Is it posible to change import optimization settings?

Whenever I import something that needs to be transcoded, it transcodes to ProRes 422. I find that ProRes 422 is quite lossy and I notice a large difference compared to the original source. There is much more color smearing added to the color smearing already present in MP4 files. Is there any way I could force FCPX to transcode into ProRes 422 HQ or even ProRes 4444? Disk space is not an issue. It doesn't seem to matter what my project is set to, FCPX ALWAYS transcodes to vanilla 422.


EDIT: Would a workaround to avoiding the 422 compression be as follows? Step 1 - Import footage. If it transcodes to 422, whatever. 2 - Edit and stuff. 3 - Before exporting, delete all generated content in the event or project. 4 - Export ProRes 4444 master.

If you convert a highly compressed but decent quality video to ProRes 422 you won't notice any difference at all. This has been tested and confirmed by Philip Hodgetts: moviola.com/webinars/demystifying-apples-prores-codec/

But recompressing an MP4 video that already has color smearing to any other lossy codec will only make the smearing worse.

If you think exporting to 4444 would be better to mimimize further image degradation, you could indeed work with the optimized 422 media for editing, and delete these prior to export so you can export to 4444 straight from the original MP4 media. But I don't know if this will yield any better results. If you have the drive space, it's definitely worth trying.

- Ronny

Redifer wrote: Whenever I import something that needs to be transcoded, it transcodes to ProRes 422. I find that ProRes 422 is quite lossy and I notice a large difference compared to the original source. There is much more color smearing added to the color smearing already present in MP4 files.

This is interesting. You should tell your camera. I am in no way an expert in these things, I just trust my own eyes and follow discussions on ProRes since many years. The main two arguments of the critics against ProRes are firstly that it's terribly inefficient compared to MP4 and that secondly in a roundtrip MP4 > ProRes>MP4 is actually lossy (has mainly something to do with a different macroblock pattern compared to MP4, don't ask me).

For the first argument they point out that 10-bit and 422 are just filled with digital zeros, you don't gain anything by them if your source is 8-bit 420. For the sake of smaller files and even smoother performance, there should be an AIC alternative. For these acquisition codecs a lower bitrate would suffice. They say that for a normal AVCHD file ProResLT was visually lossless just the same.

The second statement usually comes from Adobe users who detest intermediates and rather buy more horsepower for their hardware in order to always *edit natively*.

You can have both. I do believe the part that says above the "vanilla" ProRes422 was no further improvement. I used to transcode recklessly with the cheesegrater and gratefully never observed any decrease in quality (through the said macroblocks). Now I edit natively on the maxed-out 5k iMac and have proxies additionally (which I just had to use for a multicam clip once, where they are created automatically anyway).

I *believe* (please can someone prove me wrong?) that FCP X always renders for export by referring to original media (if still available then). In theory, I could bypass ProRes completely. Import XAVC, export H.264. But I am so stubborn and dull to habitually cmd+e a vanilla ProRes master > (Edit:) ... and at this time, following your complaint, the color smearing would be baked in finally. Right?

Prior to import in FCPX convert your footage into 4444 or any other supported and desired format with MPEG Streamclip www.squared5.com/svideo/mpeg-streamclip-mac.html and you're done.

But before anything else, do a test on a small clip to see if all his extra work makes any difference at all.

- Ronny

if you find 442 regular too lossy, change the project setting render to something higher, that way whenever you throw an effect or anything that needs render FCPX on the fly converts it to that setting be ProRes 442 HQ PreRes 4444 etc...

Several good points brought up that I'd like to address in no particular order:

- I'd like to convert in FCPX because it is BY FAR the most convenient and fastest way to do so. MPEG Streamclip is clunky. It does have a batch command but it takes a long time to convert stuff. My camera footage is shot in ProRes and never goes through any H.264 steps.

- I'm bringing in videogame footage captured in the MP4 format. It is a touch smeary when I zoom this footage in on certain colors. It gets more smeary with the ProRes 422 codec during editing. It's pretty easy to see the difference for me. Even when capturing directly in ProRes 422 via the BlackMagic Intensity there is smearing applied to some of the colors and the video never went through an MPEG step.

- I like to zoom in on my videogame footage for emphasis. This wouldn't work well for real life footage as it would be too soft/tacky/bad editing, but for game footage it actually works quite well. These are retro games that are pretty low-res to begin with.

- I have done many tests and so far only ProRes 4444 shows no difference between the original footage. ProRes 422 and 422 HQ seem about the same to each other. Here are some examples. These are zoomed way in so you can see:

This is what the original image looks like:

Zoomed in 600% nearest-neighbor scaling.

Here is ProRes 422. Notice the smearing.

Again, scaled in 6x with nearest neighbor so that the scaling itself doesn't result in artifacting.

I would also post the ProRes4444 example but it is identical to the original.

Don't know what causes that, but it "looks" like interlace issue. We do screen recordings, but they're always ProRes 422 from the start. What are you recording your screen with?

That's not a screen recording. That's a PNG put into an image sequence in the lossless ANIMATION codec and then compressed to ProRes 422. Interlacing is evil. But if I do screen capture with Screenflow, I always choose lossless over "adaptive".

So what is generating the Image Sequence?

After Effects. Then it was rendered out as a Quicktime movie using the ANIMATION codec. I then did a screen grab of that and enlarged it 600% (nearest neighbor) in Photoshop and saved as aPNG for the "original" image you see above. Then I took that very Quicktime and transcended it to ProRes 422. I again took a screen grab of the same area and enlarged it 600%.

Just for fun, here is the PSD file I originally created. Once opened in Photoshop, you can turn layers off and on to see the difference firsthand. What blows me away is the little to no difference between ProRes 422 and ProRes 422 HQ. Click to download PSD file