WORKFLOW: How do you take h.264 garbage and make it useable for editing (per requests)

[Jussaguy]

Maybe I don't understand the process when I import my footage to premiere, but as far as I know, Premiere is editing in native format and doesn't require transcoding, and again, my workstation can take it whatever I throw at it, including native 4K. So why should I bother transcoding when I can avoid it?

****, I wish I could catch this post at a computer so I can write a response but I explained it several times above.

The short of it is, especially premiere, over avid which pre-renders all the footage, h.264 is a slow codec. If you need a reason is because it's so compressed that you can't work well with it because it's so compressed, it's horrible for color correction, and any other visual effect and it's also a generation loss when you re-compress it and not when you up it to a workable codec like prores or AIC. The more compressed codecs like h.264 make the computer think more in order to give you your the plan monitor, effectively slowing you down while editing. Having a codec with a larger color space will allow you to wiggle around more freely.

This is the best I know how to explain it.

I used as an example that it's like taking a glass that's full to the rim and trying to pick it up without spilling is a lot more difficult than putting it in a bigger glass that is only half full (like prores or something similar) and it's easier to handle.

Don't know how to explain it more.

Edit after re-read***to your point of Premiere transcoding, it does to a certain extent for purposes of playback temporarily converts your footage from its native format to whatever you have set to playback settings which is correct but for h264, there is basically no good playback settings because it still has to transcode some on the fly. It doesn't put a full cached version of your assets into a folder like OMF would. It still needs to convert it which is complicated simply because it's so compressed. Think of it as needing to unwind more wires for you to see.

 

[sergekouper]

****, I wish I could catch this post at a computer so I can write a response but I explained it several times above.

The short of it is, especially premiere, over avid which pre-renders all the footage, h.264 is a slow codec. If you need a reason is because it's so compressed that you can't work well with it because it's so compressed, it's horrible for color correction, and any other visual effect and it's also a generation loss when you re-compress it and not when you up it to a workable codec like prores or AIC. The more compressed codecs like h.264 make the computer think more in order to give you your the plan monitor, effectively slowing you down while editing. Having a codec with a larger color space will allow you to wiggle around more freely.

This is the best I know how to explain it.

I used as an example that it's like taking a glass that's full to the rim and trying to pick it up without spilling is a lot more difficult than putting it in a bigger glass that is only half full (like prores or something similar) and it's easier to handle.

Don't know how to explain it more.

Edit after re-read***to your point of Premiere transcoding, it does to a certain extent for purposes of playback temporarily converts your footage from its native format to whatever you have set to playback settings which is correct but for h264, there is basically no good playback settings because it still has to transcode some on the fly. It doesn't put a full cached version of your assets into a folder like OMF would. It still needs to convert it which is complicated simply because it's so compressed. Think of it as needing to unwind more wires for you to see.

(Premiere decides by itself depending on what comes in (which makes my life easier) and playback settings/editing mode for P4 footage is AVCHD.)

Back to h.264>Prores> and then say you have to upload to youtube, so you recompress to h.264 right? back to square one to the limits of the codec... Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be awkward, but I try very hard to understand. Maybe I should exclude youtube from the equation but this is what they want to eat when you upload. Another point made by Adobe is precisely that you don't need to transcode to edit on their plaform, it's saving time etc... You're correct it happens to an extent but when you are mixing different sources. Often, in that case, I find myself rendering to get a smooth playback. Maybe I should try Prores to see if I can notice any difference. Wat should I expect to find? better picture once exported? Faster editing process? Faster export?

 

[Jussaguy]

(Premiere decides by itself depending on what comes in (which makes my life easier) and playback settings/editing mode for P4 footage is AVCHD.)

Back to h.264>Prores> and then say you have to upload to youtube, so you recompress to h.264 right? back to square one to the limits of the codec... Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be awkward, but I try very hard to understand. Maybe I should exclude youtube from the equation but this is what they want to eat when you upload. Another point made by Adobe is precisely that you don't need to transcode to edit on their plaform, it's saving time etc... You're correct it happens to an extent but when you are mixing different sources. Often, in that case, I find myself rendering to get a smooth playback. Maybe I should try Prores to see if I can notice any difference. Wat should I expect to find? better picture once exported? Faster editing process? Faster export?

This is pretty simple brother. Lay it out as easy as I can.

