Video Editing??

[EyeWingsuit]

I understand the what and why of what you're saying. It's because you're working on an Apple system, that cannot natively decode the files. This is entirely due to how Apple approaches MPEG and decoding licenses. You have no reason to trust what I'm telling you either, but as the author of more than 20 books on broadcast technology, NLE systems, and codecs, the problem you describe is due exclusively to Apple's decision to not fully license MPEG (not the codec, but rather the licensee's).
As far as what GoPro does, and why they are standard (even though Apple wants you to believe they're proprietary, just like Apple-ganda said about Sony/Panasonic for years, until they were "outed"), this might answer some questions.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To summarize, the ONLY reason you're doing any of the transcoding, is because you're an Apple user. I'm not opposed to Apple, but I am opposed to mistruths about codecs that are exclusively caused by Apple choosing to not license codecs (BTW,if you want to truly see your machine operate more efficiently, run Boot Camp, install Windows 7, and run Premiere on it. Edit video on both the Premiere's (one in OSX, one in Windows 7). You'll immediately note that on the same CPU, the Windows side runs ridiculously faster, and does not require any kind of prerender nor transcode.
The hardware is in your computer; Apple does not want/allow you to see it.

 

[erikgraham]

I would never transcode the original media

Huh? Why not? Your not going to lose any quality transcoding from 8bit to a 10bit or 12bit editing codec, and then editing is much faster and color correction grading is improved. Everyone does it.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

OK so why then does processed protune video out of a project file play and edit more smoothly after you convert it. You may have some technical points, but I am a nuts and bolts guy. Tried this both ways many times. It does work sorrry

The type of CPU, NLE, and background functions all relate to why a video plays back choppy or not.
Of course reducing a 35Mbps stream to 16Mbps will play more smoothly on a slower or resource-challenged system; you've reduced the filesize by half. And lost a fair amount of quality in the process.
I didn't say it doesn't work. I said that it's incorrect to refer to the codec as "inefficient" when it is actually very, very efficient (see the video I linked upthread). Some systems are less efficient at decoding a file than others. There are many reasons for this, most of them technical. If "nuts and bolts" is more your style, then losing quality vs retaining data probably doesn't bother you much. There are people that are really happy with 4Mbps cameras, too. People serious about their work are less than enthusiastic about low-quality. Bear in mind, there is a very wide scope of multirotor camera geeks. Some play just for fun and making some sort of image. Others are deeply interested in the best possible image, and will go to whatever great lengths affordable to achieve those images.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Huh? Why not? Your not going to lose any quality transcoding from 8bit to a 10bit or 12bit editing codec, and then editing is much faster and color correction grading is improved. Everyone does it.

Yes, you do. If you think otherwise, spend the time creating difference masks. Even in transcoding uncompressed, you lose quality.
And never EVER is transcoding from 8bit to 12bit going to be faster editing. If the system can't do 8 bit very well, it sure as heck can't do 12bit very well either.
But...you have no reason to trust me. I'm just a guy that lives in broadcast design, and has done so for the past 25 years.

 

[erikgraham]

Yes, you do. If you think otherwise, spend the time creating difference masks. Even in transcoding uncompressed, you lose quality.
And never EVER is transcoding from 8bit to 12bit going to be faster editing. If the system can't do 8 bit very well, it sure as heck can't do 12bit very well either.
But...you have no reason to trust me. I'm just a guy that lives in broadcast design, and has done so for the past 25 years.

