Speeding up Compressor

Is Compressor taking too long to encode? Here are some tips to speed it up.

Don't export directly to Compressor from Final Cut Pro

Although sending your timeline directly to Compressor may seem faster because it cuts out the step of exporting as a QuickTime movie, it is much slower overall because Compressor needs to request each frame one-by-one from Final Cut Pro instead of just reading the data out of the movie clip. It gets even slower if you're using Frame Controls or doing multi-pass encoding.

Just go to File > Export > QuickTime Movie (not QuickTime Conversion) and make sure Setting is set to Current Settings and Recompress All Frames is switched off. This ensures that the movie will not be recompressed unnecessarily.


Here's a tip - if most of your timeline is already rendered, deselect Make Movie Self-Contained. This creates a small reference movie that links to the render files on disk instead of writing the data into the file. This will be much quicker to export. If your timeline is not rendered, however, this setting is unlikely to offer any speed advantages over a self-contained movie.

Once the file is exported, drag it into Compressor and set up your batch as normal.

Only use Frame Controls where necessary

Frame Controls allow you to improve the quality of resizing, retiming and deinterlacing operations, however they should only be switched on when you are actually performing one of these operations.


In addition, you should use Better quality instead of Best, as Best is usually reserved for extreme circumstances and in most situations gives you a massive performance hit with no benefit.

Perform heaving-lifting in a separate pass to the encoding

Using Frame Controls with a multi-pass or long-GOP encoder can really slow things down because the Frame Controls processing will need to be reapplied to every frame each time it is read. Even if you're not using Frame Controls, compressing from a processor-intensive codec such as HDV or H.264 can seriously slow things down.

It makes sense, therefore, to perform all these processor-intensive operations on an intermediate movie clip (ProRes would be a suitable codec for this) and then drag in the intermediate clip and encode it to the desired format.

But there is an easier way. Job chaining is a little-used yet very powerful feature of Compressor that allows you to plug the output of one job into the input of another for additional processing.

Here's how to do it:
1. Drag your movie clip into Compressor.
2. Drag either the ProRes 422 for Interlaced Material or ProRes 422 for Progressive Material (depending on your source media) setting onto the job in the batch window.
3. Go to Job > New Job with Target Output. This will add a new job to the batch with a chain symbol to show it is linked to the job above it.
4. Drag your desired output setting onto the chained job and set up the destination as normal.
5. Submit the batch

Use a cluster

A cluster is a group of computers where each machine processes a portion of the movie simultaneously, potentially providing a massive speed boost. This service is provided by Qmaster and can be set up in the Qmaster section of System Preferences or the Apple Qadministrator utility.

You will need Qmaster set up on each computer in the cluster, and all computers should have the required codecs installed and have full access to the source media and cluster storage area.

If you have a multi-core computer, Qmaster can emulate the effects of a cluster by launching multiple copies of Compressor side-by-side to process the movie in a "virtual cluster". This can make a dramatic difference to encoding times. I wrote a tutorial on this a while back.

Conclusion

Compressor is not the fastest encoder in the world but with these tricks you can make it a lot more bearable. One important trend to note is that the simplest method isn't always the fastest - with a little extra setup beforehand you can save a significant amount of time overall.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Saturday October 17 2009 3:47 AM to Video Editing, Software, Final Cut Studio
5 comments Posted Permalink

---

Final Cut Pro 6.0.6 released

Apple today released Final Cut Pro 6.0.6.

The release notes name only one fix:

Improved Real-Time Playback on Certain Mac Pro and Xserve Models
Final Cut Pro 6.0.6 improves real-time playback capabilities with Mac Pro (Early 2009) models and Xserve (Early 2009) models when working with complex sequences or high-bandwidth media formats.

There are no new features, but I wasn't actually expecting any - in fact, I wasn't expecting an FCP 6.0.6 update at all. I guess this was an urgent fix.

Of course, this new update will raise questions about Final Cut Studio 3 but I am confident that it is in development. Apple's ProApp developers on the pro-apps-dev mailing list are very much alive and well, and frequently ask third-party developers what features they would like to see in future versions. Some kind of official acknowledgment and a tentative release schedule from Apple would be nice though.

