Some help with delivering a Hard Drive Project - please.

So guys and gals, I really need some time saving help from anyone that has done it. I assume most of you do it. But I dont much and I need to. What is it that I need to do, you ask....

I need to delivery a 3 hour 1080 project on a hard drive. How do I do this out of FCPX? So that it plays on both MACs, PCs, and HD TVs?

I have done it, but not efficiently. I can imagine 50 different ways to do it, but if I have some respectable, time tested advice - then I'll give you guys positive Karma. :woohoo: That is what we are here for, ehh?

So, I normally deliver my great HD footage on an authored DVD (obviously SD), my clients are now bringing me their hard drives for me to give them the HD version. Can I give them a menu, as I did on the DVD, or is that just out the window at this point? What is the best way to give to them so they are not disappointed, in terms of picture quality? They want HD. But I dont imagine giving them a 60GB project is the best route to take, hmmm? What is the best format for them to be able to handle and watch on their TV sets VIA plug in USB or a plugged in 500GB drive (which is what my client is bringing me)?

All this using FCPX and an iMac of course.

There is also the issue of large file formats as well...right?

Thanks in advance, Bill

The way I grew up no question was a wrong question. Teaching, learning, and open-mindedness are areas of respect.

Maybe I'm just testing you guys.

:oops:

Export an h264 at 1080 from the share menu. The .mov wrapper won't play on windows media player, but will with vlc on windows. As far as codecs go h264 is as generic as they come and supported by most HDTVs, even in the .mov wrapper.

If compatibility or size is still an issue, then you my have to run through a different encoder. The apple h264 encoder is not particularly efficient compared to others. The best option is x264, which is available free, and will allow you to export unwrapped (ie .mp4), but does require knowledge on the command line and the h264 codec itself. If you want to try your best bet is to download package manager homebrew, and install ffmpeg, of which x264 is a component.

Good luck, and I'm sure I all of us on this forum are glad to hear about your upbringing.

Yes, mp4 is the way to go, I'd say. You could export the original movie and then use the free MPEGstreamclip to turn it into an mp4. Easy.

MPEG Streamclip is a bit ropey on h264. The built in encoder's getting old. I had a look around though, and handbrake is free and offers a gui for x264 to the .mp4 container. That would do the trick. If you export a Prores master and then run it through handbrake with an RF value of between 18 to 28. X264 docs say that RF 19 is visually lossless, so that might be a good place to start.

get handbrake here: sourceforge.net/projects/handbrake/

Thanks for the candid answers guys. I'll let you know how it goes.....any more proven methods for high quality product delivery are greatly appreciated, although I'm sure the above are time tested and enough.

Thanks again.

So I made a prores master at about 8.5 GB converted with handbrake to a 3.65 .m4v with 0 RF and unchecked large file format, in hopes of keeping things under 4GB. So I wont have large file structure issues.

However, that was my 9 minute clip.

Now, I'm going to have two more 60 minute clips, that I need to put on the drive. What am I to do with those?

...and will they both be Mac and PC compatible?

keep in mind the quality has to be crisp on a 50 inch TV.

Yeah sounds like a good start.

With the RF value in x264 it's worth noting that a higher number means a more compressed video, so setting RF 0 means that that compression is not actually working for you. For a nine minute video you should be able to get your file size well below 1 GB, in fact with a bit of experimentation you may find you can achieve the quality you want in the 60 minute videos, below 4GB for each. I would suggest trying an RF value of 19, and then one of 28, and see how the compression looks.

I assume you ticked the ipod box to produce an .m4v? To maximise compatibility you really want an .mp4, which should be produced if you leave that box unticked. .mp4 is widely recognised and is platform agnostic. This doesn't mean it will play back on every machine, but will on mozt modern machines. The other thing you can do to ensure wider compatibility is limit the h264 profile level, but thats a topic in itself.

Intuitively speaking, why would I not prefer a 4.7 GB DVD for the files then? Wouldn't a file larger than 4 GB have better quality on playback?

My client is providing me with a 500GB drive. So, I dont mean to fill it all, but I do intend to give them something better than 2 DVDs. This is the whole point.

I'm not worried about the file size. I'm worried about the file size with respect to cross platform compatibility, playability and drive partition format options.

So basically I'll take your advise using a better (higher quality) RF value.....

I'm just worried about not being able to copy large files over 4GB, isn't that sometime an issue....? but at the same time, as I said earlier, I want to take advantage of the high capacity drive. Although it may not seem necessary in my case it is. The client wants a huge file..... (its going to make them feel better)

theres some positive karma for all your kind advice!

