Adobe Premiere Pro and Canon 60d

[100Teraflops]

Ok folks, I have a quick question regarding the use of Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 and a Canon 60d. I want to know if PP can edit video files natively from the camera? Of course the 7d and other top end models are supported, but Adobe does not mention the 60d.

Please do not guess, as I need to know for sure whether I have to convert the recorded movies into a recognized format. Thanks in advance.

 

[gameface]

You certainly can, but you shouldn't.

 

[100Teraflops]

You certainly can, but you shouldn't.

Thanks for the quick answer. Why not?

 

[handsome pete]

Thanks for the quick answer. Why not?

I second gameface's answer. Simply put, h.264 is a delivery codec. Even though Premiere can handle it natively, you're still much better off converting to a more edit friendly format.

Editing h.264 might be fine for smaller projects, but not for anything where you'll need multiple streams of video, heavy post processing, etc.

 

[100Teraflops]

I second gameface's answer. Simply put, h.264 is a delivery codec. Even though Premiere can handle it natively, you're still much better off converting to a more edit friendly format.

Editing h.264 might be fine for smaller projects, but not for anything where you'll need multiple streams of video, heavy post processing, etc.

Thanks for clarifying this for me. I was not aware that h.264 is not edit friendly for intense projects. This leads to my next question, which file converter do you recommend for video? I am using Switch to convert wma files into mp3 files, but I am not sure if the standard version converts video files from one format to another. Thanks in advance!

 

[handsome pete]

Mpeg Streamclip is a good free one that a lot of people seem to like.

However, if you already have Premiere then you might also have Adobe's media encoder. That should work.

 

[100Teraflops]

Mpeg Streamclip is a good free one that a lot of people seem to like.

However, if you already have Premiere then you might also have Adobe's media encoder. That should work.

Thanks for the assistance! I bought Production Premiere, but I have not installed it yet.

 

[Kevin Monahan]

Thanks for the assistance! I bought Production Premiere, but I have not installed it yet.

With Premiere Pro CS5, you really don't need to transcode your h.264 files. With a decent machine, you should have no issue with editing those files natively.

Final Cut Pro is a different story. You'll definitely have to transcode to work with that. But Premiere? No need to transcode!

 

[100Teraflops]

With Premiere Pro CS5, you really don't need to transcode your h.264 files. With a decent machine, you should have no issue with editing those files natively.

Final Cut Pro is a different story. You'll definitely have to transcode to work with that. But Premiere? No need to transcode!

Thank you for the information Kevin! I am convinced that I chose wisely. Also, welcome to the forum if you have not been greeted accordingly. It is nice to see the software professionals from Adobe contribute to the forum.

 

[handsome pete]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I appreciate Kevin's insight and am impressed with how far Premiere has come, but I still stand by transcoding your material to a true intermediate. You can edit natively if you're just seeking a basic edit, nothing fancy. But it is still not recommended if you plan on doing a good amount of post processing, color correction, vfx, multiple simultaneous streams, etc.

h264 is heavily compressed and you're still better suited working in a lossless/ virtually lossless format.

Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

 

[tonydragon]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I appreciate Kevin's insight and am impressed with how far Premiere has come, but I still stand by transcoding your material to a true intermediate. You can edit natively if you're just seeking a basic edit, nothing fancy. But it is still not recommended if you plan on doing a good amount of post processing, color correction, vfx, multiple simultaneous streams, etc.

h264 is heavily compressed and you're still better suited working in a lossless/ virtually lossless format.

Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

So what intermediate format would you recomend converting to?

Tony

 

[handsome pete]

Whatever fits your workflow the best really.

I prefer ProRes. But for 60D footage, ProResLT would suffice.

 

[gameface]

With Premiere Pro CS5, you really don't need to transcode your h.264 files. With a decent machine, you should have no issue with editing those files natively.

Final Cut Pro is a different story. You'll definitely have to transcode to work with that. But Premiere? No need to transcode!

Try working with a 16 stream multiclip in h264. I was easily able to do this w/ ProRes proxy on a 2010 4-core and relink back to the 4k RED before online. 16 streams of h264 simultaneously would choke any machine. What a lot of people need to realize is what you cut in isn't and in many cases, shouldn't be, what you are finishing in.

Today we shot 3 EX3's, 1 5D MKII and 2 GoPro's with 8 lavs dual system audio. Do you think I am editing them all in their native codec and rendering like crazy to make it all work?

 

[100Teraflops]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I appreciate Kevin's insight and am impressed with how far Premiere has come, but I still stand by transcoding your material to a true intermediate. You can edit natively if you're just seeking a basic edit, nothing fancy. But it is still not recommended if you plan on doing a good amount of post processing, color correction, vfx, multiple simultaneous streams, etc.

h264 is heavily compressed and you're still better suited working in a lossless/ virtually lossless format.

Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Noted Sir. Ok, I need to see if i understand what you are saying: if I were to edit heavily, whether it may be home video or designed for Hollywood, I want to convert the file from h.264 to ProResLT or an equivalent in order to benefit from the affects of my edit?