The usual guidelines apply - don't update in the middle of a project, don't update for several weeks so that potential bugs and issues have a chance to show themselves, don't update if you don't need the features in this patch (it only applies to 2009 models), and make sure to clone your drive before you update.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Tuesday June 23 2009 3:10 PM to Video Editing, Apple, Final Cut Studio
0 comments Posted Permalink

---

Compressor error - "You must enter a name for this batch submission"

Sometimes when you submit a batch, you may get the error:
"You must enter a name for this batch submission. This is the name that identifies this submission in the Batch Monitor and History window."



This error pops up when you drag items into the batch window in the wrong order. You must drag the clip in first and then drag in the settings and destinations.

There really shouldn't be a specific order for doing this but unfortunately Compressor can be very illogical at times.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Sunday May 3 2009 2:31 AM to Video Editing, Apple, Final Cut Studio
5 comments Posted Permalink

---

NAB 09 Day 1

Yesterday was the first day of NAB. I'm not going to list every single announcement (for that you can go here), but I'm going to focus on what I feel were the biggest or most interesting announcements.

Avid completely redesigned their logo - I can see what they were trying to do but I'm not a big fan of it. Luckily they had some bombshell announcements to go with it. In a surprising move, Avid qualified Final Cut Pro to run on its Unity MediaNetwork and ISIS storage. This makes it considerably easier to use both FCP and Avid systems on the same project.

Avid also redesigned its support offerings and showcased RED support and stereoscopic 3D integration. Avid has always had the edge on FCP when it comes to media management but the recently-introduced AMA architecture takes that one step further. There is no need to Log and Transfer - just link to the P2 or XDCAM volume and all of the clips just pop up in the bin, complete with metadata. This is clearly a lot better than FCP's clunky implementation (hopefully something Apple will address in FCP 7) and Avid were keen to show it off.

Adobe announced it has partnered with several manufacturers to create TVs with Flash support. So you could theoretically watch a documentary on a subject and then view interactive content related to that subject.

But far more interesting was Adobe's post announcements. Adobe Story is a collaborative screenwriting application that is integrated with Adobe Premiere. There are very few details but it seems likely that it will build on Premiere's transcription function to introduce an Avid-like Script Sync feature.

This continues the recent trend of linking pre-production processes directly to post production software - something we will no doubt see more of in the future. Right now Apple appears to be considering storyboard integration.

Blackmagic Design announces UltraScope - 3Gb/s SDI and optical fibre scopes for $695. This is huge. Hardware scopes cost more than some cars, so a scope for $695 is a real game-changer. Lets hope it's good - Blackmagic's products normally are.

It is a PCI Express card that plugs into a Windows computer with a 24-inch monitor (alas no Mac support as yet) to display output on the screen. As one PVC commenter notes - the lack of Mac support is not necessarily a bad thing as you would probably not use the machine for any other purpose, thus a cheaper PC would be a better option.

This is a clever solution to an age-old problem and I wish I was at NAB to see it in action.

Blackmagic's HDLink looks to be a worthy opponent to the original Matrox MXO. This gives you HD monitoring via DVI or HDMI for only $495. Monitor 4:4:4 SDI video on a regular computer monitor.

In addition, Blackmagic have lowered the prices of several of their existing products.

Matrox CompressHD is a PCI Express hardware H.264 encoder. This allows you to encode H.264 faster than realtime using Matrox's MAX technology. Also announced is the MXO 2 Mini, which is a cut-down, smaller, cross platform version of the MXO 2. It lacks XLR and SDI ports, unlike its larger and more expensive brother but it works on PC, Mac, and all QuickTime-compatible editing applications. It costs $449 or $849 with the H.264-accelerating MAX option.

AJA has a very nice new website and have introduced the KI Pro. It connects to a camera and records to ProRes422 in the field, without the aid of a laptop. It is the only device to do this because AJA have an exclusive contract with Apple for ProRes support.

This means you can import footage into Final Cut Pro instantly without the need for transcoding. It also means that the post production team is dealing with the same video format each time, no matter what type of camera was used on set.

It can accept SD/HD SDI, HDMI and component inputs and can connect to your computer via FireWire 800 or Ethernet. It can also convert from one video standard to another in realtime. You can record to removable ExpressCards or an external hard disk. It can be remotely controlled through Wifi via a laptop or iPhone (nice!).

AJA also announced the Io Express which looks to be similar to the Matrox MXO 2. I haven't had time to do a feature-by-feature comparison yet though.

Finally, Panasonic is developing a 3D camera and JVC is developing a very pricey $200,000 4K camera.

