset? Maybe h.264 or XDCAM EX 1080/30p?
Thanks in advance!

What's the delivery to be? DVD? or?
Jerry

PRO RES 422 HQ from color to fcp to HDV 1080i tape

Have just thrown myself off a bridge due to frustration. Filmed a holiday movie a few years ago on HDV Pal and taught myself color on the project after completing it on FCP. I have spent 3 months of my spare time getting it looking how I want it and have just sent it back to FCP for outputting. Everything hunky dory so far except when I came to print to video (back to HDV for archiving) I'm being told that I can't print that seq to tape. Presumably because PRO RES 422 won't go to HDV. Is that so and do I have any answers?

For having just thrown yourself off a bridge, your grammar, spelling, and punctuation are impeccable.
You are correct. A ProRes sequence will not go to HDV. You must place your ProRes sequence into a new HDV sequence, render/conform, and print that to HDV tape.
When you're going out via firewire, you pretty much have to match your sequence settings to your deck settings, DV>DV, HDV>HDV. Hardware capture cards/boxes by AJA & Blackmagic can up/down/cross convert on the fly, but not a direct firewire connection.
So, use your ProRes sequence to create the DVD, and create an HDV sequence to archive it to a tape.
And stop throwing yourself off bridges.

Optimum FCP settings - Pro Res

Hi folks,
I had a mini catastrophe yesterday with a project and in trying to fix things I trashed the prefs and have lost all the settings I had for working with Pro Res. A project I'm working on now seems to be dropping frames and generally going rather slow, and I was wondering if anyone out there working with Pro Res files could share their settings with me which they feel runs most smoothly and most effectively on FCP.
On the RT tab I have the following checked:
- Unlimited RT
- Scrub High Quality
- Playback Video Quality - Dynamic
- Playback Frame Rate - Dynamic
And the video processing tab in the sequence settings I have it set to:
- Render all YUV material in high precision YUV
- Process Maximum White as: White
- Motion Filtering Quality - Normal
If anyone has any pearls of wisdom of best settings with any options I've mentioned or any others that could help, I would be most grateful.
Thanks kindly in advance,
Matty

Download and install the Aja System Test:
http://www.aja.com/ajashare/AJASystemTest.zip
Run the default test with an 8GB file size on that LaCie volume and report the test results back to this thread.

Capture Apple pro Res settings

Hi how do I change the settings in Final cut pro so that i captures full HD 1920x1080 Linear PCMApple Pro Res 422 HQ quicktime?

So it's probably HDV.
First thing I'd check is the camera settings to make sure they're correct.
And what version FCP are you using?
Russ

Re-encode HDV into Pro res - create HD masters?

A while back i had a big project with averaging 12x 1 hour hdv videos - when exporting as hdv (current seq settings) it went out of sync after 30+mins
setting seq as pro res had no effect, so, i just re-rendered the seq asa dv pal and exported (was intended for sd dvd anyway).
Now what i want to do, is have self contained hd masters of the videos.
Will running all videos in the capture folder for this project in compressor - exporting as 'apple pro res lt' then 'reconnecting media' - render - export self contained.mov work?

Pre-Roll and whatnot. Capturing HDV as ProRes will get you the FULL shot. FCP just detects the break, and makes a new clip. HDV as HDV, there's a second or two missing from the head of a shot. At least in my experience of two years ago. Has that changed? Can you capture now, with the break, and have it keep the full clip?
Shane

FCP Pro Res Super 16mm -- Compressor -- DVD Studio Pro (Nightmare Workflow Critique)

