Why transcode when it increases file size significantly? (Canon 7D)

Also keep in mind that with the advent of card based recording, you usually won't have a backup of your footage like you would if you had recorded to tape or film. If you have too reuse your memory card before you're finished with an edit, and something were to happen to your hard drive or a media file becomes corrupt, you have no backup at all.

So, not only do you need to transcode the footage from it's acquisition format, you should have a duplicate of it on another hard drive as a backup. That's twice the space!

-DH

The most common reasons to transcode include:

1. the need to convert to an editing codec

2. the need to deliver in a specific codec (e.g.; iPhone, Vimeo, WMV, etc)

-DH

In order to record any significant amount of video on small capacity memory cards, almost all camera manufacturers have migrated their consumer/prosumer (and some professional) cameras to record in codecs that were originally designed as final delivery codecs ... meaning that they are highly compressed and not deigned for editing. So, we, the editor, must convert them to an edit friendly codec, which is usually much less compressed and that means larger file sizes.

-DH

http://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/professionalformatsandworkflows/in dex.html#chapter=10%26section=2%26tasks=true

-DH

Agno wrote:
In my mind I feel that FCP would function a lot smoother if the files were smaller opposed to the enlarged transcoded versions. Mind you, I'm totally new to this, my experience and career is based on audio knowledge.

Here's the deal: with audio, there are only a few 'formats' right? AIFF, WAV, mp3, couple others...and that's it. When was there there a new audio "codec" introduced? With video there are dozens and dozens of codecs. New flavors and iterations spring up monthly. Some more complex than others. These newer cams are shooting highly compressed footage: small sizes.

However, with some, like the Canon DSLR's that record to H.264 there's a cost: CPU cycles. Meaning, this codec has a LOT of overhead when it comes time to decode/playback. It's a very processor-intensive codec. (For reasons I won't get into here.) Anyway, the point is that file size is not the only factor that determines smooth playback. In fact, in this case, the opposite is true:

H.264 - small files, computationally-heavy playback, ie problems with editing
ProRes - larger files, optimized for FCP playback though, so no problems with editing (with fast enough hard drives)

HTH

Nicely worded and explained Kevin.

Thanks