Editing H.264 Video Natively

For time and HDD reasons I won't go into great detail at the moment, I've been exporting ScreenFlow hour long classes out as H.264 and editing them directly in FCP X without using Proxy and not having any problems. The quality of the exports is fine for what I need and the size is a fraction of the PR422 exports. As BenB says here-
www.larryjordan.biz/editing-h-264-video-natively/

...FCP X will do it even though H.264 is a "Long-GOP format". Not doing this for a living, the only formats I've edited in natively are AVCHD, AVI, and Pro Res 422. And now, H.264. I was expecting some big slow downs, but I didn't run into any.

Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised because now I can archive/edit hour classes at 1-1.5 GB vs. 60-85GB. This is a big relief for my wallet in regards to storage space.

I used a 2-drive RAID 1 enclosure via FW800 for media/Events/Projects. (I then tried the eSata connection with the RAID and it did feel a bit faster). This is all with my Early 2011 i7 MBP 17" with 8GB RAM (actually 16GB is on the way). More hardware details and so on here:
www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...to-fcp-x-issue#18772
--

The reason for this post is that there have been a couple excellent threads recently about FCP X performance. I was expecting a bad experience editing H.264 without Proxy or Optimized, but I didn't have one. Also, I don't tend to render when I work, and the final Pro Res 422 export went fairly smoothly and quickly too.

I understand that these Long-GOP formats can be rough on the processor, but I guess my 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7 is up to the job.

Dave

Actually the article you quote my comment from was about legacy FCP, not about FCP X. Apples to onions. But with enough horsepower, you can edit almost anything natively. The question is, what trade-offs are there to it?

BenB wrote: The question is, what trade-offs are there to it?

Yes, that is basically my question.

I think with the computing power I have and the low end work I do, there doesn't seem to be much, if any trade-off. I don't require color correction for this kind of stuff or I believe anything else that would require a "better" editing format (the one time I did multcam, I did use Proxys).

It will be interesting to see if the bump up to 16GB of RAM makes a noticeable difference for my situation.
--

By the way, in the spirit of optimizing my editing experience, I'm going to re-format my 2-Drive software RAID 1 enclosure to RAID 0. Any thoughts on whether the OWC Oxsemi Configurator app would be any better or worse then Disk Utility? Six of one, half dozen of the other?

Thanks,
Dave

There will be no difference in what software you use to format drives. Use Disk Utility.

By the way, in the spirit of optimizing my editing experience, I'm going to re-format my 2-Drive software RAID 1 enclosure to RAID 0

Back in my PC days I ran some real world speed tests on raid 1 and raid 0, I don't see why the result should be different on a mac. The read speeds were pretty much the same for each, raid 0 being a fraction faster, but not really notable. The write speeds were obviously much faster with raid 0 and with raid 1 they were just a fraction slower than a standard drive, again, not really notable.

For video editing the main advantage is in the read speeds. I use raid 0 for no other reason than it gives me a larger capacity raid and I have a separate backup system anyway.

Disk speed however won't make a lick of difference with playback of H264 files. It's processor power you need for these guys.

I often edit H264 files natively on my aging MacPro without an issue.

However if the job requires a lot of FX then I do transcode the files I need to ProRes.

For H.264 disk speed does help. CPU speed is very important, slightly more important, but disk speed will matter also. Our studio actually tested this back when FCP 7 was first released. To a multicam H.264 on a FW800 drive, then on an internal SATA drive. You'll see HUGE differences.

I can also confirm technically that yes, the performance difference between RAID 0 and RAID 1 are not noticeable by end users the majority of the time.

NocoDave wrote:
For video editing the main advantage is in the read speeds. I use raid 0 for no other reason than it gives me a larger capacity raid and I have a separate backup system anyway.

I was never clear on this aspect. I have two 1TB drives that are currently set up as RAID 1 so obviously I get a RAID 1, 1TB drive out of it. If I move over to RAID 0, will the two 1TB drives create a 2TB RAID 0 or will it still end up as a RAID 0, 1TB drive?

I, like you, back up after every big editing session, so I'm not worried about losing data with the RAID 0.

Thanks,
Dave

BenB wrote: There will be no difference in what software you use to format drives. Use Disk Utility.

Good to know. I'll do as you suggest.

Thanks,
Dave

Seanus wrote:
However if the job requires a lot of FX then I do transcode the files I need to ProRes.

I do too, but for the majority of the instructional videos I edit, it's primarily straight cuts and short transitions with very similar intro and outros which I can copy and paste in. Pretty straight forward over here really.

Thanks,
Dave

BenB wrote: I can also confirm technically that yes, the performance difference between RAID 0 and RAID 1 are not noticeable by end users the majority of the time.

Since aside from the time of copying and backing up files, this is a pretty easy comparison test. I know what speeds I get with FW800 and eSata, so I can try it with the RAID 0 and know for sure. I can post back what I come up with.