Hello,
I figured I post here rather than the DVD Studio Pro forum; I've posted on Creative Cow as well but haven't gotten any responses yet.
Before I mention my problem, I'd like to mention that I've tried several types of compression methods and bitrates and unfortunately, my disk still freezes in my player, generally around the same area.
(I have two, minute long clips with Smoothcam there).
I'll try to be as specific about my work-flow as I can and I've posted the photos of my FCP and Compressor settings below.
30 Minutes. Super 16mm.
2K DPX Scans -- > Graded In Color --> Pro Res 4444 23.976 --> Sent To Compressor --> Mpeg 2 + AC3 --> Build & Format With DVD Studio Pro
I set blue compression markers at the start of each Smoothcam clip.
I've recompressed my footage without Smoothcam as well - with the same end result.
I've sent my timeline to Compressor and used both the 5.5-7 VBR setting and the 6.5 CBR settings (with everything under Frame Controls set to the highest quality).
(I've also used the 6.2-7.7 built in settings with the ninety-minute high quality preset).
I am using Sony DVD-R disks. 16X/1X. When I play them in my PS3, the film freezes at different points in the first two-three minutes - then skips ahead exactly to the same point in my film - about halfway.
I've set Chapter markers and it skips to the halfway one; from there it plays fine.
1. I wanted to ask if I should maybe export my entire sequence first through FCP (an .mov file) and try Compressing that?
(I've done this and the result is still the same)
2. Should I set it to Pro Res 422 HQ first?
(I've done this and the result is still the same)
3. Perhaps I should just try to Compressor with the 90Min-HQ setting without changing anything?
(I've done this and the result is still the same)
4. Should I remove the Smoothcam?
I'm currently compressing the entire sequence void of all Smoothcam.
When I bring the files into DVD Studio Pro, I see under preferences that Studio Pro also has VBR settings. Do those have any effect on my DVD encode? There is no CBR there - only VBR set from 5.5-7.
5. Is there anything I'm doing wrong with regards to my workflow? There are several options that may be causing this; I'm not sure if its the progressive footage to interlaced standard definition disk, or modifying field dominance, gop structure, etc.
Any help would be greatly (that's greatly) appreciated.
Thanks!
-Boris

My first impression is you're trying to make this too hard...
You have a high quality timeline which is downconverted to 1080, no problem. Once rendered, SmoothCam
should not represent a problem. If anything, SmoothCam will reduce the sudden movement that can cause problems. Any scenes where you have a high rate of change per frame (like in an explosion or a background of leaves flapping in the wind) should be marked with compression markers.
Export as a QT movie using sequence settings (include markers for DVDSP) so you have a completed source file for compression. I'm not aware of anything that will improve the quality beyond what is in the timeline, so current sequence settings are fine. Test this for playback issues.
If you are having playback problems with the sequence after export and compression, the most probable cause is excessively high bandwidth requirements. Try using the DVD: Best Quality 90 minutes preset. It generally produces a very good quality product. Any attempt to increase the quality will likely increase the bandwidth requirements that are the probable cause of the skipping.
While Sony is a big name, their DVD substrate is only mediocre. If you think the substrate is a problem, switch to Verbatim or JVC/Taiyo-Yuden.
If you are dissatisfied with the quality of the Compressor output, look into the Cinema Craft encoding products.
Hope this helps.