I want to take clips from several home videos to make a "greatest clips" video. Is this edit intense? I am new and not quite as knowledgeable, but trying to convert a file after it is complete is not cool, as it sounds technical and tedious.

Whatever fits your workflow the best really.

I prefer ProRes. But for 60D footage, ProResLT would suffice.

Thanks for identifying which code to convert to!

Try working with a 16 stream multiclip in h264. I was easily able to do this w/ ProRes proxy on a 2010 4-core and relink back to the 4k RED before online. 16 streams of h264 simultaneously would choke any machine. What a lot of people need to realize is what you cut in isn't and in many cases, shouldn't be, what you are finishing in.

Today we shot 3 EX3's, 1 5D MKII and 2 GoPro's with 8 lavs dual system audio. Do you think I am editing them all in their native codec and rendering like crazy to make it all work?

That is very technical! I will wager that you are rendering like crazy.

Also, an extension of my questions to HandsomePete: when dealing with larger video clips, one should flip them to ProRes or ProResLT? Does it matter which code they are in if one wants to burn the clips to a dvd? What about posting online, say to youtube or a web-site? I am confused when to convert a video from h.264 to ProResLT or edit natively. Furthermore, does one code represent a bettering viewing experience than another? Sorry for so many question, but I want to make sure I know what you folks are talking about.

 

[handsome pete]

when dealing with larger video clips, one should flip them to ProRes or ProResLT? Does it matter which code they are in if one wants to burn the clips to a dvd? What about posting online, say to youtube or a web-site? I am confused when to convert a video from h.264 to ProResLT or edit natively. Furthermore, does one code represent a bettering viewing experience than another? Sorry for so many question, but I want to make sure I know what you folks are talking about.

Size of the file won't make a difference. The difference between ProResHQ and ProResLT are quality based and since you're coming from a heavily compressed source to begin with, you wouldn't really gain much advantage going with something like ProResHQ. That would be better suited for higher quality source material.

Honestly though, with your described use, you should be fine with editing natively (if your machine is capable). Should you ever get into more advanced editing, then I would look at the benefits of transcoding.

 

[100Teraflops]

Size of the file won't make a difference. The difference between ProResHQ and ProResLT are quality based and since you're coming from a heavily compressed source to begin with, you wouldn't really gain much advantage going with something like ProResHQ. That would be better suited for higher quality source material.

Honestly though, with your described use, you should be fine with editing natively (if your machine is capable). Should you ever get into more advanced editing, then I would look at the benefits of transcoding.

Thanks again for answering my questions. So, heavy transcoding has to do with the the compression and quality of the video file.

Well, today I ordered a 7200 rpm HDD and 8 GB of ram. I have the the machine in my signature. I thought about buying 12 GB of ram, but it may be overkill for my needs.

 

[martinX]

Take a look here:

In this brief video, Worldwide Product Evangelist Jason Levine will explain the basis of transcoding, showcasing the workflow outside of CS5; he''ll then show you what a native workflow is all about in Premiere Pro CS5, and explain some scenarios for staying native or moving to an intermediate codec. This video also points out some of the misconceptions about transcoding, but also highlights some of the round-tripping capabilities of CS5 with FCP and AMC.

 

[100Teraflops]

Take a look here:

In this brief video, Worldwide Product Evangelist Jason Levine will explain the basis of transcoding, showcasing the workflow outside of CS5; he''ll then show you what a native workflow is all about in Premiere Pro CS5, and explain some scenarios for staying native or moving to an intermediate codec. This video also points out some of the misconceptions about transcoding, but also highlights some of the round-tripping capabilities of CS5 with FCP and AMC.

Hey, thanks a lot! I will checkout that video for more information!

The video editors posting on this forum are first class, as you folks go the extra mile to help the new people by introducing the basics of editing. Patience is an underrated virtue

 

[jwheeler]

Hey, thanks a lot! I will checkout that video for more information!

The video editors posting on this forum are first class, as you folks go the extra mile to help the new people by introducing the basics of editing. Patience is an underrated virtue

I know, it's awesome... no! they're awesome. I'm still confused about this tho... It sounds like we should edit in native if we want to do something quick (like rough cuts???) and transcode if we want to do fine editing on a big multi angle project or if we want to share a project???

But i'm not sure anymore. I'm thinking I might just transcode for the projects that I wish to look professional... and not if I'm not bothered. :S I guess I'd do this until told otherwise

Besides new FCP in a week????

 

[handsome pete]

I'm thinking I might just transcode for the projects that I wish to look professional

It's not about the look so much as it is about the ease of use. Again, editing in an intemediate codec will not tax your system as much. h264 is heavily compressed, so it requires much more computing power to work with in real time. You could do a whole edit (just cutting clips together no heavy post processing) in h264 and then the same edit with your footage transcoded to ProRes and neither will look "more professional."

The footage was originally acquired in h264, so transcoding to ProRes or the like will not all of a sudden make it higher quality. What it does is opens up the head room for when you start doing something like adding effects, tweaking color, etc. (and of course it runs smoother overall because it's not heavily compressed). It's also beneficial if you do a lot of work across different programs, like for example doing effects shots in After Effects and then bringing back to Final Cut. You don't want to be constantly exporting and recompressing footage.

