External HD & Final Cut 6

[ussinners]

Now that we're starting to reshoot, I of course have to have problems with my Final Cut 6.

We shot a demo scene a while ago using his DSLR camera, and I was able to edit it fine.

Last night I hooked up the new raw footage that's on my Ext HD (one of these that doesn't need a power outlet. It holds 1T of data.) It still has over 500gigs of empty space. My HD has 100gigs of space (out of 150gigs).

I imported all the transcoded files, and on the first one I get dropped frames every 2 seconds. So, basically there's a problem. I've changed the playback to lo picture quality, and still it doesn't play.

If we hadn't used footage before I'd just say my computer won't handle this HD material. But, I did. I created a complete scene (about 4 minutes) with the same amount of memory.

Any ideas where the problem may be?

Also, if I decide to get a new computer. Will working off these external HDs make the computer work slower?

Thanks: George

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

The bigger the data rate of the files, the higher the chance of dropped frames.

What's the RPM speed of your external drive? Needs to be at least 7200 RPM.

What is the drive connection (Firewire 400/800, USB 2.0, etc.)? Firewire 800 or eSata are best. USB 2.0 and Firewire 400 work best with lower-res files.

The best solution is to edit from a 2nd internal drive -- the speed is much faster than an external drive.

 

[ussinners]

THANKS.

You know what it ended up being? I was importing the original files. I thought they were the transcoded files.

Maybe you can help me with another thing - I followed your instructions from another post and hit that "Apple Key and 0", then made a custom sequence of 1980 x 1240 (whatever that DSLR file size is). I put a 40 second clip on the sequence and rendered it. It took over 40 minutes.

I made a new project and just dragged the same file to the sequence and it of course destroyed the size etc. But, when I rendered it, it only took a few minutes.

Is there a way to lower the rendering time on the full size version? If not, I might edit all the scenes the easy way, and then go back and redo the whole thing full size, pre-cutting the files as I go. But, that's going to be a pain-in-the-ass.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

Why aren't you converting your DSLR files to an intermediate format like ProRes?

Do that, and your rendering issues will disappear -- because by transcoding you're basically pre-rendering the entire thing.

When video requires rendering after dropping it on the FCP timeline, FCP is simply transcoding the video and dropping the output into your render folder for it to use. At that point, it's not even using the source video anymore, but the rendered copies. So why not simply do the job in advance and transcode to the format you want?

Since camera native formats are so compressed, few people attempt to edit these files natively.

 

[ussinners]

My DP does the transcoding. The files end up being

Dimensions: 1920 x 1080
Codecs: Apple ProRes 422 (LT) Timecode, Interger (Little Endian)

Since, he does the transcoding, he has the rendered files on his laptop. I have to render them as I use them.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

I'd have to see all of your file info and timeline settings to understand why FCP still wants to render them on your timeline. I suspect that when you drag then to your timeline, and FCP asks you if you want to change the timeline setting to match the clips, that it's not setting the timeline to the correct format. Probably your Motion tab settings (Scale and Distort) need adjusting in order for FCP to display the files correctly. It's a common issue.

FCP 6 is often not very smart about understanding all full HD formats, but the updates may have solved some problems. I have FCP 6.0.6. If I drag a 1920x1080 H.264 file onto a timeline, it requires no rendering, and appears correct.

What is your version of FCP 6?

 

[ussinners]

Dirty: I have 6.0.6 also.

If you see the thread I started about rendering issues, that's where my problem lies. My DP transcoded to ProRes 422 (LT).

The only two options with 6.0.6 is 422 & 422 (HQ).

How do you transcode?

My version of COMPRESSOR is 3.0.5 (I'm not sure if I updated from my original version)
and I've downloaded MPEG Streamclip.

Using MPEG Streamclip I was able to transcode to (HQ). But, I left it on Medium Quality. Should I change it to High Quality?

The weird thing is, the transcoded copies are almost double in size of the originals that don't work. For instance my 400mb clip turns into a 1 gig clip. Shouldn't that make it harder to use?

 

[chilipie]

The weird thing is, the transcoded copies are almost double in size of the originals that don't work. For instance my 400mb clip turns into a 1 gig clip. Shouldn't that make it harder to use?

It's more data to read from the disk because the compression is much less heavy, which means less work for the processor to decode it.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

It's more data to read from the disk because the compression is much less heavy, which means less work for the processor to decode it.

Yes, but your data rate is also higher, which means a potential bottleneck if you're streaming your video from an external drive that's not fast enough.

ussinners: experiment by transcoding short clips at differing data rates and quality settings. Then compare the clips for quality and compression issues. Transcoding and compression are like baking, and often you have to create your own recipes that work best for your equipment and needs.