If you 1) have H.264 and take that H.264 and recompress it again so h.264 squared, your video WILL LOOK WORSE then if you did

2) took your h.264 and convert it to a larger color space such as ProRes, and then you compress THAT, it will be a better compression than if you did it from h.264 because ProRes essentially (to your eyes), doesn't compress with a generation loss, you won't lose a generation simply because you have a larger color space.

Put more simply, there is a negligible generation loss when compressing a ProRes file to a lower one such as h.264 and not vice versa.

You are trying to make the point that if you exported h.264 from ProRes that's the same generation loss as exporting an h.264 to h.264 but it's not, not at all. Because ProRes has a larger color space, it takes our already artifacty footage and doesn't make it worse because you are blowing up the color space. Never mind that it IS most definitely easier to use an uncompressed codec on your timeline for purposes of computing. H.264 is highly compressed and needs more cpu work to see it play nicely.

BTW, I'll be in NY for the weekend, so if I am not posting (which I probably still will), that's the reason.

Hope this makes it more understandable. I am running out of ways to say it. if you PM me, I'll give you my number and I could explain this to you in 20 seconds, seriously.

 

[Ovt]

I had never heard of ProRes before. I do my projects in an iMac, i7, 32GB, etc etc... but when working with the x.264 I noticed that sometimes, when cutting a video file, adding a few effects, color grading it, etc etc... the preview wasn't smooth at all. I had to wait for it to render in order to be able to work with it.

After I learned about this, oh man, it is like night and day. You can do whatever you want with the files, edit as much as you want, tweak all the single parameters, that the preview would play smoothly.

Also, I hadn't been able to edit a video with more than a few clips in my Macbook 12"... now using it with ProRes I won't make a 20 min movie, but it is perfectly capable of handling the 4K files and lets me make my edits

 

[Jussaguy]

I had never heard of ProRes before. I do my projects in an iMac, i7, 32GB, etc etc... but when working with the x.264 I noticed that sometimes, when cutting a video file, adding a few effects, color grading it, etc etc... the preview wasn't smooth at all. I had to wait for it to render in order to be able to work with it.

After I learned about this, oh man, it is like night and day. You can do whatever you want with the files, edit as much as you want, tweak all the single parameters, that the preview would play smoothly.

Also, I hadn't been able to edit a video with more than a few clips in my Macbook 12"... now using it with ProRes I won't make a 20 min movie, but it is perfectly capable of handling the 4K files and lets me make my edits

NIIIICEE!!!!!!

 

[Jussaguy]

If you need it for video (hate to continue the derailing of this thread, but alas) and are SERIOUS about quality, you are comparing apples to an Orchard of apple trees. I have been shooting commercially on DSLRs for the past 8 years, and just recently acquired a proper Cinema Camera that shoots RAW video, and the difference is night and day. Yes the Canon line will have better low light capability, and if that is what you're after for the majority of your work, then get one. Or the Sony A7SII or whichever, because it can literally see in the dark. But if you want latitude and range in Post, go with the RED. Plus, the RED is an investment, and you can always rent it out when you aren't working and make money on it that way.

I just saw this post while looking for another one.

Was this aimed at me because I have no idea what the context is here or what you are trying to say.

Of course shooting raw uncompressed video through a very expensive professional Red Epic is night and day from shooting h.264 on a prosumer camera so I don't know what you're responding to or if youre responding to me.

Normally if I'm not sure, I would remain quiet but you said something in here that I completely disagree with and that is "if you want latitude and range in post, go with the Red, and it's an investment". There is a common saying in the post industry "Buy for the job you have, not the job you want" unless you want to lose your shirt.

Trust me on this one, don't spend the money on the Epic Red if you can't afford to thinking you'll make the money back by renting it because that won't happen. Why? Because the Epic Red and the new A7 by Sony are just the beginning of professional rental houses. They also have multi-million dollar rigs for cameras as well. You don't want to buy something with the hope of starting a business renting them out. It's my opinion, but as stated above, its an industry adage to not do that for safety.

Go try and get a gig where the job will pay for the Red or half of it and then you're talking. OR, try renting it before you get it and see how you do.

Do not buy an expensive piece of gear like the Epic Red unless a) you can afford to without making money or b) if you have a job for it.

EXAMPLE:

For the Epic Red Dragon which is the lowest Red that will shoot in 6K I believe, has a warranty that costs almost twice as much as the P4 itself and the camera comes in at a not bad 50k. Good news, its carbon fiber and has a side SSD for drones and is made specifically for things like the new Matrice 600. Every SINGLE frame of video in the RAW/Uncompressed setting is 19 Megapixels and a HUGE amount of color space and a massive amount of data size as well making it great for clean VFX plates. But you are not talking about apples and oranges, you are talking about two different things that don't even compare to each other other than by name.