That's what interested me... did I miss anything?

Look for the FCPUG SuperMeet on Day 2 (today) where a brand-new exclusive version of our very own Preference Manager will be given out on the SuperDVD.

Also, a lot of people think that Apple will release new details of Final Cut Studio 3 today. I don't think this will be the case - we'll have to wait and see I guess.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Tuesday April 21 2009 5:17 AM to Video Editing, Industry, Analysis
3 comments Posted Permalink

---

Backup Options for Filmmakers

As filmmakers, we put a tremendous amount of trust in our equipment. With the rise in popularity of solid-state media, many of us are no longer shooting on tape or film. This offers many advantages but also several disadvantages. Unlike a film workflow in which many prints are made, or a tape workflow where the tapes are digitized to a hard drive and then stored safely away, filmmakers are often erasing their solid-state media and relying on a single hard drive copy to last them throughout the post production process and onto distribution/release.

Three things are guaranteed in life - death, taxes and hard drive failure. It is a fact that every hard drive will eventually fail. No-one can predict when it will happen and you may not have an opportunity to salvage the data before it does.

So it is wise to assume it will happen and have a good backup policy in case it does. Here are some of the options available for data backup.

Data Tape

While there used to be many consumer options available such as the Iomega Ditto, tape backup is now almost exclusively geared towards enterprise users. Higher-priced options have high capacities and autoload capabilities - i.e. where you insert multiple tapes at once and the system switches them automatically so you don't have to. Lower-priced options will generally require you to change the tape far more often - if you're fine with that, you can save a lot of money.

Most backup drive manufacturers are moving towards the LTO format. This is an open standard so you know that the data you backup now will work on a competitor's drive for the next 1-2 LTO generations.

One way to save money is to use an older, less advanced format. A lot of manufacturers still offer older proprietary systems for sale. These are not as advanced as the LTO options (nor as compatible with competing products) but they are much cheaper. As stated earlier, cheaper drives have lower storage capacities and are less likely to have autoloading functionality. They are also likely to have much lower data transfer rates, unlike LTO -3 and LTO-4 which can transfer data at higher speeds than a conventional hard drive.

When purchasing a drive, consider also the connector and the supplied software. Some drives use SCSI and will need a SCSI card installed inside your machine, but setup will be much easier if you opt for a Firewire version instead (not to mention allowing greater drive portability). Check if the supplied software is compatible with your operating system and if not, check if there is a compatibility update available.

Because these tapes are designed for enterprise use, they are very sturdy and have extremely low failure rates. They have normally been stress-tested by the manufacturer, and most manufacturers will offer you failure statistics on their site. You are, of course, paying for this privilege though.

Format types: LTO, VXA, SLR, DLT, DDS, AIT/SAIT, Travan, T10000
Drive manufacturers: Tandberg (formerly Exabyte), HP, Quantum, IBM, Sun StorageTek
Software: Retrospect, NetVault, CommVault, UltraBac, PresSTORE, ATempo

Pros:
* Low failure rate
* Tried and tested
* LTO-4 tapes can store terrabytes of data and access it faster than a regular hard disk

Cons:
* Expensive
* Can be complex to set up
* If you opt for a cheaper, small capacity, non-autoloading version, you will spend a lot of time changing tapes
* Overkill if you don't have much data to backup

Verdict:
Great if you're backing up a large amount of data and only plan to keep one copy.

Hard disk

The main advantage of hard disks is market penetration. You can go into almost any store and buy a disk at short notice. They are priced very low per GB, there are lots to choose from and (unless you have an old machine) you shouldn't need any new hardware or software in order to use it.

As this is primarily intended as a backup, go for an external drive. Speed is not an issue here so mounting the drive internally will offer no worthwhile performance benefit. Additionally, an external disk safely stored away will not be damaged if something happens to your machine.

It's worth mentioning that some manufacturers offer separate Mac and PC editions of their external disk drives. This is not a marketing gimmick - there is a difference! Some of the I/O controllers in certain drives (often cheaper ones) are not Mac-compatible and you will experience issues if you use one of these drives. Choose a drive enclosure with an Oxford controller where possible. Check online reviews if in doubt.

Finally, one aspect people often don't realize is that hard disks store data magnetically and must be "refreshed" every six months or so to prevent data loss, as Larry Jordan explains in this article. This must not be overlooked when considering hard disks as a backup medium.