Pro Res v HDV v SD comparison test

Just incase anyone is interested, I have just completed a comparison test for checking the processing times for converting HDV footage into SD (ready for authoring). Having read up on the forum,the options of keeping things in native HDV , converting to 422 or downconverting to SD at the start, I thought I would try a like for like test and see how it came out, both from a processing time and quality viewpoint. (this is only my test, so please don't hammer me if you don't agree, I am only trying to share this basic test.
Exactly 1 minute of footage was filmed on Sony Z1 as HDV
The footage contained a mixture of static, and slow pan shots, to make it a bit challenging.
Option 1 - Capture and edit using Pro Res 422
Option 2 - Capture and edit using native HDV
Option 3 - Down convert from HDV to SD via the camera, edit in SD anamorphic (don't groan just yet)
All clips had the exact same transitions and filters applied
These were 2 x cross dissolves, 1x 3way colour corrected clip, 1 x speed modification clip.
All processed on a new MBP 2.53 with all settings left as default (hopefully a fair representation for many)
The process was to export a self contained QT file, import into compressor (best quality), timed until the MPEG2 and AC3 file icons popped up as complete and ready for import into DVDSP.
The time results were as follows:
Option 1 (Pro Res422) - time taken to exp to QT = 131sec, Compressor encode time=371sec
Total time 502 secs i.e 8m 22s with the QT file size being 731mb
Option 2 (native HDV) - time taken to exp to QT = 197sec, Compressor encode time = 400 sec
Total time 597 secs i.e 9m 47s with the Qt file size being 192mb
Option 3 (DC to SD 1st)- time taken to exp to QT = 22 sec, Compressor encode time = 94 sec
Total time 116 secs i.e 1m 56s with the QT file size being 219mb (strange as i thought it would be less than the HDV version, but there we go)
All 3 options were then imported into DVDSP and the same settings chosen for burning a SD DVD and the 3 dvds then displayed on a 42"plasma (pioneer) and 42"LCD (sony bravia).DVD players Sony upscaling DVD connected via HDMI and Sony Std DVD non upscaling DVD player.
6 people(1 x BBC camera man, 1 X editor and 1 x program manager, 3 x general public ) were then persuaded to view DVDs and pick what they thought was the best. None had any knowledge as to which was which.
Results surprised me, in so much that most struggled to spot the difference!
1 picked the Pro Res (stating they thought it was a little sharper)
1 picked the native HDV, giving a similar reason
4 said that they would be happy with either and couldn't see any concernable difference to pick one over another.
Ok so maybe not a scientific test, and I am sure some will say oh but...if you had done this, or that, then the results would have been different, but hey I only did the test to see in a real world, what the differences are. Certainly the processing times varied hugely from 1m56s to 9m47s for the same 1 minute piece of film. Likewise the QT file sizes from 192mb (hdv) to 731mb (422).
So if storage or time are really critical, I hope it may be useful to anyone with little HDV experience (like me) to make a decision. At least in this case, most people cannot tell the difference for it to be that important.
I would like to hear if anybody else has had too much time on their hands to carry out similar tests and come up with the same or different results?
This is after all only a tiny piece of the jigsaw.
Cheers
Stu

It offers better performance when editing. HDV is processor intensive, and can take longer to render, and a lot longer to compress into your final format. And HDV is an 8-bit 4:2:0 codec. While you can't change that going to ProRes, ProRes is 4:2:2 10-bit, and color correcting that gives you better leway with color...you can push things more. just a TAD more, as your color information is already whack.
But if you intend to master back to HDV, do not go to ProRes. To go back to HDV you need to capture as native HDV.
Shane

Fcp forces me to render Apple Pro Res 4444 files when i drop on timeline

i shoot with the canon 5d mark ii and i have been having problems making my videos easy to edit. I convert them from h.264 to the apple pro res 4444. when i take the files and then attempt to drag them into the project timeline, i am prompted to change the settings to match that of the video format. when i select no, all of the files require me to render before playback. when i select yes, i always get dropped frames and the video stalls and fails to play. selecting no and rendering is not time efficient at all and i know there is a better way to do this. any help or suggestions? i'm clearly doing something wrong.

Hi -
While it may seem counterintuitive, transcoding to a ultra-high quality, specialized format like ProRes 4444 actually, in most cases, counter productive.
Converting your h.264 files to ProRes 4444 is like buying size 26 shoes for size 9 feet. Apple ProRes 4444 is there for specialized use by people editing large frame size images +WITH an alpha channel for each frame+. To properly play it back will require both a high horsepower computer and high speed disk drive array to support the data rate involved in that format.
May I make a suggestion? I would be to convert your h.264 material to Pro Res 422. Even ProRes HQ is beyond what you need to handle your material correctly.
When you convert your files to ProRes 422, and allow FCP to set the sequence to the same settings, you will find that you will be able to edit without rendering. And don't worry - the quality of your image is set by the h.264 compression, the conversion to Pro Res 422 will not degrade it.
A frequent example given on these boards: if you take a can of beer, and pour it in a keg, you still have just a can of beer, but it is harder to carry around - and the keg certainly takes up more space.
There is a very useful White Paper written by Apple that describes the various flavors of ProRes and their correct application at:
http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/docs/AppleProRes_White_Paper_July2009.pdf
Hope this helps.
MtD

HDV 1080' VS Pro Res question.

