Want to highlight a helpful answer? Upvote!
Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
Anyone know when / if FCPX will import files from this camera natively? a real pain to have to transcode adding time to the workflow...
Mac Pro (Late 2013), OS X El Capitan (10.11.3)
If anyone here knew the answer, they wouldn't be able to say.
According to the discussions at FCP.co, the workaround – until whenever/ if ever – seems to be Resolve and transcode.
Russ
Hi Russ,
Actually - there are some other workarounds if one is transcoding... I tested the trial version of Brorsoft MXF converter it seemed to transcode the files to Pro Res HQ fine - it is not expensive. But if Resolve works - it is free :-).
Thanks for the info I will try it...
The point here though is thahese workarounds involve additional time in the workflow.. .the whole point of the proxy files from the C300 Mk 2 is to speed up the workflow by editing proxy files. I am in discussion with Canon about this so hopefully it will get resolved in some way or other
The camera shoots multiple, very different, formats. Which ones are you talking about? The 444 formats are not supported.
Hi Tom,
The camera shoots different frame sizes of YCbCr, different frame sizes of RGB 444 and proxy versions of these two formats. You can also record externally RAW - but I am not concerned with that at the moment.
I could not get any of the 444 files nor any of the proxy files to import to FCPX. The 444 full resolution files and all of the proxy files only import the audio but none of the imports (inc YCC,) include all the metadata generated by the camera. I have not had the time to test properly with Resolve but I was able to transcode some files to Pro Res.
My point is still that adding a transcode layer to the workflow defeats the purpose of the proxy files (if they could be imported). And we are getting back to the same kind of discussions that were had when FCPX first appeared... is it time to move on to a different NLE? Apple seem to not be taking FCPX seriously (again!) Other NLEs seem to be able to import these files already (I may eat my words once I've been able to test properly). I also fear that Apple thinks FCPX can handle the MXF-YCC files already when actually it is quite limited.
I suppose I expect better from Apple - and I expect camera manufacturers and Apple to work together to resolve these kinds of issue while things are in development rather than wait until people start asking why things are working smoothly...
NNot sure how you arrive at not taking the NiLE seriously when it doesn't support a new proprietary format. I'm sure Premiere supports it. It supports painfully every format that comes out immediately and natively. If that's what you need use it. I don't care. FCP may support it one day, and when it does it will be in a way that works well in the application so it can function smoothly and efficiently. Don't see the point of adding it in until it can do that.
With few exceptions camera manufacturers have never worked with post developers.
You seem to be taking this as some kind of personal attack... the I don't care attitude is exactly what if feels like from Apple (and originally from Canon - though that has changed since I contacted them). I raised this point originally to see if there could be any helpful interaction regarding the issue.
Premier Pro CC (it is claimed) does work with these files I don't agree with the renting software approach Adobe has adopted so I only have a CS6 version - and that only imports the audio of the RGB and proxy files. But as an earlier post also mentioned Resolve seems to open these files. And there is other software that transcodes these files
Really my point is about Apple (or any other relevant company) working with all the camera manufacturers while things are in development so that these issues are dealt with in a timely mannner. It is in everyone's interest.
Since you don't care why bother with adding anything to this thread.
I hope you won't put off others who might have something constructive and helpful to add
WWith few exceptions camera manufacturers have never worked with post developers when creating proprietary variants of software standards. Manufacturers have build H.265 based cameras before the format development was even finished. They created non-standard formats like 59.94fps interlaced. Now an RGB 444 format. They do this because they can rather than using a codec such as ProRes like Arri did. It makes the files smaller and the format cheaper but adds a whole layer of complexity to post that they seem not to care at all about. Both Canon and Sony have famously done this over the years, developing completely separate formats from internationally agreed standards.
"Now an RGB 444 format. They do this because they can rather than using a codec such as ProRes like Arri did"
Really?????????
Your complaining about internal RGB 444? Do you not understand the extra scope in post this codec offers? Bravo Canon for offering such amazing in camera choice of codec and advancement in camera science. Bravo Apple for the updates that now deal with all Canon codecs. I cared a lot that Final Cut Pro X came up to speed with Premiere and Resolve in being able to deal with these codecs. Final Cut Pro X is by far the most efficient app to edit any kind of project in and I am over the moon.
"Since you don't care why bother with adding anything to this thread.
I hope you won't put off others who might have something constructive and helpful to add"
Well said. What an unbelievably negative response to a basic question in a forum. I only wish there was a 'This post was extremely unhelpful' button and their precious points were deducted accordingly. Maybe we would not get the multitude of useless posts from the same individuals over and over and over....
Obviously the new updates have fixed all so happy days. Enjoy your C300 MKII Peter, such a wonderful camera to use and the the images it produces blow my mind.
Arri uses ProRes 4444.
My dad drives a truck.
TThe codec Arri uses is better than one used by Canon and it's been supported for far longer.
try updating fcpx to 10.2.3 and install the canon plugin linked from this page:
Import XF and XF-AVC media from Canon cameras with Final Cut Pro X
I'm sorry. I missed the thread title 'Arrii is much better than Canon'
Heading to the bank to borrow $80,000 + so I can buy an Alexa and use Arri's superior codec - THAT THEY CHARGE FOR by the way.
To be honest, I'm happy with 12 bit 444 and internal 4K with a camera that is half the price with an image almost as good.
As a reminder Tom - Anyone know when / if FCPX will import files from this camera natively?
Not sure how your answer 'TThe codec Arri uses is better than one used by Canon and it's been supported for far longer.' is in any way relevant to the original question.
Anyways, Apple have fixed the problem so we should all be happy. I'm off to shoot some 12 bit 444 with my inferior C300MKII and have a blast when I import my inferior codec into Final Cut Pro X.
I Answered the original question in a doffering thread giving basically the same answer Russ did.
canon C300 mk 2 MXF files