EPIC-M RED DRAGON (Carbon Fiber) W/ Side SSD Module (Carbon Fiber) and Magnesium Lens Mount | RED Digital Cinema store (US)

 

[martin974]

Hi,
Question, for the P4 footage, is there any difference between transcoding in ProRes 422 vs 422 HQ ? I mean in footage quality, the size will be larger for sure.

In my workflow "on the road" right now, I do edit in h264, just to save hard drive space. This is never final edit and everything will be transcoded at the office when i'll be back. But in premiere I can use the "transcode & replace" option in a timeline if i'm happy with my current edit. Then I transcoding only what i'm using and not every single clip.

What you think concerning this method ?

Thanks.

 

[Thomas.]

Hi,
Question, for the P4 footage, is there any difference between transcoding in ProRes 422 vs 422 HQ ? I mean in footage quality, the size will be larger for sure.

In my workflow "on the road" right now, I do edit in h264, just to save hard drive space. This is never final edit and everything will be transcoded at the office when i'll be back. But in premiere I can use the "transcode & replace" option in a timeline if i'm happy with my current edit. Then I transcoding only what i'm using and not every single clip.

What you think concerning this method ?

Thanks.

This sounds quite interesting. I'm excited to read the answer.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app (living near Cologne, Germany)

 

[Jussaguy]

Hi,
Question, for the P4 footage, is there any difference between transcoding in ProRes 422 vs 422 HQ ? I mean in footage quality, the size will be larger for sure.

In my workflow "on the road" right now, I do edit in h264, just to save hard drive space. This is never final edit and everything will be transcoded at the office when i'll be back. But in premiere I can use the "transcode & replace" option in a timeline if i'm happy with my current edit. Then I transcoding only what i'm using and not every single clip.

What you think concerning this method ?

Thanks.

I'm boarding a plane right now son can't even read all this but just to your question is there a difference with HQ or not. NOT!

There is no reason to jump to HQ or 4422 because it just makes the file HUGE for zero reason. Just ProRes.

I'll look at the rest in 5 hours unless there is wifi on the plane.

 

[airwindow]

My dear friend,
all this complication about transcoding, transcoding, changing the format, sequence, backups, Export, disk space, you could get rid of a lot easier.

All you had to do is to buy a more powerful Mac or a $ 1,200 PC with Nvidia card. The point is a weak processor that does not have the power to repackage information "on-the-fly" packed in H.264. Therefore, the PC logical choice for video editing because Nvidia processor helps with CUDA cores to gain real-time editing. Of course, accelerated export also ...

You just have to sit down, load the material straight on the timeline, do some editing, color correction, finish the job, export material, get up and go on the ice cream, walk through the park, chitchat with the girl ....

During this time, in the previous version still lasts transcoding ....

 

[airwindow]

"If you 1) have H.264 and take that H.264 and recompress it again so h.264 squared, your video WILL LOOK WORSE then if you did"

To what proportion of degradation of quality are we talking? Visible for the human eye or instruments to measure?
Can you please show part of the recording where was degraded the video quality after 3 transcodes?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The original video is H.264 (60mb/s), then natively edited and the exported again in H.264 (40mb/s) and Uploads to YouTube where the transcoded for the third time in H.264 (20mb/s).

If there is a loss of quality, it is not visible to the human eye. I would not bother with figures. I watch the video with the eyes and not with a calculator.



"2) took your h.264 and convert it to a larger color space such as ProRes, and then you compress THAT, it will be a better compression ........simply because you have a larger color space."

I would not agree.
If something is recorded 4:2:0 and to transcode in 4:4:4, still will be 4:2:0 with the difference that in the 4:4:4 format. It's easier to edit because less compression, but remains 4:2:0 for the simple reason that has been recorded so.

If you have something recorded 4:2:0, remains 4:2:0 "to the end of the world".

If you have a gallon of water, you can keep it in a bucket-size of one gallon or in the water tower. It is always a gallon of water. But it is easier to drink from the water tower because it has a larger opening, compared with the opening in the bucket.

 

[Thomas.]

f you have a gallon of water, you can keep it in a bucket-size of one gallon or in the water tower. It is always a gallon of water. But it is easier to drink from the water tower because it has a larger opening, compared with the opening in the bucket.

