More dslr video questions

[Ammo 7]

Having trouble doing anything with the video files that come out of my Canon 5d MkII. They are (apparently) H.264 / MOV files. Not something that is suitable for editing I am told. I have downloaded VLC Media Player and that seems to be better at playing them but the video still hangs up. Audio is fine. I need to covert the Canon MOV files into something easier for Windows Movie Maker on my laptop to work with. I have found this converter here: http://www.topvideopro.com/software/video_converte... and another here:http://www.squared5.com/

My questions are what format do I convert the MOV files to? I would like decent quality. Is one of MPEG formats suitable for this? What are the file formats used for broadcasting videos? Do amateurs use the same file formats as the pros or are pros using something totally different? Sorry for all the stupid questions but this video stuff is all new to me.

Thanks in advance

[Fordo]

simple questions, but complex answers! let me try and help a bit.

Mpeg in general is not that well suited for editing- its a delivery format. Mpeg is quite a lossy, compressed format, so its not ideal to edit it, because then when you compress it again for dvd / internet, you'll loose even more quality.

h264 itself was conceived originally as a delivery format - for the net. However, it offers pretty good compression to image quality ratio, so its being used a lot on dslr video for example, as it allows pretty decent HD to be squeezed onto CF cards.

Pro video cameras record in all sorts of formats- dv, hdv, hdcam, xdcam hd, dvcpro hd etc etc. Each specific to who makes it, and have different bitrates & compression levels. Its all a bit of a minefield. Stuff is usually broadcast in mpeg2 or mepg4 for the HD channels, but nothing would be edited in these formats. If you edited in mpeg2, then recompress the final thing in mpeg2 again for broadcast, the final thing would have lost quality.

Editing wise- i cant be too much help on the pc front, but i can tell you the mac workflow. The general principle when editing with something heavily compressed like h264 files, is to convert them to a less compressed file- then, you dont loose any quality, but you make it easier for the computer to read (it wont have to decompress the data on the fly as much)- but at the expense of hard drive space. Fully uncompressed video takes up insane amounts of space. So there are what are referred to as intermediate formats- formats that are designed for editing- they retain as much info and colour information as possible and attempt to be visually lossless, but are compressed to an extent, to save on hard drive space. I work with final cut pro, and apple's ProRes format is a good choice there. If i have a project with footage from all sorts of cameras, its common practice to convert everything to prores, to make life nice and easy.

Not sure what your options are on PC, but id try and avoid converting to mpeg for editing.

[Bacardi]

Apple Pro Ress for me too via MPEG Streamclip (www.squared5.com) into Final Cut Pro on a mac. Playback is smooth, there is also suggestion that you can pull more out of the file once converted as mentioned in the latest Zacuto shootout: http://www.zacuto.com/shootout (as an aside, they test keying in the latest movie which I thought these cameras would fall to bits on... but, amazingly, much better than expected!).

For editing on a PC I would have a rummage around this forum for a more specific answer: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewforum.php?f=29

[RobDickinson]

About to do a short video with my 7D..

I use sony vegas pro to edit and that can edit the files directly, but from above it sounds like I am best converting them to an intermediat format, so which one? have plenty of HDD space.

[Ammo 7]

Thanks guys

Going to go off at a bit of a tangent.

My skills with computers are not that great. I come from a backgound of film, both stills and movie, so I could tell you about reciprocity failure, anti-halation layers and micro reticulation, but computers baffle me. Basically I'm not really interested in them. I forget stuff about them because I find them pretty boring. I just expect them to work without knowing why.

My laptop is probably a bit borderline for what I am trying to do. So I have been toying with the idea of getting an iMac 27" quad core machine with Final Cut and the latest edition of Photoshop as the CS3 I have doesn't read the Canon 5D2 Raw files. I've never had a Mac but have been told that it will make my life a lot easier. Any truth in this?