Can anybody explain, why when I compare footage from a Sony Z1 encoded in HDV and played on the timeline against footage shot on a Panasonic SD700 in its 50p mode and encoded in any Pro Res but particularly in Pro Res HQ, the Sony is outclassed spectactularly by the SD700. In the backgound the detail is superb and makes the Sony look like "mush".Yet the Panasonic is a mere £700.
The reason I ask is because I have been yelled at on many occasions as to the superiority of HDV over AVCHD. But my own eyes tell me otherwise (in this case)
It would appear that the SD/TM 700 compares favourably with XD Cam EX1 which is £4000 (When it shouldn't!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lMByIVeMA0
Presumably I am imagining all this!??

trabant wrote:
You said,"Pardon my bluntness (and no offence intended), but transcoding footage into anything of higher quality than ProRes 422 (not HQ) is a pure waste of disc space."
Sorry to be blunt as well,butluckily I always try things out for myself and not listen to the mantras of those who lecture from on high,but who have not actually performed the task themselves.
I will assume you misunderstood my original statement and are not acting out of defensiveness or petulance. Did you also notice that I used smileys in my post (which you did not)? You need to chill out. And, no one is preaching from on high, either. Do you really think that most people post here just to see their own words and not to earnestly help out others?
And, if you want to challenge or discuss my stated comments, there is a more appropriate way to do it rather than ad hominem attacks. Enough said. You should have simply mentioned that you disagree based on your testing (and elaborate on exactly how you've done that testing) and ask me to clarify my statements further. Pretty easy...
On top of all of this, your "attack" on my comments is just wrong. Even what you quote from me doesn't say anything about ProRes 422 (LT). Additionally, my comment was a pretty general statement, already mentioned by others in the thread.
Also, part of comparing the "before and after" codec/format must include the tool used to do the transcoding. Different tools produce different results.
And, yes, testing is good and should be done for every project before actual work begins.
Firstly, disc space is not an issue any more as hard discs are so cheap. Secondly THERE IS a noticeable difference in the background detail between Pro res LT and Pro Res hQ when transcoding from 50p AVCHD material. I know, because I've done it and I can see it.
Space still can be an issue. If you are working on a documentary, for example, with hundreds of hours of footage, disk storage usually is an issue for most people. Choosing between the various versions of ProRes can be an important consideration. Deciding whether or not to use an offline-online workflow may include consideration of a chosen codec.
And, when you are discussing a technical issue, you need to be as clear as possible. Simply, saying that transcoding from 50p AVCHD material to some version of ProRe is not enough. What was the bit rate ("quality setting") of the footage? Under what circumstances was the footage acquired? What tool did you use to do the transcoding? What settings were used? How did you evaluate the quality of the results? You didn't mention any of this info, yet you didn't bother to ask me (or others).
Perhaps you didn't really read my post well-enough to get the gist of what I was saying. Or, maybe I could have explained things more clearly. My comment was about not wasting disk space by transcoding a "low quality" acquisition format like HDV or AVCHD into anything more than what is needed to preserve the original contents of the acquisition media (as much as possible, or to an acceptable level).
Later on in my comments, where I give more specific examples of my own workflows, I never mention using the LT version of ProRes 422.
As far as testing goes, one method I personally use is to compare before and after versions of media via a "difference compositing" and viewing the results on video scopes. A more quantitative approach is to import the two versions into a mathematical analysis application and do statistical analysis on the actual pixel values (and compare the two versions).
Sorry if my first statement came across as unclear. You could have asked for clarification. My statements in my previous post were clearly about HDV footage (I didn't mention AVCHD, at all)...
Dave

FCP Settings HDV - Pro Res

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for