Until now I did not yet drink from the water tower ;-) and I'm not sure if I will ever try, LOL! Well, maybe you could fill it with red wine?

 

[Jussaguy]

Thank you Adam, you saved a lot of my time, money, and nerves. Have NUC5i7 16GB and use DaVinci Resolve. To edit in h264 was tedious and it crashed often. Today first try converted my holiday video with Brorsoft converter to Prores and it works flawlessly. As the my desired output is mostly home video either 1080P or UHD what output format you'd recommend? H264 MP4 or?
Thanks for advice.
Once you come to CZ I owe you good beer

Hey man. Thanks and I'll have to come visit and take you up on that beer!!

I'm on a train in New Jersey right now so I don't have the time to answer your question, I'm just bumping it up so I will when I get back settled.

Thanks for the kudos. They are appreciated!!!

 

[Jussaguy]

"If you 1) have H.264 and take that H.264 and recompress it again so h.264 squared, your video WILL LOOK WORSE then if you did"

To what proportion of degradation of quality are we talking? Visible for the human eye or instruments to measure?
Can you please show part of the recording where was degraded the video quality after 3 transcodes?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The original video is H.264 (60mb/s), then natively edited and the exported again in H.264 (40mb/s) and Uploads to YouTube where the transcoded for the third time in H.264 (20mb/s).

If there is a loss of quality, it is not visible to the human eye. I would not bother with figures. I watch the video with the eyes and not with a calculator.



"2) took your h.264 and convert it to a larger color space such as ProRes, and then you compress THAT, it will be a better compression ........simply because you have a larger color space."

I would not agree.
If something is recorded 4:2:0 and to transcode in 4:4:4, still will be 4:2:0 with the difference that in the 4:4:4 format. It's easier to edit because less compression, but remains 4:2:0 for the simple reason that has been recorded so.

If you have something recorded 4:2:0, remains 4:2:0 "to the end of the world".

If you have a gallon of water, you can keep it in a bucket-size of one gallon or in the water tower. It is always a gallon of water. But it is easier to drink from the water tower because it has a larger opening, compared with the opening in the bucket.

Can't remember if I responded to this or not but what you are saying is objectively false and the difference is absolutely noticeable to the human eye.

Of course it matters which human but still. Also we are talking about making a master deliverable so it will have children.

Putting something in a larger color space even though it doesn't add color, it gives you room to 1) not suck in the editor because it's so compressed that the CPU, GPU and other processes have to happen just to view it, even when being transcoded to your editors native codec and 2) if you have less color space and general size, you have less room to add things such as additional color (color grading) or VFX (adding an explosion or something).

Not picking on you but there is a lot objectively wrong with what you wrote here.

Now I believe you don't tell an artist how to make their art. Meaning what's good looking or not but you must learn the tools of the trade and some things are just wrong or right.

I'll explain in better detail what I mean when I'm home. Don't want to get into a contest about it though. If you feel I'm wrong, and you're happy with your process, keep truckin'. That said, I would put faith in me on this one.

Late

 

[airwindow]

"Putting something in a larger color space even though it doesn't add color, it gives you room to 1) not suck in the editor because it's so compressed that the CPU, GPU and other processes have to happen just to view it, even when being transcoded to your editors native codec"
-get a better Mac or PC if you want to do videoediting



"and 2) if you have less color space and general size, you have less room to add things such as additional color (color grading) or VFX (adding an explosion or something)."
-You will add some VFX and explosion "and something" with machine that first needs to do transcode footage???
-Get a better Mac or PC once again....



"Now I believe you don't tell an artist how to make their art."
-This guy tells everything in one 8 minute video, instead of making two videos and 120minutes lenght:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Jussaguy]

"Putting something in a larger color space even though it doesn't add color, it gives you room to 1) not suck in the editor because it's so compressed that the CPU, GPU and other processes have to happen just to view it, even when being transcoded to your editors native codec"
-get a better Mac or PC if you want to do videoediting



"and 2) if you have less color space and general size, you have less room to add things such as additional color (color grading) or VFX (adding an explosion or something)."
-You will add some VFX and explosion "and something" with machine that first needs to do transcode footage???
-Get a better Mac or PC once again....



"Now I believe you don't tell an artist how to make their art."
-This guy tells everything in one 8 minute video, instead of making two videos and 120minutes lenght:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If you want to know what the basics of transcoding are, this is a fine video.

If you want to learn whys and whats and actually dig in and learn a lot of things so you don't need help from other people, then it takes more than 8 minutes to learn.

