Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Apple ProRes workflow in premiere pro?

Jun 30, 2011 5:04 AM

Final Cut Pro X must be the greatest thing that ever happened to Adobe Premiere!  People all over the pro community are running away from apple, and I'm one of them!

 

But it raises a lot of questions regarding a new workflow with premiere pro.

 

We edit, and output, all our material in Apple ProRes but how does that work in premiere?

When I import ProRes footage, I can't seem to match the sequence-settings as I would in FCP?


Do I have to re-encode all my footage? (That would be a huge problem for us!)

And then export in ProRes?

 

Thx!

Rasmus Pilgaard

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2011 5:17 AM   in reply to Rasmus_Pilgaard

    We edit, and output, all our material in Apple ProRes but how does that work in premiere?

     

    ProRes works fine. I use it frequently (typically just the 422 variant), and I'm even on a PC--I'm assuming you're on a Mac. Since it is a QuickTime codec, and one that is not handled natively by Premiere's importers, you'll be working in a 32-bit process, but Premiere will still work just fine with it. No need to re-encode your footage: just import and go. You should be able to encode to ProRes, again assuming that you're on a Mac--there are no ProRes exporters for Windows.

     

    (You might want to read this article at ProVideo Coalition by some guy: Native Format Editing in Adobe Premiere Pro)

     

    When I import ProRes footage, I can't seem to match the sequence-settings as I would in FCP?

     

    That's a piece of cake: just drag one of your clips to the New Item button at the bottom of the Project panel:

     

    newitem.png

     

    ...or you can right-click a clip and select "New Sequence from Clip." Whichever you do, Premiere will create a sequence that matches the parameters of your source footage, and drop the clip into it. You can also select multiple clips and do the same, and it will create just a single sequence but put all selected clips into it.

     

    Hope that helps, and welcome aboard

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2011 6:04 AM   in reply to Rasmus_Pilgaard

    But here's the thing: When I create a new sequence the way you suggest, and then check my sequence settings.... It still looks wrong?

     

    I see your concern; I'm guessing that you're talking about the Editing Mode appearing as AVCHD? Practically speaking, you can edit any kind of footage that you can import in any kind of sequence in Premiere. The Editing Modes are simply shortcuts to certain sequence parameters, like frame size, frame rate, and field order. So even though there isn't a specific ProRes editing mode, you don't have to worry about it--just plunk your footage into a sequence that matches the footage parameters (which you can see, the New Sequence from Clip operation did) and edit away.

     

    If you want, you can go to File > New > Sequence and create your own custom sequence preset. Premiere has a "Custom" editing mode that allows you to completely customize the frame size, frame rate, and other parameters. Simply select a sequence preset as sort of a baseline, and then click on the Settings tab where you can tweak the settings as you like:

     

    newsequence.PNG

     

    You can then go to the Tracks tab and specify the number and type of tracks you'd like in your preset, and then click the Save Preset button. Any time you want to use that preset, just create a new sequence and select it, and it will be set up as you indicated.

     

    Ultimately, though, you don't need to go to this length; Premiere will work just fine with the footage in the sequence that was automatically set up. Don't be concerned with the yellow line over the footage; you'll still have real-time editing performance. Here's a blog post regarding the colored bars: Red, yellow, and green render bars and what they mean

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2011 6:09 AM   in reply to Colin Brougham

    By the way: I'm guessing that by the name of your clip in the screenshot you posted (MVI_####) that you're working with footage that was originally shot with a  Canon DSLR and then converted to ProRes. As a point of interest, you might like to know that you can work with clips directly from the DSLR in Premiere Pro, with no need to transcode. As a matter of fact, you will probably get BETTER performance by not doing so (in the future), since the DSLR clips are handled by Premiere's native 64-bit importers; converting the clips to ProRes necessitates the use of QuickTime for decoding, which is only 32-bit even on the Mac.

     

    Be sure to try this out--I think you'll like it!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 7:30 AM   in reply to Colin Brougham

    Colin Brougham wrote:

     

    By the way: I'm guessing that by the name of your clip in the screenshot you posted (MVI_####) that you're working with footage that was originally shot with a  Canon DSLR and then converted to ProRes. As a point of interest, you might like to know that you can work with clips directly from the DSLR in Premiere Pro, with no need to transcode. As a matter of fact, you will probably get BETTER performance by not doing so (in the future), since the DSLR clips are handled by Premiere's native 64-bit importers; converting the clips to ProRes necessitates the use of QuickTime for decoding, which is only 32-bit even on the Mac.

     

    Be sure to try this out--I think you'll like it!

    I don't agree that you will get better performance editing DSLR footage natively. It is a highly compressed H.264 codec and even though it CAN edit natively, it is much more efficient encoding the footage to a more solid editing codec such as DVCPRO HD or DNxHD. It is a pain having to take the time to re-encode everything but will be more efficient in the long run.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 12:03 PM   in reply to Noberto.Clarkos

    abi.riva wrote:

     

    I don't agree that you will get better performance editing DSLR footage natively. It is a highly compressed H.264 codec and even though it CAN edit natively, it is much more efficient encoding the footage to a more solid editing codec such as DVCPRO HD or DNxHD. It is a pain having to take the time to re-encode everything but will be more efficient in the long run.

     

    That was certainly true with FCP7.  But, this came as a real shock to me in Pr 5.5 and 6:  I get far better shuttling of my CTI with Long-GOP footage (h.264, .vob, .mpg) than I do with ProRes.  It's counter-intuitive, and I can't fathom what causes this, but it happens, especially with HD rasters.  With ProRes HD formats (720 or 1080), I get massive frame dropping, with my Source or Program tabs updating every thousand or so frames.  It's slightly better with SD sources and Sequences.  But, with Long-GOP, it's just like I'm working on an Avid system.  Very speedy, lots of frames seen as I scrub the Timeline.  The way it should be.

     

    The main difference I see comes in exporting Long-GOPs to ProRes at the mastering stage.  Those take longer.

     

    There's no free lunch.  Either you get to work right away with native footage, and pay for it later.  Or, you transcode up front, and get faster exports.  That's my experience.  YMMV.

     

    I'm on 10.7.4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2013 9:50 AM   in reply to Noberto.Clarkos

    Encoding to another codec means some data is definitely loss along the way. Unless you are recording directly into a field recorder (which makes your footage uncompressed), there is no point encoding a compressed format into another compress format.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2013 10:17 AM   in reply to Wee Rock

    Wee Rock wrote:

     

    Encoding to another codec means some data is definitely loss along the way. Unless you are recording directly into a field recorder (which makes your footage uncompressed), there is no point encoding a compressed format into another compress format.

     

    Most of the time, your first sentence is true, but the exception being that encoding to an uncompressed or a lossless compression will not mean data loss. 

     

    Many field recorders capture to codecs that suffer slight data loss.  This includes ProRes, DNxHD and R3D.  The only way to not lose data is to record to an uncompressed format or one with lossless compression. 

     

    Encoding from one compressed format to another is standard operating procedure in production and post production. Most distro formats such as web, Blu-Ray, DVD, etc. are pretty highly compressed.  The challenge in post production is to keep the amount of compression and the number of compression stages to a minimum, if you care about quality in the end product.  But, avoiding recompression is difficult, if not impossible in real-world situtations.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points