So I've just begun shooting 4K on my 1DX II, and of course am running into the inevitable HUGE file size issue. I edit on a 2015 15 inch MacBook Pro i7, so it's fast for a MacBook. I've noticed that playing back the enormous 4K motion jpeg is super choppy, even on this beast of a MacBook. I downloaded Compressor to transcode to ProRes. Is that what I should be doing to make use of these files?
Do you guys transcode the 4K footage from the 1DX Mark II? What does your workflow look like?
Interesting topic. I used to use premiere pro for full HD stuff and that worked pretty well. I have a 2013 MBP 2.3GHz w/ SSD so mine will be even slower than yours. I will bookmark this one.
rabbitmountain wrote:
Interesting topic. I used to use premiere pro for full HD stuff and that worked pretty well. I have a 2013 MBP 2.3GHz w/ SSD so mine will be even slower than yours. I will bookmark this one.
Well, sorta neither. I use FCPX for video, and I just check "Proxy" and it generates 422 with whatever bit rate. Because this is used only for scratch, I don't have to care about loss; the actual transcode happens from the original file, whatever braindead format that may be. I then periodically delete all proxy data.
If you want to do a transcode and then use that for processing as master, then it's really up to you. Personally I'd use 444, simply because I'm a size queen and don't like loss, and have the storage. But everyone's needs are different...
stanj wrote:
Yes, ProRes is the way to go. Not quite sure what they were thinking with Motion-JPG...
Extract a JPEG still from the video in camera and you'll see why they used motion JPEG, the still extraction is superb.
I'm not sure whether canon intended the 4K video to actually be used for video but more as a 60 fps still burst mode and in this scenario motion JPEG makes perfect sense.
Not sure why everybody is complaining about MJPEG. It is the only way to have a camera with a big sensor weather sealed (no cooling fans) to record 4k at 60fps in 4:2:2 and not overheating.
Currently it is the only DSLR capable of recording 4k 60fps, not even the C300 II or the C500 can record 4k 60fps internally.
If they would have gone to the XF-AVC (to note that the canon xc10 needs a cooling fan for using this format) it is still 305 Mbits. So 500 Mbits vs. 305 Mbits is not that you will save 10 time the space.
High quality 4k needs a big PC to playback and edit. Btw my i7 4810MQ notebook can playback MJPEG using windows media player in real-time at 60 fps.
If you are shooting sport/action videos this camera is one of the best thanks to the 4k 60fps and DPAF. So no is not only for grabbing stills but is really a great video making tool. Also has a good battery life and it is small enough to put it on a gimbal.
I only wish that they would have put a Clog and having a cropped HD mode for sharper 120fps slow motion. The FullHD 120 fps is a bit on the soft side.
gt3rs wrote:
Not sure why everybody is complaining about MJPEG. It is the only way to have a camera with a big sensor weather sealed (no cooling fans) to record 4k at 60fps in 4:2:2 and not overheating.
Currently it is the only DSLR capable of recording 4k 60fps, not even the C300 II or the C500 can record 4k 60fps internally.
If they would have gone to the XF-AVC (to note that the canon xc10 needs a cooling fan for using this format) it is still 305 Mbits. So 500 Mbits vs. 305 Mbits is not that you will save 10 time the space.
High quality 4k needs a big PC to playback and edit. Btw my i7 4810MQ notebook can playback MJPEG using windows media player in real-time at 60 fps.
If you are shooting sport/action videos this camera is one of the best thanks to the 4k 60fps and DPAF. So no is not only for grabbing stills but is really a great video making tool. Also has a good battery life and it is small enough to put it on a gimbal.
I only wish that they would have put a Clog and having a cropped HD mode for sharper 120fps slow motion. The FullHD 120 fps is a bit on the soft side. ...Show more →
Thanks for all the info. Much appreciated. With regard to my question, would you have any advice on transcoding? If so, what are your preferences and why?
I'm on Windows so no ProRes. Editing on a Notebook 4k is a big stretch, on my notebook I use Davinci Resolve and at 25fps I can edit (no grading) in real-time from the MJPEG without transcoding (I use at FullHD timeline for editing and switch to 4k for rendering). I render the final cut in 4k DNxHR HQ and eventually a 2nd copy in Full HD h.264 10Mbits for web sharing.
I believe the best match on a Mac is to transcode to Apple ProRes 422 HQ but I'm really not an expert on Mac. 444 is useless IMO view that the source is 422.