Either way, this should hold me until I can make the move next year to a ThunderBolt RAID. (Although, it could be argued that that might be overkill for my meager needs.)

Thanks,
Dave

If you set up a Raid 0 you will have the full 2TB right enough, half the file goes to one drive and half to the other allowing twice as fast read/write speeds.

What I found with my tests was even though Raid 1 was writing to both (at much the same speed as writing to a single non Raid drive) it seemed to be able to read from both simultaneously, which was a surprise.

The disc write/read speed is obviously more import with large data rate uncompressed codecs, but I'd recon it should probably help with H264 too. Out of interest, I've also started editing basic work with native codecs and transcoding if/when effects work kicks in.

I'd love to be able to put together an edit and create transcoded material from what has been used with handles.

I know what speeds I get with FW800 and eSata, so I can try it with the RAID 0 and know for sure. I can post back what I come up with.

Please do, it's been a good few years since I tested and it was on a PC, I'm curious what you get.

NocoDave wrote: If you set up a Raid 0 you will have the full 2TB right enough, half the file goes to one drive and half to the other allowing twice as fast read/write speeds.

Cool, I hoped that would be the case.

NocoDave wrote: I'd love to be able to put together an edit and create transcoded material from what has been used with handles.

Dave, I didn't quite follow what you meant there.

Thanks,
Dave

NocoDave wrote:

I know what speeds I get with FW800 and eSata, so I can try it with the RAID 0 and know for sure. I can post back what I come up with.

Please do, it's been a good few years since I tested and it was on a PC, I'm curious what you get.

I will be happy to and I will also post the benchmarks with the new internal Hybrid drive I will be installing this week to use as an "anywhere I happen to be" media drive. It wouldn't surprise me if it matches or beats the benchmarks of the RAID 0 via eSata/Expresscard slot.

Dave

What I mean is that I'd like to do the basic edit with the source codec, such as H264. Then when it's all locked down, or maybe even pretty much there, transcode only what has been used on the timeline to optimised media with handles for transitions, possible minor changes etc. before going into any effects/colour work.

It would give options of when to do the optimising part of the workflow, for me that would position it where it minimises the time taken and storage space necessary.

I will be happy to and I will also post the benchmarks with the new internal Hybrid drive I will be installing this week to use as an "anywhere I happen to be" media drive. It wouldn't surprise me if it matches or beats the benchmarks of the RAID 0 via eSata/Expresscard slot.

I'm not so sure about these for editing, but I've done absolutely no research yet. My initial thoughts are that you'd be better with a straight forward SSD, the hybrid seems like a compromise to get more space.

I think it's going to be over worked and perhaps confused with media management, also that benchmarking; such as with testing raid 0 over raid 1 over standard drives, seems like you'll only be testing the SSD part of the drive. It's later hybrid management where things could get weird.

NocoDave wrote: What I mean is that I'd like to do the basic edit with the source codec, such as H264. Then when it's all locked down, or maybe even pretty much there, transcode only what has been used on the timeline to optimised media with handles for transitions, possible minor changes etc. before going into any effects/colour work.

Gotcha. Makes perfect sense and a smart workflow. I am also becoming increasing aware of storage space. It certainly adds up very quickly.

Dave

Hybrid drives can potentially slow down video editing seriously. Even Apple markets them as a "consumer device".

As for when to transcode, do it all up front, get it over with, have faster performance from the get go to the final delivery. Why nit-pick (waste time) figuring out what clips to transcode, etc. It would be physically faster to transcode it all up front. If you're seriously doing that much work, you should be charging your clients enough to cover the extra storage needed.

NocoDave wrote:

I will be happy to and I will also post the benchmarks with the new internal Hybrid drive I will be installing this week to use as an "anywhere I happen to be" media drive. It wouldn't surprise me if it matches or beats the benchmarks of the RAID 0 via eSata/Expresscard slot.

I'm not so sure about these for editing, but I've done absolutely no research yet. My initial thoughts are that you'd be better with a straight forward SSD, the hybrid seems like a compromise to get more space.

I think it's going to be over worked and perhaps confused with media management, also that benchmarking; such as with testing raid 0 over raid 1 over standard drives, seems like you'll only be testing the SSD part of the drive. It's later hybrid management where things could get weird.

Dave,

It would take me a while to dig up the benchmark site I found, but they were testing in regards to video editing. The site said you can get 200MB/s working off this hybrid HDD with the SATA 6.0Gb/s connection. This should be plenty fast for my needs. If it matches or gets close to what I get now with my external RAID via eSata, I'll be happy.

You are correct, the SSD part of the drive will do virtually nothing for editing, but this drive was a good price for a 2.5" 7200 rpm, 750 GB drive and with excellent reviews. The plan down the road is to wait until the SSDs come down in price, move this over as a boot drive where the SSD portion will be effective, and then add the straight SSD as the media drive. I'm done spending now for this year, but hopefully next year I can move on this.

Dave