FCPX - "send to compressor" or create (prores444) master file to open in Compressor?

Question

Level 1

33 points

FCPX - "send to compressor" or create (prores444) master file to open in Compressor?

Hi,

which workflow gives the best result? Either use "send to Compressor" in FCPX to send the project to Compressor and create the delivery file there (e.g. h.265) or export a master file (e.g. proRes 444) from FCPX which I then open in Compressor to create the delivery file?

I guess they are similar, but wouldn't the extra compression step form FCPX (optimized media) -> proRes 444 -> h.265 potentially give more artifacts compared to going directly to Compressor via "send to Compressor"? The latter seems to skip a compression stage...

I might confuse all of this though... Is the "optimized media" in my project actually proRes 444, and thus exporting this to a proRes 444 maste file would not result in any quality degradation (actually not a compression stage)? What do you guys do, and which codec do you use for your master file if you take that route?

Thanks!

André.

iMac Line (2012 and Later)

Posted on Oct 6, 2019 11:19 AM

Reply

Answer 1

BenB

Level 6

13,282 points

Oct 10, 2019 3:03 PM in response to Anterialis

The first will be faster, and you'd probably end up with the same quality either way. Technically Send-To makes compressor read the individual frames for best quality, and that eats up a slight bit more time. But ProRes (any flavor but LT) will retain original quality over several transcodes and not lose anything. Is there a reason you're using ProRes 4x4?

The same compression engine is used either way. And if you're going to H.264, make a custom preset for it in Compressor. Then in FCPX go to preferences and make a custom Destination from that preset. Then you don't have to bother with Compressor, just export directly out of FCPX.

And, where are you finding H.265 in Compressor? Or is that a third party add-on?

Reply

Answer 2

BenB

Level 6

13,282 points

Oct 9, 2019 11:14 PM in response to Anterialis

First, just export from FCPX as H.264. They both use the same encoding engine. I do this daily for television broadcast and we get great results. You only need to go to compressor for very specialized encoding jobs.

Reply

Answer 3

Anterialis Author

Level 1

33 points

Oct 10, 2019 10:25 AM in response to BenB

Thank you BenB for your reply.

1) I prefer .265 as I am getting the same output quality with a lower bitrate.

2) I still don't understand the differences between the two mentioned workflows. Does it matter if I a) "send to compressor" to compress final delivery file, or 2) first export from FCPX to master file using prores 444 and then opening this file in Compressor to deliver/compress into a .265 file? Will the first workflow be better as it only comprises of one step?

Thanks.

Reply