First of all, relax. We get it. You live in broadcast design for 25 years. You don't have to keep repeating it. Second of all, you are just dead wrong. I don't know, maybe your set in your ways. But it's 2015, not 1995. You are literally the only "expert" I've heard of who says you should not transcode into an editing codec. GoPros codec is explicitly designed for capture, not playback or editing. Just ask them. Using an editing codec allows smoother playback and more efficient editing, especially if you use effects, transitions, slow motion. Stepping up to 10bit is plenty for any footage shot on a GoPro without loosing quality, and it let's you color grade without adding contours to contours. I'm having a hard time believing that someone with 25 years of experience can say otherwise. Your information is simply out of date.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

If "being out of date" means that difference masking tests and codec comparisons as part of a daily workflow are also wrong...I'll accept your premise.
By your same logic, I should be able to convert a VHS tape to HEVC and then be able to not only have a better image, but also be able to push the color around with no/little loss.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

ALL aquisition codecs are designed for capture, hence the term "acquisition." DV, HDV were also acquisition codecs, never meant for editing.
The key is whether the acquisition codec can be also used for editing. No one wants to transcode. It's lost time, it's lost money. That's why *most* editing system developers work so very hard at being able to natively decode on the fly; it protects the quality, speeds the process, and provides significantly better opportunity at color timing/correction. Otherwise, why even consider bothering? It's expensive to license decoders, challenging to implement code to meet all requirements. Why not just simply REQUIRE everything to be transcoded?
Because it's inefficient, costly, lossy in quality, time-consuming.

Sometimes, transcoding is beneficial to help hold together the original quality when a deep push is planned. Think of it like adding moisture to sand. It doesn't make it any stronger or better, but does help it stay together while it's still wet.

Converting to 10 or 12 bit certainly doesn't make anything more "efficient" nor "easy to edit." What doing so *does* provide, is the *potential* ability to push color gradients (such as the sky) a bit harder without banding. But don't kid yourself. You're not gaining any quality; you're losing quality, just as you'd lose quality recording a VHS tape to an HDCAM or D5 deck. You gain nothing. It's still just VHS, now in a different package.

 

[erikgraham]

If "being out of date" means that difference masking tests and codec comparisons as part of a daily workflow are also wrong...I'll accept your premise.
By your same logic, I should be able to convert a VHS tape to HEVC and then be able to not only have a better image, but also be able to push the color around with no/little loss.

Don't be ridiculous. Why would you even make such a fallacious comparison to analog tape from 30 years ago? Whoa... talk about being "out of date."

Converting to 10 or 12 bit certainly doesn't make anything more "efficient" nor "easy to edit."

Nobody is saying that it does. I guess I'll just quote myself here:

"Using an editing codec allows smoother playback and more efficient editing, especially if you use effects, transitions, slow motion."​

Notice that sentence is over, now onto the next sentence...

"Stepping up to 10bit is plenty for any footage shot on a GoPro without loosing quality, and it let's you color grade without adding contours to contours."​

See what I did there? Two different sentences. Editing codecs in general are easier to edit on underpowered machines. End of story. Going up to 10bit ensures you don't loose quality when you transcode (and as an added benefit, allows for better color correction/grading). Contrary to what you probably believe, just because a video is encoded 10bit, does not mean your computer will choke on it more than a video encoded at 8bit. It doesn't work that way. There are multiple variables involved. When you are comparing codecs, you have to look at more than just 8bit vs 10bit vs 12bit.

But don't kid yourself. You're not gaining any quality;

Again, no one is saying that it does. We are just trying to ensure we do not lose quality.

...you're losing quality, just as you'd lose quality recording a VHS tape to an HDCAM or D5 deck. You gain nothing. It's still just VHS, now in a different package.

Wow. Really? More of the analog comparisons? Your not even wrong... (link).
If you truly think that copying analog media is equivalent to digital transcoding, then I just don't know what to say. I'm at a complete loss. 25 years of experience? You've got to be trolling.

What are you even trying to accomplish here?

You clearly have zero interest in helping out the original poster who can't get his videos to play smoothly on his computer. Your just kind of barging in, swinging your ego around, telling everyone how much of an expert you are, and 1000% failing to give the guy any useful advice.

This guy is looking for an editing suite that isn't expensive, and hard to use. All he wants to do is cut up some videos for youtube. Your really think he needs to buy an editing rig dedicated to his GoPro videos, AND pay a monthly subscription for Premiere Pro? Come on. What kind of advice is that?