 

[martinX]

It sounds like we should edit in native if we want to do something quick (like rough cuts???)

They don't have to be "rough", they can be "final". A cut is a cut. What your system can handle is the key here.

DL the PP Pro demo and have a go.

I'm thinking I might just transcode for the projects that I wish to look professional... and not if I'm not bothered.

I echo handsome pete's answer.

Besides new FCP in a week????

We live in hope...

 

[100Teraflops]

We live in hope...

In Apple we trust! Now I understand the difference between h.264 and ProRes.

One more thing folks, if a h264 video file is natively compressed, then when it is transcoded to ProRes, will it be larger file size? For instance: if I have a 200mb video clip in h264, then if I convert it to ProRes, will the clip be, say, 250mb? I am thinking in the lines of winzip(?) or when you compress a file to reduce the bytes. Is this why ProRes does not tax the system as much as a compressed file such as h.264?

I understand the point that a ProRes file is easier to add effects to including color editing or after effects, so it is post edit of an edit? The h.264 file will use more system power, hence the longer time to achieve the same product due to editing in a compressed video file?

Thanks again guys for taking the time to answer our questions.

EDIT: I watched the video and pretty much the material covered in the video is what you guys said all along. Not that I questioned your answers. I apologize gents as I misunderstood the meaning of words such as "after process," "adding effects," and "transcoding." I did not understand neither the stress on the system nor the time involved to transcode video files.

Although transcoding into ProRes consumes time, but what about the final product? If I use the h.264 clip, add effects to it and change the color, will this tax the system more so than just transcoding into ProRes to begin with? Which method supports a 'weaker system,' editing natively or transcoding the original file into ProRes? I hope these questions are clear. Thanks again!

 

[jwheeler]

It's not about the look so much as it is about the ease of use. Again, editing in an intemediate codec will not tax your system as much. h264 is heavily compressed, so it requires much more computing power to work with in real time. You could do a whole edit (just cutting clips together no heavy post processing) in h264 and then the same edit with your footage transcoded to ProRes and neither will look "more professional."

The footage was originally acquired in h264, so transcoding to ProRes or the like will not all of a sudden make it higher quality. What it does is opens up the head room for when you start doing something like adding effects, tweaking color, etc. (and of course it runs smoother overall because it's not heavily compressed). It's also beneficial if you do a lot of work across different programs, like for example doing effects shots in After Effects and then bringing back to Final Cut. You don't want to be constantly exporting and recompressing footage.

Thats not quite what i meant by that sentence, but you've answered my question anyway. By "professional looking" I meant doing more to the footage (including using AE - which i will do a lot with an upcoming project)

 

[100Teraflops]

Thats not quite what i meant by that sentence, but you've answered my question anyway. By "professional looking" I meant doing more to the footage (including using AE - which i will do a lot with an upcoming project)

He might have been talking about me! Nevertheless, now it is time for me to start filming. Good luck with your project.

 

[juice]

In Apple we trust! Now I understand the difference between h.264 and ProRes.

One more thing folks, if a h264 video file is natively compressed, then when it is transcoded to ProRes, will it be larger file size? For instance: if I have a 200mb video clip in h264, then if I convert it to ProRes, will the clip be, say, 250mb? I am thinking in the lines of winzip(?) or when you compress a file to reduce the bytes. Is this why ProRes does not tax the system as much as a compressed file such as h.264?

I understand the point that a ProRes file is easier to add effects to including color editing or after effects, so it is post edit of an edit? The h.264 file will use more system power, hence the longer time to achieve the same product due to editing in a compressed video file?

Thanks again guys for taking the time to answer our questions.

EDIT: I watched the video and pretty much the material covered in the video is what you guys said all along. Not that I questioned your answers. I apologize gents as I misunderstood the meaning of words such as "after process," "adding effects," and "transcoding." I did not understand neither the stress on the system nor the time involved to transcode video files.

Although transcoding into ProRes consumes time, but what about the final product? If I use the h.264 clip, add effects to it and change the color, will this tax the system more so than just transcoding into ProRes to begin with? Which method supports a 'weaker system,' editing natively or transcoding the original file into ProRes? I hope these questions are clear. Thanks again!

While I am no pro, in my experience transcoding to prores yield a file size an order of magnitude greater that what you started with in h.264. How much greater depends on the detail, but as a test I just transcoded a 41MB H.264 file which produced a 512MB ProRes 422 file.

On a larger scale - my camera (Canon 60D) uses roughly16GB per hour of h.264 video.

According to apple here's what you get with 1 hour of ProRes



ProRes Version Store 1 Hour of 720p/60*

ProRes 422 Proxy 20 GB

ProRes 422 LT 46 GB

ProRes 422 66 GB

ProRes 422 HQ 99 GB

ProRes 4444 (no alpha) 148 GB

Here's a link about it - http://www.larryjordan.biz/articles/lj_picking_prores.html