Manufacturers: Lacie, G-Tech, Samsung, Western Digital, Seagate, Maxtor, Hitachi, Toshiba

Pros:
* Cheap
* Ubiquitous
* High capacity
* Fast transfer rate

Cons:
* Relatively high and unpredictable failure rate
* Physical bumps and bashes increase the chance of failure

Verdict:
Good for cost-effective backups but multiple backups are advised.

Solid-state flash drives

The main advantages of these drives are their small size, high potential read speed and high damage tolerance. It is likely that these will eventually replace conventional hard disks in the future and this will be a good thing, however current models have certain caveats.

The biggest of these is price. The cost per GB is considerably higher than any of the other formats on this page, and available capacities are much lower than those offered by conventional hard disks. In addition, although read speeds are fast, write speeds are considerably slower than those of conventional hard drives.

One of the most interesting aspects of flash SSDs is the way that they fail. Unlike rotating disk hard drives, SSDs do not suffer from mechanical failure but gradually wear out as you write to them. Although they have quite a high failure rate (each memory cell is limited to 100,000 writes), failure doesn't actually result in data loss. When a memory cell fails, you will be unable to write data to that cell - but you will have no problems at all reading data from it. This would be awful for a scratch disk that is written to many times but perfect for a backup in which reading is more important than writing.

However, controller chips inside the drives have been known to fail, meaning you will need to call a data recovery expert to recover the data from the disk. And there lies another problem - a lot of manufacturers uses proprietary chips that are constantly changing, making it difficult for a data recovery expert to keep up with developments. And in many drives data is difficult to recover by design, as these systems were originally developed for the military to carry sensitive information.

Efforts are being made to resolve some of these issues - such as putting two drives in a RAID 0 to improve write speeds, and balancing write operations across the entire drive to reduce the load on a single cell. Prices are going down and capacities are going up, but they will only become viable when the cost hits $1.50 per GB or less.

Manufacturers: Samsung, IBM, Intel, Corsair, SanDisk, Toshiba

Pros:
* Very fast read speeds
* Tolerant of physical abuse / damage
* More predictable failure rate than regular HDDs
* Data can still be read when drive fails

Cons:
* Very expensive per GB
* Slow write speeds
* Current drives have relatively low capacities
* Limited number of times the drive can be written to

Verdict:
One to look out for the future but limited to small backups right now.

Online Backup / Storage

There are several online backup services available. Some will give you a certain amount of space for free, requiring you to upgrade if you need more, while others offer a trial service. The advantage of one of these services is that the data is stored elsewhere and so will not be affected by theft, fire, water damage etc affecting your facility. Many of them offer software that runs on your machine and backs up your specified backup folders automatically, ensuring an up-to-date backup even if you forget.

When considering this option, you should consider security as a priority. You are handing over your files to someone else so you need an assurance that they will not end up in the wrong hands. I use Mozy to backup my laptop and all files are encrypted by default. The simplest option is to let Mozy create an encryption key for you but this is not as secure as specifying one yourself. If you do specify a custom one, beware that your data will be permanently inaccessible if you forget it.

The two biggest problems are storage space and transfer speeds. It is impractical to upload files greater than a few hundred megabytes, especially as the service takes quite a while to encrypt them before uploading. So backing up terrabytes of footage is not possible, but these services are very useful for backing up important project files. Many of them will store multiple versions of a file so you can restore to a version several days or weeks in the past. I wouldn't recommend this as your sole backup, but it would be useful as an extra cushion, especially as some companies give a small amount of space for free.

Services: Mozy, Carbonite, Dr. Backup, DropBox, iDrive

Pros:
* Simple and automatic
* Great for backing up small files

Cons:
* Not suitable for large files
* Subscription fees

Verdict:
Great as an additional backup but don't rely on this as your only option. Only suitable for small files.

Videotape

Videotape backups offer some distinct advantages over data tape backups. Firstly, unlike the LTO specification that has various revisions, video formats adhere to strict standards that rarely change. These standards tend to stick around for a long time. A brand-new DVCAM deck will play a DVCAM tape made a decade ago with no problems. LTO drives are only backwards-compatible with the last 1-2 generations which could cause problems with long-term backup.

Secondly, there is greater predictability. Tapes are rated at the hour or half-hour, making it much easier to calculate how many would be needed and how long it would take to record/play the footage, which is invaluable if you are planning to rent a deck. The downside of this, of course, is that transfer speeds are much lower than modern LTO drives.

