The ol' H.264 in FCP again, workflow question
by Dan Schanler
on
Jul 28, 2009 at 11:29:28 pm
Yes, H.264's a distribution codec, and NOT for editing in FCP. But what's the best way to handle H.264 clips in an FCP workflow if one must use them for editing?
I'm trying to figure out a workflow to edit a lot of web clips on the same sequence, with different frame sizes (from 320x240, to 642x361), audio codecs (IMA & AAC), and frame rates (30 fps & 15 fps).
Speed is the biggest factor here (quality and cost can suffer, somewhat). Yes, I know that Shane (#17 Stock Answer) recommends exporting to DV in QT Pro.
Are there more speedy alternatives? I've tried using Compressor to convert to ProRes 422, and it seems to look a bit better than QT-DV solution but it probably takes about the same amount of time. Also, for some reason I still need to render some of the clips (even when I drop into a new sequence).
Re: The ol' H.264 in FCP again, workflow question by John Pale on Jul 29, 2009 at 5:15:14 am
So basically you are hell bent on doing this wrong, even though one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum (Shane) explained the best way to do this....
[Dan Schanler]"Yes, H.264's a distribution codec, and NOT for editing in FCP. But what's the best way to handle H.264 clips in an FCP workflow if one must use them for editing?
"
What do you mean must? Shane already told you what to do....and as you probably discovered... h.264 does not work well as an editing codec. There is no magic fix for that. Its the nature of the beast.
[Dan Schanler]"I've tried using Compressor to convert to ProRes 422, and it seems to look a bit better than QT-DV solution but it probably takes about the same amount of time. Also, for some reason I still need to render some of the clips (even when I drop into a new sequence). "
Somewhere your settings are off. If you had the audio set to "pass-through" then its still compressed as IMA or AAC which will need rendering. The video may also still be some bizarre frame size or rate unless you changed your settings accordingly. You need to work in standard sizes, frame rates and codecs if you want to work in real time without render (must match one of the Easy Setups exactly)
Re: The ol' H.264 in FCP again, workflow question by Dan Schanler on Jul 30, 2009 at 3:23:03 am
John,
I'm not trying to edit H.264 natively in an FCP sequence, I need a better workflow to get large amounts of H.264 videos encoded properly, for eventual editing together.
And I'm not "hellbent" on doing anything wrong - wrong or right has nothing to do with it - bottom line is that I need to edit bunches of H.264 clips, that's what a client wants.
Shane's method is a general guideline for the occasional clip or two. (Aside from the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that the color looks a bit better with Prores). I am exploring if there are better workflows for large groups of randomly sized clips.
I'm checking into the audio compression, thanks.
D
Re: The ol' H.264 in FCP again, workflow question by Craig RussillRoy on Jul 29, 2009 at 5:44:57 am
The guys are so right with the H264 issues I have had sucess and this us what I did - download X264 it is a enhancement plugin for 264 and encodes like a rock nut better still keeps the gamma looking better then standard 264 - also use handbrake as the new verson handles all files and can do batch encode - I have a movie library I call on now and then fir pitch work - this works perfect fir our needs - hope this helps
Re: The ol' H.264 in FCP again, workflow question by Dan Schanler on Aug 10, 2009 at 3:41:06 am
hey Craig,
missed your note earlier. X264 looks helpful, but as I'm not great with scrips or terminal stuff, I'm not really sure how to use it.
Another thing re: workflow - for a bunch of H.264 standard def clips that are different frame rates / frame sizes / audio rates - normally a real pain in the rear, the Compressor setting "DV NTSC" works well to standardize things.