If you think you can learn the art and technical aspects of post, more power to you. Some people go to school for 8 years, not 8 minutes to learn about film making.

All depends on what you want to learn. If you're happy with the info in this video, then take it and be happy but why do you feel the need to take the time to say what you're saying about me when all I am doing is taking the time to try and impart knowledge on to you guys. I don't remember pointing any guns at you and telling you to watch a video. Took me years to master digital media but I suppose if I was smarter I could have done it in 8 minutes.

I haven't even watched the video but will but there is no learning all about encoding, codecs, transcoding, exporting, importing. Ingesting, benefits of one codec over another, workflow for those codecs, which ones are best for tracking, pulling keys, stabilizing and a million other things in 8 minutes, you're a champ.

Edit: *** ok, just finished watching this video and indeed this guy says nothing untrue and knows the terminology and he probably knows a lot about the stuff I talk about in my videos but his video is like an introductory syllabus for the information I have so far gone over. An outline. But again, if you don't want to hear or watch what I have to say that's cool and the gang.

Also, he does a great job of laying it out and explaining it. This is a good video but it's apples and oranges. Don't forget that I was just answering a question by someone when I made these and I didn't take the time to make a power point presentation or anything like that but I learned by daily usage. Takes time brother. Just does.

 

[airwindow]

If you want to know what the basics of transcoding are, this is a fine video.

If you want to learn whys and whats and actually dig in and learn a lot of things so you don't need help from other people, then it takes more than 8 minutes to learn.

If you think you can learn the art and technical aspects of post, more power to you. Some people go to school for 8 years, not 8 minutes to learn about film making.

All depends on what you want to learn. If you're happy with the info in this video, then take it and be happy but why do you feel the need to take the time to say what you're saying about me when all I am doing is taking the time to try and impart knowledge on to you guys. I don't remember pointing any guns at you and telling you to watch a video. Took me years to master digital media but I suppose if I was smarter I could have done it in 8 minutes.

I haven't even watched the video but will but there is no learning all about encoding, codecs, transcoding, exporting, importing. Ingesting, benefits of one codec over another, workflow for those codecs, which ones are best for tracking, pulling keys, stabilizing and a million other things in 8 minutes, you're a champ.

Edit: *** ok, just finished watching this video and indeed this guy says nothing untrue and knows the terminology and he probably knows a lot about the stuff I talk about in my videos but his video is like an introductory syllabus for the information I have so far gone over. An outline. But again, if you don't want to hear or watch what I have to say that's cool and the gang.

Also, he does a great job of laying it out and explaining it. This is a good video but it's apples and oranges. Don't forget that I was just answering a question by someone when I made these and I didn't take the time to make a power point presentation or anything like that but I learned by daily usage. Takes time brother. Just does.

But until we get to the end of the video, we get old ... people now are looking for fast, short and effective solution. While still young ...

Anyway ... I rest my case.

Be cool and positive and buy some HDD's for that endless transcoding
Cheers

 

[Jussaguy]

But until we get to the end of the video, we get old ... people now are looking for fast, short and effective solution. While still young ...

Anyway ... I rest my case.
View attachment 58879

Be cool and positive and buy some HDD's for that endless transcoding
Cheers

That's your mic drop post? Lol

 

[Jussaguy]

But until we get to the end of the video, we get old ... people now are looking for fast, short and effective solution. While still young ...

Anyway ... I rest my case.
View attachment 58879

Be cool and positive and buy some HDD's for that endless transcoding
Cheers

Just was realizing that you're literally saying you don't want to spend 1.5 hours learning something people spend years learning because you'll get old.

I've done a lot, A VERY LOT in my time on this Earth and God has blessed me with luck, talent, family, knowledge and financial independence and never have I tried to half arse my way through life, if that's your MO and you can do it, again, more power to ya. If you can learn all I know by watching that 8 minute video, DEFINITELY do it!!!

 

[Myetkt]

Just was realizing that you're literally saying you don't want to spend 1.5 hours learning something people spend years learning because you'll get old.

I've done a lot, A VERY LOT in my time on this Earth and God has blessed me with luck, talent, family, knowledge and financial independence and never have I tried to half arse my way through life, if that's your MO and you can do it, again, more power to ya. If you can learn all I know by watching that 8 minute video, DEFINITELY do it!!!

Walk away from this Adam.. This is where you get into trouble.. People are aloud to have a different opion than yours with out you going off on them.. You did some fine work here, don't blow it by getting mad at someone.