10 Replies Latest reply: Jan 6, 2013 1:35 PM by Ernie Stamper
Ernie Stamper Level 8 Level 8 (37,475 points)

I am having trouble getting my head around the possible utility of using an External Video Editor.  I may be hampered by expectations, or maybe simple ignorance?


One example I can find reference to is MPEG Streamclip -- this wonderful Swiss Army Knife of video apps is a must many times for using video later in Final Cut.  I already use it to transcode video shot with my DSLR to Apple Pro Res 422.  But the way I have done it so far is to locate the imported Originals and drag them into a Batch list in MPEG, and then set it to converting the batch.  It seems if I were to invoke MPEG from within Aperture I will first get a duplicate file, and then could invoke the transcoding?  Extra steps and extra file space usage?


Trimming might be better Aperture to MPEG, roundtripped, but would still not yet have a file useful in Final Cut?


I have trimmed cute little videos in Aperture and directly uploaded them to Facebook, but not that useful beyond short and cute kid videos.


So what, if any, external video editors have you used, or seen reported to be used, and for what tasks?  Color correction would be a great purpose, but how to do?



  • 1. Re: Video Workflows
    léonie Level 9 Level 9 (51,720 points)

    Hi Ernie,

    I have a very different video workflow from you, so I probably cannot help much.

    Many of my videos are not taken with a camera, but rendered by a ray tracer or other graphics animation programs, and so they are not clearly linked to photos.


    I rarely do any video editing in Aperture. I import the videos first to iMovie or Final Cut to trim them and stabilize them, and to make basic preprocessing. And then I run space saver in iMovie to get rid of 99% of the clips. To Aperture I only import the clips (trimmed and stabilized) that I want to add to slide shows. All other video is stored in the iMovie library.


    The only external video editor I use from Aperture is Quicktime 7 to set basic Quicktime properties, like flipping or rotating the video or loop it. Another tool I frequently use is Quartz Composer for graphics compositions.





    http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~dreschle/Animationen/IVC_Movies/Pages /StellingenUFO.html

    http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~dreschle/Animationen/IVC_Movies/Pages /HandUFOMovie.html

  • 2. Re: Video Workflows
    Ernie Stamper Level 8 Level 8 (37,475 points)



    Thanks.  I only use Aperture to collect the video shot on my DSLR, which is H264.  They play fine in Aperture, but if I want to take them through Final Cut, I must transcode them to Pro Res 422 or similar.  While the highly compressed H64 will import and play in Final Cut, it does not play nice with editing.


    So over 90% of my DSLR video will have to be transcoded.  This seems best done outside of any interaction with Aperture.  My video shot on my two Sony AVCHD camcorders is logged and transferred in Final Cut as Pro Res 422, and thus ready to be edited.  Once edited in Final Cut, the typical output is using QT Conversion back to H264, but with audio at 44.100 mHz versus the original 48.000.


    But there are times when I shoot video of quick little activities, knowing that I can capture stills from such video, and/or quickly decide to use without much editing -- those I would be willing to take some easier route.  But generally they will go to Vimeo, and even a test of iMovie did not play nicely with the needs of Vimeo.  But some of those aforementioned quickie videos could benefit from color correction, as they also could before trying to capture stills.




    This video has been edited in Final Cut to include clips shoot with both my camcorder and DSLR:



  • 3. Re: Video Workflows
    Michigan One Fly Level 2 Level 2 (240 points)


    You don't mention which version of Final Cut you are using. If you have FCPX things g=have gooten a lot easier for workflows.

    I use Aperture and Final Cut Pro X.

    Any AVCHD video gets imported into FCPX, during the import it is transcoded to Pro Res.  For DSLR h.264 I can bring it into Aperture first or I can exclude video and then import it right into FCPX and it can be transcoded to Pro Ress if I choose, but I normally select proxy and then switxh back to original for output. During the import I can set in and out points for each clip and save a lot of disk space.

    FCPX and Aperture play very well together and I no longer use MPEG.  If I need to convert I use Quicktime Pro 7.

  • 4. Re: Video Workflows
    Ernie Stamper Level 8 Level 8 (37,475 points)

    This is something I have been hoping to hear someone talk about.  I have continued to use FCP7, but have wondered if FCPX had something to offer in this regard.  Have you used FCPX to directly upload to Vimeo, btw, and changed the audio spec just for that upload?


    When I have read in the FCPX forum, I have not seen the references to this sort of workflow between it and Aperture.