In any case for serious 4k editing a Workstation class machine is recommended.
gt3rs wrote:
I'm on Windows so no ProRes. Editing on a Notebook 4k is a big stretch, on my notebook I use Davinci Resolve and at 25fps I can edit (no grading) in real-time from the MJPEG without transcoding (I use at FullHD timeline for editing and switch to 4k for rendering). I render the final cut in 4k DNxHR HQ and eventually a 2nd copy in Full HD h.264 10Mbits for web sharing.
I believe the best match on a Mac is to transcode to Apple ProRes 422 HQ but I'm really not an expert on Mac. 444 is useless IMO view that the source is 422.
In any case for serious 4k editing a Workstation class machine is recommended.
Ross,
I would transcode the 4K footage using the normal ProRes 422 instead of HQ. It's about 440Mbit which is just under the 500Mbit from the 1DX II MJPEG codec. It's really all you need.
You may use Resolve, Adobe Media Encoder (premiere), Apple compressor or Apple FCPX for the batch task.
If you really want to save space, ProRes LT is a great option as well and it would be hard to see any difference.
So, my suggestion is to transcode your 4k footage to ProRes 422 (Or LT) or use 4K Proxy from FCPX.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Ross,
I would transcode the 4K footage using the normal ProRes 422 instead of HQ. It's about 440Mbit which is just under the 500Mbit from the 1DX II MJPEG codec. It's really all you need.
You may use Resolve, Adobe Media Encoder (premiere), Apple compressor or Apple FCPX for the batch task.
If you really want to save space, ProRes LT is a great option as well and it would be hard to see any difference.
So, my suggestion is to transcode your 4k footage to ProRes 422 (Or LT) or use 4K Proxy from FCPX.
Fred,
Thank you for the detailed response. I've downloaded Compressor, and like it. I was unaware the Adobe Media Encoder did the same transcoding, as I edit in Premiere Pro. I'll check that out tomorrow as well.
I will also see if I can notice any difference in the LT vs regular, as I'd love to save space sometimes.
Thanks again. I love your forum. It's a wealth of knowledge and I'm thankful for all the help I get here. You've created a fantastic place.
No FCPX here but I used Premiere CC for my first 4K just 2 days ago and tested the new proxy feature of Premiere. I created very small proxy files (1024x540) so editing was very fluid. You can easily toggle between proxy and real view (but beware I have not a lot of experience in editing )
ross.thomas wrote:
So I've just begun shooting 4K on my 1DX II, and of course am running into the inevitable HUGE file size issue. I edit on a 2015 15 inch MacBook Pro i7, so it's fast for a MacBook. I've noticed that playing back the enormous 4K motion jpeg is super choppy, even on this beast of a MacBook. I downloaded Compressor to transcode to ProRes. Is that what I should be doing to make use of these files?
Do you guys transcode the 4K footage from the 1DX Mark II? What does your workflow look like?
Yes. You need to transcode the 4k footage to a lower quality for editing purposes then conform the edit with the 4k footage as the last step. Export an EDL of your edit once it is done if you work with multiple softwares. (for color grading etc). The more organized you are the better. Some people color grade everything but it is best to just grade the clips you used on the edit (or edits)
Claude wrote:
No FCPX here but I used Premiere CC for my first 4K just 2 days ago and tested the new proxy feature of Premiere. I created very small proxy files (1024x540) so editing was very fluid. You can easily toggle between proxy and real view (but beware I have not a lot of experience in editing )
I didn't even know that existed. Sounds promising! Even if I transcode the clips first to keep the filesize down, I could still use the proxy feature and have fluid editing. Thanks for the heads up! Looks like I've got some reading to do on this subject.
What are the PC users doing to transcode the 4k60 files? I do not have ProRes as an option, and I would like to store these 4k60 files in a smaller format (and keep my 4:2:2).
ross.thomas wrote:
So I've just begun shooting 4K on my 1DX II, and of course am running into the inevitable HUGE file size issue. I edit on a 2015 15 inch MacBook Pro i7, so it's fast for a MacBook. I've noticed that playing back the enormous 4K motion jpeg is super choppy, even on this beast of a MacBook. I downloaded Compressor to transcode to ProRes. Is that what I should be doing to make use of these files?
Do you guys transcode the 4K footage from the 1DX Mark II? What does your workflow look like?
I don't shoot much video but isn't there a movie utility that Canon supplies with the camera that transcodes the 4K video?
stanj wrote:
Yes, ProRes is the way to go. Not quite sure what they were thinking with Motion-JPG...
Stan one thing only, stills extraction. They chose the most inefficient format to make life easier for stills. What they should have also offered is a 3840 x 2160 UHD mode using mp4 and h264 at say 200Mb/s or so that most of us would choose especially sine our monitors and TV's are UHD not 4K.
)