fbpx
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: New Proxy Workflow in 10.4?

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 18 Dec 2017 15:15 #92450

  • Gudgefilm
  • Gudgefilm's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 18
  • Thank you received: 1
Helpful. Thanks.
Hopeful for how a 3rd party may use this functionality!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 18 Dec 2017 15:19 #92451

  • csinclair
  • csinclair's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 10
  • Thank you received: 0
Keyflowpro users, does its proxy generation utilize this feature? The latest FCP.co post says this proxy generation ability might be FCPX's biggest new feature. My intrigue with Keyflowpro began with a post about their features on this site. Would love to know.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 11:25 #92490

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
KeyflowPro looks interesting, expensive for a single user, I do see how it could work in a large multi-user shop.

Why is it so hard for Apple to create a number of proxy file codecs that you the user can self select to encode to? Set this in Preferences and know that when you select Proxy in the view, it is the codec you select?

A suggestion maybe would have this on the import window, it would help so much with media management? I have no idea how this would affect say VR/360 I am sure it would be terrible to edit with, but for VR/360 you need monster systems anyway, so proxy would be useless...

Just when it comes to on the road editing, having a small quick to encode, proxy that is more than 25% of the original, 50% or 75% would be so handy, right on the ingest...Am I wrong???

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 12:29 #92494

  • Axel
  • Axel's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 559
  • Karma: 10
  • Thank you received: 72

MsJustine wrote: A suggestion maybe would have this on the import window, it would help so much with media management?


Yes. You are accepting that media management requires the media to be ingested, imported first or simultaneously. As if that was not an arbitrary limitation. I no longer like this concept. FCP X should have been able to browse all video, audio and stills on your system as an advanced player since 10.1. Reading all metadata, adding new (renaming, tagging, subclipping) and exporting everything to predefined locations with custom settings.

Kyno can do exactly that. If you right-click to >convert >edit >ProResProxy 422 you can further go to >video >settings >frame size and there down to SD 480p. You can save that preset as MsJustines Proxy.

Then, if you quit Kyno, nothing happens. Nothing is saved, and why would it? Nothing ever was imported. There is a folder with your proxies, and if you open it with Kyno, you can send the XML to FCP with cmd+shift+f, by which the FCP import dialog opens and asks you if you want to create a new event or use the previously used one and whether or not you want to leave files in place. All metadata included.

That's the way it should work, and maybe we'll see this functionality with 10.5, as it can't be too hard to do.

I don't need proxy, and I haven't tested the new externally encoded files workflow. I just wonder if there wouldn't be conflicts with different frame sizes if you use transform tools asf. As I understood, ProRes Proxy nominally has the same frame dimensions as the source material but is actually half (?) or even quarter (?) resolution.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 12:45 #92497

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
OK, I get what you are trying to say with using Kyno, that is exactly what if Apple had continued development of Final Cut Studio would have had.

The point is, at some point ingesting into FCPX has to occur, so having a "front end" pre ingest app be it Kyno, or Apple based, matters not, the point is, converting the high rez RED into something tiny and GPU friendly is mandatory, why Apple has not bought Kyno when they have just bought Shazam, not sure why not...

All I am asking Apple and I have made a number of requests about this, is a way to use proxy in FCPX that is less GPU intensive than it is now, that is all, and having a front end app like kyno for small users is maybe a bit too much.

Nothing wrong with kyno per se, fcpx could use a number of codecs dedicated to low rez on the road editing, files are getting bigger, frame sizes are heading into giant size...

For me kyno is too much, and too expensive, the Baez method so far is the best option, a tad time consuming, but it gets around the limits of the codec and gpu clashes...

Thanks for the advice on kyno, it looks great..

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 16:11 #92514

  • joema
  • joema's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1552
  • Karma: 27
  • Thank you received: 331

Axel wrote: ...You are accepting that media management requires the media to be ingested, imported first or simultaneously. As if that was not an arbitrary limitation. I no longer like this concept. FCP X should have been able to browse all video, audio and stills on your system as an advanced player since 10.1. Reading all metadata, adding new (renaming, tagging, subclipping) and exporting everything to predefined locations with custom settings....Kyno can do exactly that....


One of the greatest accomplishments of FCPX is the hyper-fast, fluid skimmer. Whatever coding tricks Apple used, nobody else has been able to duplicate that performance, not even Kyno. For the "leave files in place" case, FCPX can rapidly ingest material and skim it -- and on a fast machine it can do this on 4k H264 without even creating proxies.

For the "in place" case, FCPX is obviously not doing much to import that or ingest wouldn't be so fast. This could be further accelerated by not building waveforms. They could theoretically extend this to some kind of advanced player, but it would still require some ingest process, however brief, and that data must be stored somewhere. But it is obviously doable since FCPX is doing it now.