The video thing is a sideline that I want to explore. My main use for the computer is to use if for photography to produce prints. I have a couple of places I use, Photobox and a local lab. My Dell laptop has been the best computer I have owned to date. It hasn't given me any problems. The screen is calibrated with a Spyder 3 and the results I get back from the labs are pretty close. Photobox seems better than the custom lab most of the time which is a bit annoying as I would rather deal with people than upload stuff. Anyway it is early days for the custom lab and I am sure we'll get it sorted as some point.

So the new questions are: Is the 27" Apple screen suitable for photography? (The local lab uses Eizo or Lacie screens.) Can I calibrate it with the Spyder 3 to get results back from the lab that look like what see on my screen? This is of vital importance to me. It is no use if the scren has fabulous vibrant colours if the stuff I get back from the lab is totally different. I am assuming that it will cope with the video as a film editor friend who now teaches uses Macs exclusively. He says that they have a couple of iMacs and they work just fine.

I went on a video course for DSLRs to learn a bit more at the British Film Institute a while back with Phillip Bloom, Rodney Charters (the DP from the TV series 24), the Bui brothers and several others. Everybody was using Macs. All the information that is readily available, even from my editor friend, is geared for Macs.

Should I take the plunge?

Thanks.

[Simpo Two]

Not my department so the only bit of advice I can give is 'do what Bacardi says' - even if it means you have to buy a Mac

[GreigM]

RobDickinson said:

About to do a short video with my 7D..

I use sony vegas pro to edit and that can edit the files directly, but from above it sounds like I am best converting them to an intermediat format, so which one? have plenty of HDD space.

I don't believe you're best converting to edit - only if your machine is struggling with the on the fly decompression. In general I'd contradict the above - compressed files mean less memory use in general, less disk I/O, you're just asking the processor to do more. Intermediate formats were conceived to try and balance both, but processors these days are extremely quick and able to handle the decompression. I'd only convert to another medium IF you're having issues - IMHO best to never convert if possible.

Edited by GreigM on Saturday 5th June 10:10

[RobDickinson]

Ah my machine does struggle tho.... p2160@2.7ghz 2 gig of memory. I could clock it up some more but it wont make that much difference...

[GreigM]

RobDickinson said:

Ah my machine does struggle tho.... p2160@2.7ghz 2 gig of memory. I could clock it up some more but it wont make that much difference...

Possibly adding more RAM will do more for you than anything else - it'll be using the disk to page an awful lot with HD video of any format.

[RobDickinson]

Yeah I know it needs more ram , was going to treat it but prices havnt budged in the last 2 years here, and if I go to 4+ I realy need to reinstall windows @ 64bit etc etc.. I hate doing all that.

[GreigM]

You don't have to go 64-bit - the extra usable 1Gb will make a huge difference. Given windows will generally gobble anything up to 1Gb, your editing app probably up to a half Gb itself then you're only leaving half a Gb for "working" room - by throwing in an extra 1Gb you effectively triple you're workspace and it can make a big difference.

[Bacardi]

Simpo Two said:

Not my department so the only bit of advice I can give is 'do what Bacardi says' - even if it means you have to buy a Mac

Except he doesn't. You can lead a horse to water....

Ammo 7 said:

reciprocity failure, anti-halation layers and micro reticulation...

It's been a while since I heard those (although I do try to get a mate's daughter who's doing 6th form photography to bait her (I believe) ignorant lecturer to explain reciprocity, Scheimpflug principle, bellows extension formula and inverse square law to her. I think I'd mentioned reticulation, but had forgotten about anti-halation so will add that to the mix... .

Here's my half crown...

Computers. Like cars, I'm not that interested in how they work either, what's under the bonnet, but I want to enjoy the driving experience and view. You can achieve exactly the same result whether you edit on a PC or mac, no one is going to be able to tell the difference with the end result, again, just like cars a Peugeot, Audi, Ford etc will get you from A too B just as well as a Trabant or Ferrari, it's just a matter of personal preference. Also, just like cars, some people like tinkering under the bonnet and forever configuring their computers, but personally, I don't. If you have no experience of macs and some of windows, then you need to be prepared for some frustration as it will take a few weeks to become familiar. Again, like cars they are both capable of the same thing, but just put the switches in different places to annoy you.