However, when creating a videotape backup of your footage, it is important to choose the format carefully to avoid quality loss. If you shot on the Panasonic HVX-200, which shoots DVCPRO HD, it is recommended to output to DVCPRO HD tapes. If the codec you are using does not have a tape equivalent, output to a tape format that closely matches the frame size, frame rate, color sampling and approximate data rate of the original footage. Some formats like Redcode RAW 4K do not have tape equivalents and so a different backup method must be used unless you are willing to lose information.

Also make sure your tape timecode matches the timecode of the original footage, otherwise your NLE will not be able to accurately reconnect the footage to the clips on the timeline. You will spend a lot of time manually rearranging and synchronizing footage.

Formats include: MiniDV, HDV (varies per manufacturer), DVCAM, DVCPRO, DVCPRO HD, HDCAM, HDCAM SR, D1, D2, D3, D5, BetaCam, DigiBeta.
Manufacturers: Panasonic, Sony, JVC

Pros:
* Durable
* Established standards

Cons:
* Limited to real-time capture and playback
* No tape equivalent of certain formats
* Information must be captured rather than simply copied to a hard disk

Verdict:
Great for backing up established formats. Excellent for long-term backup / archival.

Blu-ray

Blu-ray discs can store around 50 GB and have a relatively low price per GB. They are compact and, if stored in a solid case, are relatively durable compared to regular hard disks. They are not as durable as tape-based alternatives, however.

Blu-ray hasn't caught on as well as everyone had hoped after the format war ended, and Apple has not yet implemented hardware or OS support for it yet. This has severely limited the availability of Blu-ray burners and software for the Mac, with the only option for data discs being Roxio Toast 10 plus the Blu-ray plugin. PC users have a lot more choice but even despite this, it has still not fully caught on in the PC market either.

Transfer rates are quite low and the format doesn't offer as much disc space as other formats. However, BD-R does have an advantage as a backup medium because it can only be written to once. Every other format can be written to or erased (some more easily than others) after a backup has occurred.

Drive Manufacturers: Sony, LaCie, LG, Pioneer
Software Manufacturers: Roxio, Sonic Solutions, Nero, Adobe Encore

Pros:
* Discs relatively cheap per GB
* Data cannot be overwritten

Cons:
* Not much support on the Mac
* Slow read/write speeds
* Low disc space compared to other offerings

Verdict:
Don't rely on it as a sole backup. Not suitable for large amounts of data.

A Game of Chance

None of the options listed above are infallible, however the point is to lower the chance of losing your data. If you have one backup, that lowers the chance of critical data loss to 0.5. Make another one and it goes down to 0.25. Backups are especially crucial if you're running a RAID because the chance of data loss increases with every drive you add (unless it is a RAID 1 of course).

So it doesn't really matter which option you choose, as any one of them will reduce that chance - some more than others of course. A mix of multiple types is the safest way to go. And when thousands or millions of dollars, plus the culmination of months or perhaps years of hard work are at stake, it helps to have a pro-active backup policy planned from the start. The fate of your movie might well depend on it.

The links to companies and products in this article are intended for guidance and not as an endorsement.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Thursday February 12 2009 3:56 PM to Video Editing, Hardware, Cameras
1 comment Posted Permalink

---

Why does my DVD audio level differ from the level in FCP?

Have you noticed a discrepancy between the audio in your Final Cut Pro timeline and the audio of the finished DVD when using Compressor's DVD presets?

That's because the Dolby Digital 2.0 audio preset in Compressor has several functions to improve unsuitable audio, but if you have already mixed your audio they might do more harm than good in some cases. Rather than just telling you which settings to use, I'm first going to explain what these functions are designed to do because there are a lot of misconceptions about them.

Compression alters your dynamic range (the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds in a soundtrack) by compressing the level of sounds to fit within a certain range. The loudest sound in a Dolby soundtrack can be 105dB. Considering the fact that prolonged exposure to 90 dB audio can result in hearing loss, most people do not play their audio at 105dB. When you set up a Dolby decoder with a reference tone, you are telling it the volume level it should play 105dB audio at. So if this is lower than 105dB (which is likely), you will lose some of the very quiet sounds on the soundtrack. The compression presets allow you to regain these sounds by sacrificing some dynamic range in the process.



