So I understand that if you are working with non standard resolutions, you won't be able to edit in RT.
Then maybe someone can help clear up a proper workflow for me.
I have videos from the panasonic tm700, so they come in 1920 x 1080. I converted those files to apple pro res codec at a smaller resolution like 960 x 540.
The reason I did this, was because I'm really too squeezed for hard drive space, and these videos are for the web, or small use.
I could use the standard resolution of 960 x 720, but then that leaves the black bars at the top and bottom which I can then remove at the very end using compressor.
Is this the proper logic?
also, i'm still trying to understand the logic / world of standards, but what is the main intention in limiting RT editing in only standard resolutions? i can't think of any technical reason that would make it more difficult.
There are compromises we make - and this isn't one of them. You're introducing all sorts of work for yourself, to save $50 (which is the cost of a very cheap 500+ gig drive.)
I'm still going to answer your question: I'll assume you're going to edit in ProRes Proxy (that'll make the files close to DV size, but compress the hell out of them. I'm assuming quality doesn't matter, just making the files small.
If this is the case, you can work at 960x720, with a non-square setting on your timeline. Load the ProRes 422 Proxy 960x720 60p timeline and you should be able to edit in RT.
Why this happens:
FCP was designed to work in RT only for those resolutions that were (mostly) based on broadcast output. Variations include sizing for 1080, 720 and 480 at different frame rates. There are a couple of offline presets that are non-standard but correspond with an online preset.
Conjecture: this software was designed at a time where firewire/DV made it possible to edit on a G3 computer; every piece of video was SD and tape based. Everything was optimized for playback in RT. Many of the codecs involved, would develop problems if they were one pixel off; and the video cards with overlays were designed with these sizes in mind.
If you wanted a bizarre size, you went to AE and scarified RT playback. It's a question of trying to handle everything in your playback engine, or optimizing it to work with what people needed, rather than everything under the sun.
I know that hard drives are cheap. I'm on the move a lot with my lap top, and I film a ton of experimental things that are just "learning" exercises at the moment. And 10-20 gigs for temporary or random exercise seems wasteful.
hmm.... but then again, I guess not so long ago, there were physical tapes.
yeah, I guess I'm thinking too much in terms of scarcity.