5D RAW. I use CS3 but use another app for processing the RAW files, Capture One. You could use cheaper alternatives like Lightroom or Aperture, but that would mean familiarising yourself with some new software, so maybe not for you.

27" iMac. I shoot tethered to one at my studio, but don't have it calibrated. I just use it as a big polaroid for the clients to look at (and just like the old days if something looks a little off, as some fabrics can (anomalous reflectance syndrome as Kodak used to call it), I tell the client, 'don't worry, it will be fine on the tranny/finished file' ). I process files on another, matt, screen. I have to say I don't like the glossy screen of the iMac and am not sure how well they profile. The early ones were very difficult, I'm aware of that, but maybe the new ones are better.

As to why the likes of Bui Bros and Phil Bloom and your editing mate use macs, you'd have to ask them. If it's just for Final Cut, then they have no choice, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them use Premiere (IIRC Bloom does) or Media Composer as well. But I suspect, like me, they just enjoy the driving position of a mac, with less tinkering.

Regarding playback and RAM. I use a Mac Pro 2.66 Quad-Core Intel Zeon with 8 GB RAM and I still get jerky playback if I load 5D files straight from the camera into FCP. If however, if I convert it too much larger Pro Ress codec get smooth playback. So I don't think it's as simple as saying you need more RAM. I guess it's more to do with how the file has to be decompressed on the fly for playback, but again, I have no interest in how codecs are written or how they work... as long as it works . This seems to be the case with 5D files on mac with FCP. Other cameras, using other codecs on other systems, may behave differently, so your milage may vary.

Ammo, I notice you are in Suffolk so not that far away from me. If it helps, you are welcome to come to my studio, bring your Spyder, profile my 27" iMac, edit some files and see if it works for you with Photobox and your lab etc. Drop me a PM.

Cheers

[Ammo 7]

Simpo Two - Thanks for the advice.

Grieg and Rob - That is exactly the sort of talk I am trying to avoid! :-) I understood none of that.

Bacardi - In my ignorance I thought that spending a bunch of money on a new Mac would solve all my problems. Thanks for putting me straight. I will take you up on your kind offer and visit your studio sometime soon.

[Ammo 7]

Just wanted to say a big thank you to Bacardi for taking the time to show me around the iMac in his studio on Tuesday. Definitely going the iMac route as soon as possible.

[Simpo Two]

Ammo 7 said:

Just wanted to say a big thank you to Bacardi for taking the time to show me around the iMac in his studio on Tuesday. Definitely going the iMac route as soon as possible.

In other words:

Ammo 7 said:

I thought that spending a bunch of money on a new Mac would solve all my problems.

Sorted

[Ammo 7]

Simpo Two :-)

Being ignorant about computers I thought buying a machine with quad core would mean that it would play the .mov files that my laptop doesn't. Turns out that whatever you try to play the files on it works best if you convert the files first (so I've been told).

I really like the look of the iMac and everybody who I speak to that has one tells me that they just work. I've never had a Mac so I thought I'd give it a try. What have I got to lose?

[Byker28i]

have a look at Final Cut Pro for the video editing then

[Bacardi]

Ammo 7 said:

Just wanted to say a big thank you to Bacardi for taking the time to show me around the iMac in his studio on Tuesday.

You're welcome Ammo .

Simpo Two said:

In other words:

Ammo 7 said:

I thought that spending a bunch of money on a new Mac would solve all my problems.

Sorted

It will most probably solve quite a few of them .

Yet another convert who has seen the light (although to be fair, he'd already seen it with his iPhone ). Everyone is welcome into the church of Apple to worship at the alter of mac... even lost soul sinners like you Simpo, even you can be saved from your OS. How is it these days? Don't give up hope, salvation awaits you .