Apple ProRes 422 from FCP X and FCP 7 give different results!

The codec is identical. It has to be you're using the same codec in all three applications. FCP might handle compression into ProRes differently, but the codec is the same.

Is this the first time you've tried to do this process in FCPX?

The right side of your table is cut off on my computer.

P.S. Why are you exporting DV in ProRes and not its native format before you do the standards conversion?

Sorry I don't get the slider in my window. (What browser are you using out of curiosity?)

The figures look essentially the same if a little odd. FCP7 should also have timecode. FCPX has a color profile, which 7 doesn't use, but I don't think that should make a difference. Maybe Comprssor 3 (not 3.5?) doesn't understand it. Interesting that FCP uses a higher bit rate, but produces a slightly smaller file.

I'm trying to run some tests, but it will take a while.

My Safari browser shows the slider OK.

It could be very well that you should use compressor 4 for FCPX, to get the results you want. From my experience with FCPX and Compressor 4 your transcode should take less than an hour. I have tried FCP 7 with compressor 4 and it works just fine, so why not get compressor 4?

Sorry it took so long to get this done.

I ran the same thing as you. File exported form FCPX, same duration, ProRes DV NTSC resolution. Converted it to H2.64 DV PAL resolution. Used Compressor 4 it took 47 minutes. Used Compressor 3.5 it took 42 minutes. The discrepancy may have been other things happening on the computer. Also the Compressor settings may not have been exactly the same as the two versions use different base presets.

I see no conceivable reason why your Compressor 3 encode would take six hours or anywhere near that.

Tom Wolsky wrote:

The right side of your table is cut off on my computer.

And

Sorry I don't get the slider in my window. (What browser are you using out of curiosity?)

FWIW, it shows up in SL w/Safari. Haven't checked in Lion.

baltwo wrote:

Tom Wolsky wrote:

The right side of your table is cut off on my computer.

And

Sorry I don't get the slider in my window. (What browser are you using out of curiosity?)

FWIW, it shows up in SL w/Safari. Haven't checked in Lion.

I also thought the table was cut off at the right. I'm in Lion. That's an effect of Lion not showing a scroll bar until you try to scroll. I never worried about that before, as I always scroll with two fingers on the trackpad, but this example shows how now having affordances can be a bad idea.

Hi Luis, what do you mean by "affordances"?

Actually my main question about your post centres on your mention of a trackpad.

Last week Karsten said that he used a Magic Trackpad in preference to a mouse.

I had never thought about trackpads until then but his comments got me interested.

Is yours a separate trackpad for use with desktops and if so how do you find it for use with FCP X?

Ian R. Brown wrote:

… Last week Karsten said that he used a Magic Trackpad in preference to a mouse.

I had never thought about trackpads until then but his comments got me interested.

those vanishing scroll-bars is a feature of Lion, I had to get used with it.

on first sight, the inserted pic looks cut.

hovering the 2 fingers moving cursor over it, let the bars appear.

esp. in Preview.app it gets a bit tricky, when you like to scroll down a long text by grabbing the bars - when you're too slow, the bar vanishes!

but on my Magic Trackpad I just swipe down 2 fingers fast - presto! - end of page/pic/site ...

JamesB-JSA wrote:

… Is this a reason to use Compressor 3 with FCP 7 and Compressor 4 with FCP X? (I do not have Compressor 4 as I didn't see a need for it)!

coming from the hobbyist corner, I never used C3 ... but does it allow to use each core on your Mac as 'instance' to speed up rendering?

C4 does, and on my tiny C2D mini, using both cores for rendering really increased the process dramatically - not to imagine, doing so one some 12-core beast ...

maybe this feature is a reason to invest 40€ ... 😉

Ian, the term "affordances" may be roughly described as "visual clues".

They can be some indication such as "there is something to click here", but it can be more than that. For example, up until Snow Leopard, whenever the content of a window was too large to fit into the view, you got a scroll bar; but not only that, as the size of the cursor in that scroll bar gave you an indication of how much more there was. In Lion, by default, you won't see a scroll bar unless you either start scrolling or click in a very tight area. I've become reasonably comfortable with it, but I can see why some people resent that change.

Let me give you another example: you can unlock, or duplicate a document by clicking on a little triangle... that only shows when you place your mouse there... so you might not even know that something can happen there - i.e. there is no affordance in this case.

Regarding mouse vs trackpad: I suppose it is a matter of personal preference. I've worked mostly on laptops for about ten years now, so I grew accustomed to trackpads. The trackpad in my macbook pro works perfectly, and I feel no need to use a mouse with it. Other people hate trackpads and always bring a mouse along.

If I were to buy an iMac today, I'd seriously consider the Magic Trackpad.

That said, I still think that for serious editing, the most vital and flexible input peripheral is the keyboard.

James, is there a possibility that you have gotten these values wrong? I was never good at math but it seems odd to me that you would have the same length video with a higher bitrate result in smaller file?

Final Cut Studio end out with Quick Time 7 Pro and the other app with Quick Time X, for myself i really prefer the result with Quick Time 7 Pro then the X version, who for know it is not really full compatible to every one, one day we will have Quick Time Pro X, so the Beta will end out