The only really valid point you made is that transcoding takes time, which can cost editors money - but only editors in certain fields.... sporting events, live broadcast, cutting up clips for the 6 o'clock news, cranking out crappy wedding videos, etc...

For the rest of the editing world, from feature film makers, to indies, to hobbyists working on underpowered machines with free or cheap software (like the original poster), it does make sense to use an editing codec.

My advice to the Original Poster, or anyone else having these issues is to ignore this guy. He's just blustering around, insulting people who are giving you valid advice.

 

[pyrate]

Well you assume some wrong things
I dont own a mac
My PC is a core I7 24gb ram, 2 ssd hard drives, 2 2gb graphic cards running SLI

I can process the raw files no problem.
But the original files are not hardware friendly again, just google it, the old pyrate did not make this up.
I learned about it before my PC build processing gopro video. Its a trick for those trying to work with Gopro on less expensive PCS

 

[pyrate]

So translated
For the average Joe just trying to work on some video on an average machine try this.
If your a technical propeller head pixel peeping dont bother

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Pyrate, it's all depending on two primary things.
Editing software and how well it's optimized for decoding (Canopus Edius and Sony Vegas are exceptionally efficient for decoding virtually anything thrown at it) and CPU horsepower. Any Intel chipset can decode AVCHD, AVC, and some can decode XAVC and HEVC. If the software is optimized for this...things go fast. If not... It would be nice if there were a hard, fast rule but in the Windows environment, there are just too many possible hardware configs.

As far as Mr. Graham, forgive me for thinking you'd be savvy enough to catch the analogy of VHS to D5. My mistake
A different different analogy.

Put differently, if you buy oranges from a stand on the street and put those oranges into a Trader Joe's bag, the oranges don't look nor taste any better just because you've put them in a different bag.

If one has the horsepower and software that can PROPERLY decode footage there is no need to waste time transcoding. There are several software packages that properly decode native frames.
I don't understand why your panties are in such a wad. Reading what I have to say costs you nothing, and at the end of the day, I'd hope someone out there is likely better for the understanding.

 

[Ryan]

So in order to edit it with great quality? The original compressed gopro file must be converted then it'll be ready to use in premiere? Any other software besides doing every gopro file in the gopro studio to uncompress this? I tried using adobe premiere but the gopro studio came out more smooth for me when exporting. I appreciate the help!

 

[EyeWingsuit]

If GoPro studio is exporting more smoothly than Premiere, then you're likely setting something different or incorrectly in AME. GoPro Studio has very limited options, which indeed makes it much easier for people to export video. Were it a better/full blown editor, it would be a great application for in-depth editing.
What settings are you using for Adobe Media Encoder? I'm assuming you're using Premiere CC?

 

[Ryan]

If GoPro studio is exporting more smoothly than Premiere, then you're likely setting something different or incorrectly in AME. GoPro Studio has very limited options, which indeed makes it much easier for people to export video. Were it a better/full blown editor, it would be a great application for in-depth editing.
What settings are you using for Adobe Media Encoder? I'm assuming you're using Premiere CC?

oh thats possibly my problem.. i didnt use AME, i just dropped it straight into premiere. Gopro studio is great in its own ways, its just tough to get timing done because we cant see the waves of the audio to sync the videos to the music correctly. Gonna give this a try. thanks!

 

[EyeWingsuit]

oh thats possibly my problem.. i didnt use AME, i just dropped it straight into premiere. Gopro studio is great in its own ways, its just tough to get timing done because we cant see the waves of the audio to sync the videos to the music correctly. Gonna give this a try. thanks!

Ryan,
Are you using a mac or PC?

