This discussion is archived
7102 Views 10 Replies Latest reply: Sep 30, 2009 8:27 AM by Doug Mokaren
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 10:43 AM (in response to Malcolm Hamilton)The footage from AVCHD cameras should be converted to ProRes via Log and Transfer.
You need an Intel Mac that supports ProRes and at least FCP 6.
No need for Voltaic.
The procedure is described here in detail:
Read chapter 6.Mac Pro 8 Core/Mini/3ACDs, Mac OS X (10.5.8), FCP forum elitist
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 10:44 AM (in response to Malcolm Hamilton)H.264 is not an editing format, and must be converted to one that is.
There is pro res, pro res HQ, and AIC available for editing. Also true with AVCHD footage.
For the rest, what Nick said.MacPro 2.26Ghz 8-core Nehalem 12 Gbs RAM, Mac OS X (10.5.7), GeForce GT 120 512 MBs RAM 30" ACD
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 10:51 AM (in response to David S.)thank you Nick and David. Very interesting. Tell me, do any of these little cameras record QuickTime files (and if so, would this be an advantage?).
I now understand that both AVCHD and MP4 files have to be converted. This sounds easier in FCP than Avid, which is good. But (sticking with FCP), does one convert faster and/better than the other?
Thanks again, MalcolmMacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.5), 4 GB RAM
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 11:06 AM (in response to Malcolm Hamilton)AVCHD is MPEG 4.
I have no experience with those little pocket sized cams. Mine are all huge beasts with swappable lenses.
As to whether QuickTime is advantageous, that depends on the codec used. QT is a container and the video inside could be made with any one of a number of codecs. If your system does not have that codec, it won't play.Mac Pro 8 Core/Mini/3ACDs, Mac OS X (10.5.8), FCP forum elitist
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 12:28 PM (in response to Nick Holmes)I need to read up on this: codecs, containers, etc. I need something simple and clear, if there is such a thing. My problem with the web is that I'll google something like this, and realize after I've started reading that it's five years old, and therefore hopelessly out of date. Except that, I suspect one Truth is immutable when it comes to codecs and resolutions and the like: they never become simpler; instead they become more complicated. Why doesn't Apple (which historically has simplified the user experience) come up with a codec (QuickTime can be the container) that is good for shooting, and good for editing? Or is the problem all these competing companied like Sony and Panasonic, who don't want to play nice with each other?
MalcolmMacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.5), 4 GB RAM
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 12:40 PM (in response to Malcolm Hamilton)As one who owns two cameras, one that uses AVCHD and the other that uses h.264 stored inside of a .mov file here are some things to think about.
In general, traditional video cameras use the AVCHD format. Cameras like Sony, Canon, and Panasonic are more and more using AVCHD over HDV.
Digital cameras and small hand held cameras tend to use a self-contained file format like .mp4 or .mov.
Even though they both may use the h.264 codec for compressing videos the way they do so is very different.
AVCHD footage can be transcoded within Final Cut Pro via Log and Transfer.
.mov or .mp4 files can be transcoded inside of Compressor or MPEG Streamclip for us in Final Cut (this is actually a little easier)
Here's the bottom line - go with AVCHD. Yes, it's a royal pain in the butt, but the handheld cameras don't hold a candle to the quality of a traditional video camera. And the ones that do, like the Canon PowerShot SX1 (in my case) are great - but they're not good for shooting extended footage. Doing a quick clip? I love my PowerShot. But for shooting a 45 minute presentation? I'll take the slightly lower quality video and use my HF10. Either way the footage has to be converted from it's native format into an intermediate codec.
In the end, either format has to be converted before you edit it. With AVCHD you can add logging data to your clips which is helpful in the editing process as well and chances are, you'll get a better camera.Mac Mini (2009), Mac Mini (2006), MacBook Black (2007), Mac OS X (10.6.1), FCS 3, FCE 4.0.1, Premiere/Encore CS4, AppleTV, Canon HF10, Canon PowerShot SX1
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 1:04 PM (in response to wallybarthman)thanks very much for that, Wally. You explain things clearly, and I appreciate it. I've just emailed my friend, and recommended the Sony XR500. AVCHD, and it shoots in very low light levels from what I can gather. She may need this, as she'll be in very poor parts of Lesotho where there won't be any artificial light.
Regards, MalcolmMacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.5), 4 GB RAM
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 2:08 PM (in response to Malcolm Hamilton)Good choice. I was going to suggest the Canon HF S100.Mac Mini (2009), Mac Mini (2006), MacBook Black (2007), Mac OS X (10.6.1), FCS 3, FCE 4.0.1, Premiere/Encore CS4, AppleTV, Canon HF10, Canon PowerShot SX1
Currently Being ModeratedSep 28, 2009 6:02 PM (in response to wallybarthman)Yes, I've got one of those, but I think I've heard that the Sony shoots better in lower light levels, which might help this woman out. Both excellent cameras. cheers, MalcolmMacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.5), 4 GB RAM
Currently Being ModeratedSep 30, 2009 8:27 AM (in response to Malcolm Hamilton)I've got a Sanyo HD2000 which does 1920x1080p and 1080i and all resolutions below. It makes a mp4 file that the log and transfer function in fcp doesn't recognize. In testing, I tried transcoding the mp4 to ProRes using QT pro and MPEG streamclip. MPEG streamclip took half the time that QT Pro did (3 vs 7 min). Both looked equally good. The file size from QT Pro was slightly smaller than the streamclip file, i.e. 900mb for QT, 1.2gb for Streamclip.g5, Mac OS X (10.4.11)