These are good points all and I'll try to answer them one by one,

The first point you make about the size of the DVDs. Intuitively it seems that the bigger file must be better quality, as it contains more information. However ,if this were true, then the best format for video delivery would always be uncompressed video. However we rarely use uncompressed video for the reason that such a huge data rate is unwieldily. The higher the file size the higher the data rate, and a higher data rate requires faster drives. This is why, you can usually play a h264 file easily from on a usb drive, but if you try to play a ProRes 4444 file, you're going to struggle.

This is why we distinguish between codecs suitable for delivery and those used for editing. In this case as you're trying to create a deliverable for a client that they can play back across multiple platforms, therefore you are looking for the optimum balance between visual quality, and file size.

This is why the quality of the encoder is important. A good, modern encoder like x264 can create a far higher quality video at far smaller file size than was previously possible. You must remember that DVD technology is now ancient. To compare a DVD file of 4.7GB to a x264 encoded h264 of 4.7GB, is analogous to comparing a school calculator with an iphone 5, and concluding that their processing power is the same because they are of a similar physical size...or to put it put in a cruder manner: it's not the size that matter, it's how you use it.

RF 18 is considered visually lossless by the x264 creators. That is to say there is no visibly noticeable difference between the master file and the compressed file, despite the smaller size. But remember, unless you were shooting uncompressed RAW, your footage is already compressed by the camera, so practically you could go up to RF 24 and beyond, and still not notice any difference.

As for the client wanting a large file, what I usually do is provide the prores master file which I describe as an 'editing' file, and a x264 'viewing' file. They inevitably end up using the compressed file because it works better, but feel secure in having the editing file.

The 4GB limit you're talking about on the drive, is a limit of the Fat32 file system. Format the drive to exFat using disk utility and you should avoid the problem (its been a while since I worked with windows), or another option is to mount an NTFS (windows) drive on OSX by using windows virtualisation software such as parallels.

Hope that makes sense.

@Seamusvfx. Now, I really have no more questions. I understand everything perfectly.


All I can say is thank you!

@Seamusvfx: Hahaha, you know I was so engrossed with this project that I neglected to comment on your statement.

Good luck, and I'm sure I all of us on this forum are glad to hear about your upbringing.

(On a side note) My explanation, if it wasn't as obvious as I thought, is that I really expected a lot more answers, a lot quicker and from more people. Sometimes when you post something that may be rudimentary for most, people refuse to spend time on it. I think we all have varying levels in varying aspects of this multifaceted field. Some are better than others in certain areas, some may need some "magnification" on specific topics, some may have not needed certain things they learned way back and fallen behind. Some are simply beginners and others may be great at everything. The point is that these communities are an open public forum meant for help to all, in my opinion, and sometimes I get brushed the wrong way when people are selective on what they answer to; based on what seems to be the worthiness of the question. Of course it is their prerogative, however like I said I know there are a lot more people in this forum that read questions and are completely over-qualified to answer questions. I just hope they dont answer for the wrong reasons. So my initial comment was in an effort to subtly prime people to answer, maybe it worked maybe it didn't. But know this, "what goes around comes around." Always, just my humble opinion.

I get what your saying.

The thing is, a question like this isn't basic at all. It's a massive topic and its difficult. If people don't answer it can be because either they don't know, or don't have enough time. Having spent a long time unwinding the mess of codecs left behind by otherwise very good editors, I have a vested interest in seeing better understanding of encoding practices . One of the things I really like about fcpx actually is the restrictions it places on export codecs, as this enforces some kind of standardization.

Anyway, I think most people on forums like these are only too happy to answer, but a shot, regardless of how oblique makes replying seems like an obligation rather than a pleasure.

I wouldn't use exFAT as it's really a filesystem optimized for USB flash drives. It does have Mac OS X / Windows compatibility, but it has slower write times in comparison to NTFS/FAT32. If your clients are using Windows, use NTFS; you can write NTFS using this free driver .

Well the learning experience was all a pleasure for me, might I say.

I've delivered the product and the client is happy.

Handbrake is awesome, and I now am a step higher in my understanding of codecs.

On the contrary to the tone of my statements, fcp.co is awesome! fcp.co is my go to guy for anything FCPX or video for that matter. I have made leaps and bounds through this site, but I just had that meandering feeling in my mind sometimes and just thought I'd get it out there. I support this forum and have never had a problem with anyone or any comments. The articles are trendy and the forums are flowing with information.

Thanks a million for everything lets get back to doing what we love....

@kyletron2000: Thanks for the extra info. Although, I already I went with with exFAT partition. Tested it on both Mac and PC and there was no apparent problem. Everything was smooth. I gave the client....250GB of source footage!!!!!!!!!! :sick: It took ~2.5 hours to write it. I personally had no issues with that, it seems acceptable to me.

I'll try NTFS next time :whistle: , I just wanted to avoid third party type implementation for this first time.

What do you think the write time on the NTFS format would have been?