 

[Ryan]

I'm Running pc windows 10. Contacted gopro and they said since the studio isn't made for windows 10 yet, that it may be causing the problem. I hope they update it soon. Also hope to see gopro put a little bit more into their studio because I think it's a great simple editor with most of the basic needed things

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Ryan,
I'd suggest trying one or both of these solutions to your smooth playback issues.
1-Give Sony Vegas MS a try, they have a free 30day demo.
Movie Studio 13 Suite Overview
If you don't need 4K, the low-cost solution is perfectly fine. Even on a slow running, older computer, it'll edit p60 very smoothly as it's optimized for AVC. If you need 4K, then the full suite at 100.00 or so is terrific.

2- If you want to use Premiere, drop the native clips from your GP straight onto the timeline. The p60 clips will be a bit stuttery without a pre-render. However, they can be edited at frame-level just fine. Then, Export using AME, and in AME, use the 1080p30 template. You'll see buttery-smooth video. If you choose to do slo mo in Premiere with your p60 footage, make sure you're doing slomo at 50% for best result.

If you do slomo in Vegas, the percentage doesn't matter, but you'll want to resample the frames (right click the clip and choose "Force Resample" from the menu)

 

[ChrisM101]

keep the good info coming

 

[Ryan]

Ryan,
I'd suggest trying one or both of these solutions to your smooth playback issues.
1-Give Sony Vegas MS a try, they have a free 30day demo.
Movie Studio 13 Suite Overview
If you don't need 4K, the low-cost solution is perfectly fine. Even on a slow running, older computer, it'll edit p60 very smoothly as it's optimized for AVC. If you need 4K, then the full suite at 100.00 or so is terrific.

2- If you want to use Premiere, drop the native clips from your GP straight onto the timeline. The p60 clips will be a bit stuttery without a pre-render. However, they can be edited at frame-level just fine. Then, Export using AME, and in AME, use the 1080p30 template. You'll see buttery-smooth video. If you choose to do slo mo in Premiere with your p60 footage, make sure you're doing slomo at 50% for best result.

If you do slomo in Vegas, the percentage doesn't matter, but you'll want to resample the frames (right click the clip and choose "Force Resample" from the menu)

Thank you very much!! This info helped clarify a bunch of things for me!

 

[franknitty69]

there are many workflows that work, you have to find the one that works for you. but i can say that premiere pro cc 2015 supports GoPro cineform natively. so there absolutely isn't any reason to transcode to any format. also premiere pro is at home with multiple formats in the same sequence as well.

as far as 2.7k or 4k editing your computer needs a lot of oomph. i thought my liquid cooled 5Ghz rig was up to the task...nope. your storage needs to be as fast as possible. Raid 0 SSD with a USB 3.0 or thunderbolt interface. you'll also want at least 16gb ram and an i7 or better CPU.

 

[UAVenthusiast]

I understand the what and why of what you're saying. It's because you're working on an Apple system, that cannot natively decode the files. This is entirely due to how Apple approaches MPEG and decoding licenses. You have no reason to trust what I'm telling you either, but as the author of more than 20 books on broadcast technology, NLE systems, and codecs, the problem you describe is due exclusively to Apple's decision to not fully license MPEG (not the codec, but rather the licensee's).
As far as what GoPro does, and why they are standard (even though Apple wants you to believe they're proprietary, just like Apple-ganda said about Sony/Panasonic for years, until they were "outed"), this might answer some questions.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To summarize, the ONLY reason you're doing any of the transcoding, is because you're an Apple user. I'm not opposed to Apple, but I am opposed to mistruths about codecs that are exclusively caused by Apple choosing to not license codecs (BTW,if you want to truly see your machine operate more efficiently, run Boot Camp, install Windows 7, and run Premiere on it. Edit video on both the Premiere's (one in OSX, one in Windows 7). You'll immediately note that on the same CPU, the Windows side runs ridiculously faster, and does not require any kind of prerender nor transcode.
The hardware is in your computer; Apple does not want/allow you to see it.

Thank you for typing out this often confusing point for many. I run both mac and PC, and and placing a +1! Might be redundent, but also tapping a like!