It is set to Film Standard by default but if you have already performed a mix with a moderate dynamic range, further compression is not likely to be necessary and so it is worthwhile to switch this to None.



Dialog normalization is a feature on several Dolby decoders that ensures all content plays back at the same level. The listener sets their preferred playback level and the dialogue in every DVD and TV show plays back at the same level, meaning you don't need to keep reaching for the remote in order to adjust the volume. Contrary to popular belief, it only adjusts the overall volume level when the source changes (i.e. when you begin playing the DVD or when a new TV program begins) so dynamic range is preserved throughout the movie. It does not dynamically adjust the volume as the movie is playing.



The normalization value indicates the difference between the overall level of dialog and the maximum audio peak of 0 dBFS. The default is set to -27 dBFS, which is the established level for film soundtracks. It is also the level most decoders are set to by default. If you have your decoder set to -27 dBFS and then, for example, try to play a -25 dBFS movie, the decoder will lower the overall volume by 2 dBFS so that the general dialogue level remains the same. If you do want to switch it off when compressing your audio files (if you've already leveled your sound mix for example), set it to -31 dbFS.

So if you would like your audio to be exactly how it was in Final Cut Pro, set Dialog Normalization to -31 dBFS and set Compression in the Pre-Processing tab to None. However, these functions do serve useful purposes for the end user and it is worthwhile to bear their needs in mind.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Thursday January 1 2009 7:29 AM to Video Editing, Final Cut Studio, DVD
1 comment Posted Permalink

---

Replacing the CRT

Broadcast Engineering has a great article called Replacing the CRT. This details some of the existing and upcoming technologies looking to resign CRT broadcast monitors to the grave. They are:

* Plasma
* DLP
* SED (which looks very promising - not out yet though)
* OLED
* FED

This article is well worth checking out.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Friday October 31 2008 3:46 AM to Video Editing, Industry, Hardware
0 comments Posted Permalink

---

Apple releases ProRes codecs for non-FCP machines

A couple of days ago, Apple released Apple ProRes QuickTime Decoder 1.0 for Mac and Apple ProRes QuickTime Decoder 1.0 for Windows. This allows Windows users and Mac users without Final Cut Pro 6 installed on their machines to view ProRes-encoded files. This is great because in my experience, there are very few options when it comes to sending high-quality files to Windows machines and it should aid adoption of the ProRes format.

It should be noted, however, that you still need Final Cut Pro 6 in order to write ProRes files.

P.S. Sorry for the lack of updates but I haven't had internet access in about a month, which sucks big time.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Saturday August 30 2008 9:53 AM to Video Editing, Apple, QuickTime
0 comments Posted Permalink

---

Speed editing

There is a great article currently up on the COW about ways to speed up your Final Cut Pro editing. This inspired me to add a few of my own. Of course, they're specific to the kind of work I'm doing (currently TV) and the way I work but other people might find them useful.

Playing things back at a faster rate
I think the purists will hate this one. For TV shows, I often get pre-cut footage from the studio (from the on-set mixer) and it's my job to cut out the parts where they screwed up. I normally get a wide cam as well, as something to cut between for safety. I've found that I can cut it very quickly if I play it at a faster-than-normal rate and use keyboard shortcuts.

If you press L once, it will play at a faster rate (1.5x?) BUT, crucially, you can still understand every word that is said. Go to Tools > Keyboard Layouts > Multiclip and you can use the Cmd-Numpad 1 and Cmd-Numpad 2 (and so forth) buttons for cutting between cameras. Then I press Ctrl + V when someone screws up so that a cut point is generated, which I later come back and delete. So I can get a rough cut done in less than the time it would take to watch it normally. This works very well for the kind of shows I'm currently working on, but this method obviously won't work for every situation such as drama and music videos.

Use Multiclips whenever you can
If you have two cameras shooting in sync, there is no reason to not use Multiclips. I'm a big fan of them because you sync them once and once only. Then the hard work is over and when the Producer demands that you change a shot to the other angle, you can do it in a matter of seconds.