FCPX is so fast and all external tools are so much slower that I essentially use it as a player. I ingest virtually all media assets from a shoot, mostly without even looking at them. Using "leave files in place" this is extremely fast and doesn't take much disk space unless proxies are created. Then I can skim, rate, reject and keyword material faster than any other 3rd party tool.

Apple could make an advanced "skimmer like" player, and this was the original concept for what became FCPX -- called First Cut, it would skim and tag material which would then be handed off to Final Cut. However I'm not sure of the benefit since either way that content must go through some ingest. But with ever increasing media volumes maybe some kind of advanced skimmer-like player would be worthwhile.

The problem is for skimmer-like performance some ingest is required. If there was a faster way (except maybe deferring waveform generation or optimizing thumbnail generation), Apple would already use this on FCPX. But they have the code and basic technique, which nobody else has. A skimmer-like tool with a lightweight, expedited ingest could help editors wade through today's vast oceans of media. Like the original "First Cut" concept, it could then hand off selected material to FCPX, hopefully using the same ingest data without regenerating it.

OTOH that feature mostly already exists in FCPX, if you simply accept the "import everything" workflow using leave files in place. Putting this outside FCPX might give you a different mental perception, but something similar would be happening under the covers. Today using FCPX you can even ingest everything to a junk library, rate/keyword the content, then copy that to your final library and discard the junk library -- not too different from how an advanced player or "First Cut" utility would work.

The advanced player could be made somewhat faster by deferring waveforms and maybe optimizing thumbnail generation. But those enhancements might also benefit FCPX, and if added then FCPX becomes as fast and lightweight as the player, thus reducing the benefit of an external player.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 16:24 #92516

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
What I got from watching both the kyno video and the webinar by Larry Jordan, is that kyno is sort of a new updated version of the same system in Final Cut Studio if you used a solid state/P2 card, in which you selected a range and only imported that.

You can do this with kyno, but as far as I know and just checked, you cannot import a range or series of ranges into Final Cut Pro X, only the full clip. Maybe there is a circumstance in which you can, but if you have a .mov file that is not on an SD card, whole clips to be ingested.

This is where kyno or something like kyno would be great, to skim and ingest only the range/ranges you need, my question is what is stopping Apple from buying kyno for the technology, like they did for the old Color app in old final cut studio, that was bought, reworked/rebranded into final cut studio, a great app mind you...

We will all at some point love a low rez simple to use, multi "level" proxy codec, that can be set and forget, and just does what it says on the tin, a simple range of compression values, I saw this on the very old premiere 5.0, the one with the white horse on the box-art, and Avid back in the day had this, we used it to ingest for playback, given the tiny hard drive and it was for local broadcast, so who caed if it was VHS!!!!

Please dear Apple pro app dev..can we please have a range of codec for proxy workflow????

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 16:41 #92517

  • Xavier Novembre
  • Xavier Novembre's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 56
  • Karma: 1
  • Thank you received: 3
I bet the "internal" Proxy workflow will remain the same to keep things simple. (half size, ProRes Proxy) if the user is fine with it ... nice

the point is an advanced external Proxy source coming now to open optional possibilities for more sophisticaded workflow...

so where is the problem ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 17:18 #92519

  • joema
  • joema's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1552
  • Karma: 27
  • Thank you received: 331

MsJustine wrote: ...Why is it so hard for Apple to create a number of proxy file codecs that you the user can self select to encode to? Set this in Preferences and know that when you select Proxy in the view, it is the codec you select?...A suggestion maybe would have this on the import window...Just when it comes to on the road editing, having a small quick to encode, proxy that is more than 25% of the original, 50% or 75% would be so handy, right on the ingest...Am I wrong???


MsJustine you've asked this question several times, and I think it's a good one. Some software such as Premiere Pro CC allow multiple proxy resolutions and different proxy codecs. I'll try to provide a complete answer.

The hard part is not the UI aspect, but every new codec requires new code paths to implement and ongoing test and validation. That is one reason why video software is so prone to crash -- it must deal with many encoding formats in a time-critical fashion. This implementation cost and risk plus support cost must be weighed against the actual (not perceived) benefit.

The data often cannot be validated by the software since the container formats usually were not designed for this. The standards did not implement (say) CRC checksums in the header to validate each data block in the file, nor would there be execution time for that. The header is full of metadata "atoms" which may be somewhat poorly standardized and ambiguously defined. A programmer might have to read multiple white papers, talk to colleagues, review and test multiple products from different companies to decipher what the common practice is for handling these items. A good example of this is the meta atom called "fiel" which you can see described on table 4-2 of this page: developer.apple.com/library/content/docu...00939-CH205-BBCBACAB

In the real world when programmers, test engineers and support engineers have to implement (and support) things, they are keenly aware of issues with risk and reliability. In a well-run development group, this often leads to conservatism when implementing new features. In other groups they will throw in more features but the users ultimately pay the penalty.