  • 5. Re: Video Workflows
    Michigan One Fly Level 2 Level 2 (240 points)


    I have exported directly to YouTube and I may have gone directly to Vimeo also, but that is not my typical work flow.  I normally share as a master file.  Which would be a full Pro Ress version of the movie. This Master can then be converted to whatever I require or dropped right into iDVD or Toast.   I  use QT 7 Pro to convert for Vimeo or YouTube or whatever I need. 

    Early on there was a lot if issues with passwords when sharing directly to Vimeo, that may have been resolved, but like I said that is not my typical workflow.Screen Shot 2013-01-05 at 8.20.29 PM.png

    Above is a screen shot of FCPX .  Note the photo browser is looking at Aperture and 2 of the thumbs are video. (The image may be too small to see the detail but is can be expaned by clicking on it).  FCPX actually uses the previews for stills, so there is no need to rescale the large DSLR files down to 1920x1080 or anything like that.  But the preview preference needs to be 1920 x 1080 or a little more  for good quality results using the stills.


    From a interface standpoint FCPX is very different than FCP 7, it's more like iMovie.  I think you will find that the FCPX forum is very much like the Aperture forum in that there are some very good resources and they respond very quickly to questions.


    I hope this helps.


    Message was edited by: Michigan One Fly

  • 6. Re: Video Workflows
    Michigan One Fly Level 2 Level 2 (240 points)


    I took a look at the video you posted the link to.  The muticam feature in FCPX would work very well for syncing and editing footage like this where mutipule cameras are used. 

  • 7. Re: Video Workflows
    Ernie Stamper Level 8 Level 8 (37,475 points)

    This screenshot was very helpful to see.  I think it may be time to jump to FCPX, at least on my rMBP where I do not have FCP7 installed.


    Of course when you say it is more like iMovie I chuckle a bit, as my heavy use of iMovie was back before it was so changed in interface, and it fact it looked a little like FCP.


    A quick question while I have your attention in this thread:  Frequently I set up a camcorder to video everything, in what may be over an hour of stuff.  Then I move around with my DSLR to do clips of single events within the larger event.  I assume several multi-cam clips, all using the base long clip from the stationary camera will be no problem?  I like what I have previously read about the sync on audio that FCPX can generally (but not always apparently) accomplish since my sources are not time coded.



  • 8. Re: Video Workflows
    Kirby Krieger Level 6 Level 6 (11,945 points)

    Hi Ernie,


    I have little to add, but thought it might still be useful.  I don't do _any_ video editing in Aperture.  I tried, and found it simply didn't meet my needs.  I do use Aperture to store and extract stills from video -- which is my main interaction with video.  If I need to transcode, I go to MPEG Streamclip, which is extremely useful.  Ditto with cropping video, and/or extracting video snippets.  I don't do this via the external editor feature.  I think I tried, got befuddled (this was before I had any understanding of the "pseudo-Master"), and have simply stuck with exporting and importing when needed.


    It would be interesting, and good, to know if the video workflow with an external editor is the same as the image workflow is.  Until I find out, I'm satisfied carrying my packages across the street.


    The only time I had to make a movie, I used iMovie.  My brain hurts still (it was like living for three weeks in a narrow five-story house that had no stairs and all the windows bore arcane locks).

  • 9. Re: Video Workflows
    Michigan One Fly Level 2 Level 2 (240 points)


    What you are describing is very similar to what I do when I tape woodturning demonstrations.  Camera A records the entire event, camera B does overhead, and camera C does close ups and audience shots.


    FCPX has worked very well for me when syncing these shots.  All of the cameras need decent audio and it helps if there are spikes in the audio to help with the sync.  It also helps if there is a pauses in the action so that the A camera can be stopped for a few seconds so that the footage is broken up into 3 or 4, or more, shorter segments.


    You can install FCP on a machine with FCP on it if you need to, see the sticky on the FCPX forum.

    There are some very good tutorials online and ebooks for a jump start on using FCPX. 

  • 10. Re: Video Workflows
    Ernie Stamper Level 8 Level 8 (37,475 points)



    I set MPEG Streamclip as External Video Editor.  Aperture created a quasi-original just as it does for a photo.  I did not proceed further, as I could NOT reason whether MPEG could drop the conversion back into the Library, and furthermore why would I ever want it to.


    The issue for me is whether I can skip some intermediate files -- for example, can FCPX upload a proper file to Vimeo without my having to convert back to H264 in FCPX and save that file before uploading.


    Also, if FCPX can color correct for me without extra files, that would be a big plus.  I have no need for any converted file to be dropped back into the Aperture Library, as like you I know that Aperture is never to be my video editor.