Use keyboard shortcuts instead of tools where possible
Keyboard shortcuts for certain functions can save time. But what really saves a lot of time is using a keyboard shortcut to replace a tool. Here are a few of them -

• Ctrl-V - Razor blade (cuts at the playhead)
• R, then V, then < or > - R selects the Roll tool, V selects the nearest cut point and < or > rolls the clip backwards or forwards.
• RR, then V, then < or > - RR selects the Ripple tool, V selects the nearest cut point and < or > ripples the clip backwards or forwards.
• S, then < or > - S selects the Slip tool and < or > slips the selected clip backwards or forwards.
• SS, then < or > - SS selects the Slide tool and < or > slips the selected clip backwards or forwards.
• [ and ] - Press V to select the nearest edit point and press [ or ] to trim it left or right.
• Type a number anywhere on the timeline (e.g. 5 or -10) - Moves the selected clips the specified number of frames

Keep your timeline rendered as much as possible
If you go on a break or something, press Alt + R to render your timeline. That way, the majority of the timeline should stay rendered, with only the parts you change requiring a re-render. When your client asks you for a preview copy, you can very quickly render out a reference movie, plug it into Compressor and then continue with your work. The next time you do it, it will be even quicker. And when (if) you come to put it on tape, it will speed up the rendering process there too.

Use Motion projects instead of rendered movies
If you use Motion for effects, it is far quicker to insert the actual project into your timeline than it is to render out a movie clip. And if you want to make a change just Alt + Tab to Motion, make your change, save, Alt + Tab back to FCP and there it is. No exporting necessary. This method depends on you having a decent graphics card.

Use Master Templates where possible
Taking it one step further, if, say you have a standard animated namestrap format for a show. You could take it into Motion, change the name then save it as a new copy but this takes time and you end up with hundreds of files. Instead, create the template version and then in Motion go to File > Save as Template. Create a new folder and name your new template. Now go back to Final Cut Pro and in the Generators pop-up or the Effects window, click on Master Templates and select your new template. Go to the Controls tab and you can enter any text you like. Much quicker.


One final note - there is a fine line between a fast editor and a sloppy one. There is very much an art and a science to editing and I believe that you can speed up the science but rushing the art will make it suffer. Producers like to give me a lot of footage. I like this a lot because it gives me more to work with but for some reason, the more footage they give me, the faster they expect the end product. The more footage I have, the more decisions I can potentially make and so it takes longer to decide on the "right way" to cut it (there is no right way but you know what I mean). This can't really be sped up.

I'll probably think of some more later so keep your eyes peeled. And if you've got any speed tips of your own, I'd love to hear them.

Update: Thought of another one. When I'm cutting montages, I like to go through the footage finding short clips I like and putting them up the other end of the timeline so that they are easily within reach. I used to mark the ins and outs, manually drag the clip to the timeline, then click on the Viewer to select it again. You can do this much quicker with keyboard shortcuts. Mark the ins and outs (I and O) then press F9 to insert edit the clip or F10 to overwrite edit it (note: Tiger and Leopard have F9 and F10 bound to Expose by default). Then press Cmd-1 to re-select the Viewer. I can go through footage very quickly with this method.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Tuesday July 22 2008 1:24 AM to Video Editing, Final Cut Studio
4 comments Posted Permalink

---

Comparing footage with difference mattes

It's a common question - how much quality do you lose when converting from Format X to Format Y or when you are forced to recompress footage? You can compare data rates and squint at it all day but that's not really telling you much.

Here's an easy way to tell exactly what has been lost.

Final Cut Pro
1. Take your Final Cut Pro sequence and export to the second format (the one that you plan to convert to). Or, if your footage didn't originate in FCP, import both versions (before and after) and place them into a new sequence.

2. Place the "before" version onto the bottom track and the "after" above it.



3. Ctrl-click on the "after" version and select Composite Mode > Difference.



Shake
1. Import the "before" and "after" versions into Shake using FileIn nodes.



2. Click on the Layer tab and click on MultiLayer.

3. Connect the noodles from the FileIns to the MultiLayer.



4. In the Parameters tab, change the composite mode of the second clip (the one listed at the top) to Difference.



Both applications will produce an image similar to the one below. This image tells you what has been lost from one version to the other. The clearer this image is, the more data has been lost. If you can clearly make out the edges of objects from the original image, this data loss is probably unacceptable. I personally would consider the image below unacceptable but how much data loss you can accept depends, of course, on the final destination of the clip. For example, web users will be much more forgiving than cinema-goers.

Posted by Jon Chappell on Saturday July 19 2008 4:18 PM to Video Editing, Compositing, Final Cut Studio
0 comments Posted Permalink

---