You can obviously add lots of different proxy codecs and sizes -- Adobe did that with Premiere, but that software has a reputation for being quite crash-prone.

An important issue is the cost/benefit tradeoff. The question is would smaller proxies or those using more compressed codecs help from the standpoint of ingest or editing performance. Almost certainly no for compressed codecs but even for ProRes, smaller proxies may help less than you think.

E.g, the entire full resolution camera native file (often H264) must be read to generate the proxy -- no matter what proxy size or codec. It is reading and decoding that file that's slow -- not generating a ProRes proxy. This can be seen by my 2017 iMac being 2x faster than a 12-core D700 Mac Pro at ingesting 4k H264 and generating 1080p ProRes proxies. The burden is not on the output side (proxy generation) it is on the input side -- decoding all the 4k H264 material. The Mac Pro (which does not have Quick Sync) is much slower.

So for the ProRes proxy case, whether the output size was 1080, 960, 540, or whatever -- most of the work is on the input side of decoding the full-res camera file. So a smaller proxy will take about as much time to generate as a larger one.

The other important item is how much a smaller proxy would help editing performance. The current FCPX proxies are fixed at 1/2 the linear resolution or 1/4 the pixel resolution, and always ProRes. For 4k H264 this provides good editing performance on a modest machine -- my 2013 MacBook Air edits 4k pretty well using the current 1/4 size proxies. But that's a few simple edits, not applying effects.

What about 8k material? The current FCPX system produces 4k ProRes proxies for 8k originals. Why not add 2k (or 1/16 the pixel resolution)? Two main reasons:

(1) 4k ProRes proxies are still pretty fast on most machines. Anybody who doubts this can encode a file to 4k ProRes and edit that. It runs fairly well on somewhat older machines (for basic edits).

(2) No matter what the proxy size, you cannot totally escape the original media performance cost. E.g, when you render a clip in the timeline (as is often required to smoothly evaluate things like stabilization, noise reduction, retiming, etc) it sometimes must read and decode the original media -- even in proxy mode. Anyone can prove this by applying optical flow or Neat Video to a 4k clip in proxy mode, render that clip in the timeline, then repeat that on a fresh library using original media. In both cases it takes about the same time to render the clip in the timeline.

Some FCPX built-in effects such as sharpening will be faster if rendered in the timeline in proxy mode than for original media.

If you don't explicitly render the clip, effects will generally auto-render a low fidelity version which allows you to visually estimate the look. This action is often faster on proxies, so they help in that case.

But you can improve performance on 4k and above right now by editing on a 1080p timeline. This limits the render file resolution to 1080p so timeline rendering happens faster. If 4k export is needed, the timeline can be cut/pasted into a 4k project.

So for people who will be editing 8k, they will need a powerful machine, no matter what the proxy size. For people editing 4k H264, you still need a relatively fast machine once you progress beyond some basic edits -- even using the current 1/4 pixel res proxies. Providing 1/8th or 1/16th res proxies would help some, but they would not transcode any faster.

Small cloud-based proxies to facilitate geographically distributed collaborative editing is another issue, but it's much more complex than the proxies. The place where FCPX's proxies need serious work is in the implementation and management of externally-located proxies (ie outside the library) to facilitate a proxy-only workflow. That system does not work well and relink is broken for that case. It badly need improvement.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by joema.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 17:45 #92520

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
Wow, yeah it is complex no doubt about that, and I am sure Apple is being ultra conservative with certain aspects of the user interface, but the time has come to face the truth, with the addition of VR/360, the app is now way more complex than 10 days ago, is that a good thing???

I felt from the moment I launched 10.4, that the implementation of VR/360 in the way it is in 10.4 was a mistake, it should rather have been down the check box in Preferences, the very same method I have suggested for proxy, and this was my suggestion for a very good reason.

If there is app-crash, then if you have check boxes, this is in a way, a fail-safe mode, right now we don't have a fails safe mode in FCPX, it is on or on, that is you cannot determine if there is a problem, where the problem is.

Look proxy worked once, and yay for that, great, well done for finishing kindergarten, now onto trying grade 1..Proxy workflow needs attention, it is needed more and more as we go down the rabbit hole of VR/360 and or RED editing, or just plain cameras shooting in higher and higher formats, soon no laptop will be able to edit anything...

The very fact Apple is trying eGPU is proof they are worried about the future, look I am not stupid, from my experience, having multiple options is a good idea, including VR/360 and only 1 flavor of proxy was not a smart move.

The proxy file method helps on older slower lowe specced machines, yes you will loose time in the rendering or the transcoding into proxy, that cannot be helped, as Filipe Baez demonstrated, his method of proxy file generation, and sending this very low rez version to his editor via 3G [simulated of course] proved that on a really low end device it was possible to edit.

