FORUMS: list search recent posts

workflow help, i look inefficient!

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Nate Abraham
workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Sep 30, 2009 at 3:57:16 pm

hi

i need to know if this is the best workflow. i've been out of the game for about two years but found myself editing again....i used to do it all day...

anyway, my boss brings me canon mark II footage.

I...

1) take footage and use compressor convert the mkII footage to HDV 1080i60 codec (everything is the HDV default except i make the size the same as the source).
2) edit
3) render (nothing crazy, stills, fades, audio stuff)
4) export using qt conversion (settings are given by the studio...they are: h.264, keyframe every 10000, data rate 1800 kbits/sec and size is 854x480) which i tried and tried to get the same results using compressor but i cannot get their same "look" thus must go that way and cannot edit while stuff compresses
5) then upload to web

it takes forever and i look totally inefficient in the office while i wait for my footage to convert/compress from the mkII to HDV.

i'm cool waiting around for my computer to do it's thing as long as i'm using a correct workflow.

it's been a long time since i've used fcp. apparently i'm much slower than the last guy.

he could edit the mkII footage out of the camera and i can't even get it to play back (let alone it's been posted here that you shouldn't even attempt to edit those files from the mkII).

i'm using

fcp 6.0.6
compressor 3.0.5

G5
2x2.8 quad core intel
10 gig Ram

any insight to my "correctness" or better yet "incorrectness" in my workflow would be hugely appreciated!!!

thanks
nate


Return to posts index

Joel Peregrine
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55:44 pm

Hi Nate,

Transcode from the 5DM2 footage to ProRes. You're shooting yourself in the foot by going to HDV. Even though you'll be using a lot more drive space the time saving when both rendering and exporting (there is no conforming necessary as there is with HDV) will be worth every extra gigabyte. And you can use QT if you just export your timeline as a reference movie and encode that with Quicktime. That allows you to move on to another project in FCP.


Return to posts index

Nate Abraham
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Sep 30, 2009 at 5:18:32 pm

Hey Joel,

Thanks for getting back to me, I really appreciate it! I was afraid you'd say that. I did a few tests and while the ProRes files were quicker/better, they were also *much* bigger. Going from a couple of hundred megs to gigs. I suppose that means i'm going to have to fight for the drive space.

If I can't get it, is the way I'm going about it going to work all-be-it slow?

I trust you, go ProRes but I don't know if I can have that much drive space. We only have 2 TB on our server :(

Thanks for the note about QT. I thought you might be able to do that...I couldn't remember though. When I make the reference movie do I then do the final encoding though QT or Compressor?

Thanks again for getting back to me!!

...my head is throbbing from relearning everything.

Nate


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Sep 30, 2009 at 6:24:12 pm

I agree with Joel: Avoid the HDV and go to Proress.
I would avoid also the QT Conversion. Go through Compressor and use the Frame Control.

[Nate Abraham] " keyframe every 10000, data rate 1800 kbits/sec and size is 854x480) wh"
A key-frame every 10.000 frames..?
Why don't you try Auto?
rafael



http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Nate Abraham
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Sep 30, 2009 at 6:49:21 pm

Hi Rafael,

Thanks for the advice. I get the feeling ProRes is the only way to go. I'm going to have to find/make/fight for space along the way. Dealing with 5dmkii footage is tricky I suppose...something to be learned.

I have a feeling that a few extra HDs are going to be needed...

And I have no idea why there is a keyframe every 10,000 frames...they just said I should do it that way. I've been out of the game for so long I can't really offer a reason not to. Everytime I would do it the way I used to it looks very different...

So anyway, I'll give auto a try...see if it makes the file size small but maintains the quality...

THANKS! It's good to be editing again, I am so thankful to be able to have the community like the cow again to help me out.

Thanks Again
Nate


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Oct 1, 2009 at 1:04:45 am

[Nate Abraham] "..see if it makes the file size small but maintains the quality... "
Same file size, because you already have set the data rate.
rafael



http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


Nick Meyers
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:10:32 am

what frame size are you working at?
do you need to be an HD frame size?
can you work at a Standard Def frame size?


nick


Return to posts index

Nate Abraham
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:36:12 am

Hi Nick,

Well, HD aspect ratio...I have been maintaining an HD workflow at the request of my boss (all 5DMKII footage) but mainly uploading to the web for the client to view. Thus we are going from 1920x1080 to 854x480 if that makes sense.

But are you asking to see if I can edit in standard def thus converting the files from the 5dmkII to standard def in the beginning then edit the converted footage as opposed to the prores?

Thanks for your help!!
Nate


Return to posts index

Nick Meyers
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Oct 1, 2009 at 4:44:53 am

i was asking as i thought you might get smaller file sizes,
but 854x480 is so close to standard def it wont make much difference.

in fact i wonder if you might just as well convert to SD for better RT effects, etc.
i imagine your non-standard frame size means more rendering while you work?


nick


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Oct 1, 2009 at 4:52:30 am

[Nick Meyers] "854x480 is so close to standard def"
In fact is the same frame than SD NTSC Anamorphic, but build with Square frames to be played in a computer.
Rafael



http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Nate Abraham
Re: workflow help, i look inefficient!
on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:30:34 am

Thanks Rafael. Yea, that makes sense. I really appreciate your help.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]