All I am asking is that the method used, he used nothing other than what is already coded to achieve this, he used compressor and automator, the systems used in compressor to create the very low rez already exist, he did not create anything new, so that code transcode system can be brought into final cut.

No doubt there are going to be issues, and yes I would love to have the color grading system, and not be reminded that I am not into VR/360, by having those tools hidden, yes hide the things I don't need in the Preferences, after all that would make a more stable app...

When you edit in FCPX, as I understand, you are basically writing to a database, so why when you have 2 apps resident on the same machine, why are they so incompatible? Why not like it was in Studio..Send to... roundtripping maybe hit and miss, not surprised it was hit and miss..

Compressor and FCPX reside on the same machine, so surely the code in Compressor should be accessed by X???

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 19 Dec 2017 19:42 #92522

  • AppleGuru
  • AppleGuru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: -4
  • Thank you received: 3

Xavier Novembre wrote: I bet the "internal" Proxy workflow will remain the same to keep things simple. (half size, ProRes Proxy) if the user is fine with it ... nice

the point is an advanced external Proxy source coming now to open optional possibilities for more sophisticaded workflow...

so where is the problem ?


good point maybe the problem is, people like to edit 8K footage but don't have means to manage it correctly.
The way I see is, if you say you are able to edit 4K, 6K 8K and so on then you should be able to have the performance which mean your hardware will be fine wit the optimised or proxy files that is generated with FCPX.

Come on why would I want to edit 8K in SD? :whistle:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 20 Dec 2017 04:14 #92536

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
You see as hard as it may be for some to believe, out in the colonies, away from the mothership, things tend to be A-expensive, B-expensive, C-expensive...

So folks in the colonies tend to do what folks in the colonies do...A-use old equipment, B-use old equipment, C-not buy new gear every 30 days...

Out in the colonies, things tend to cost a whole lot more, for example easy 2x as expensive [cheap] as on the mothership.. Apple gear very very pricy out in the colonies..So when we buy something, it has to last..

So why would anyone want to edit 8K in SD? For the very reason in paragraph 1, reasons A, B, C, we simply cannot afford or obtain the right gear, sometimes we are just not allowed to purchase, or if we do, customs and excise makes stuff so prohibitive, or it is just the plain theft from delivery that puts merchants off sending goods. I have been a victim of both, of having goods seized and held for ransom, until I pay huge custom fee, and having goods stolen en route...

So should this be an Apple problem?? Yes..in a way, yes.. There is no clear and present danger to having proxy be more than it is, and it should be for the benefit of everyone, not the privilege few that reside close to the mothership's home base..

I cannot understand the resistance to having a multi-codec proxy workflow, it makes sense to everyone, maybe some folks will never edit on the road, but on the road editing, or bear bones editing, editing on the cheap is the only way, kind of like building a wood frame cabin, sure, it would be great to buy a sawmill, all sorts of gear, but if all you have is a chainsaw and a rickety old pick up truck, you make a plan, I would love codecs that take the RED from 0% proxy to 95% proxy, so blocky it takes 4KB per frame of data..maybe 4KB is extreme, the point is to accommodate all users and not the elite 1%....Which it seems is the plan for FCPX..given the overbearing VR/360 update...

My laptop is now nigh on it's 5th birthday, maybe over on the mothership that is old and would have been replaced 3 times already, I cannot afford to replace her right now, I would love to have a younger sister for her, but at $4000 to replace [that is $4000 for me..not Apple] beyond me...I make do...Would be nice to have better tools, but thanks to Filipe Baez method, make do for now...Edit 10K in SD..sure...more of a challenge... :cheer:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 20 Dec 2017 10:03 #92544

  • Axel
  • Axel's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 559
  • Karma: 10
  • Thank you received: 72

joema wrote: One of the greatest accomplishments of FCPX is the hyper-fast, fluid skimmer..




Agreed. Without quoting your whole answer, I do understand the intricacies.


joema wrote: Putting this outside FCPX might give you a different mental perception ...




Sure. But in certain workflows it would be easier to have a "leave files in place anyway" option. Or, as an alternative, decide that I want to swap original clips with high quality ProRes copies permanently. If the latter exist, FCP doesn't render (also for export) referring to the originals. At least that's what Larry Jordan states. I can choose between Proxy or Original/Optimized, but the 'Intermediate' aspect appears to be deliberately obscured. What happens under the hood?

If I don't check create Optimized Media and let FCP copy AND wrap the clips, they become 'proprietary', no matter if they are stored in the library bundle or outside.

It may be primarily for my own peace of mind, you hit the nail on the head with this one.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 20 Dec 2017 11:25 #92548

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
It has been bothering me for a long time, and could someone please explain why it is Original/Optimized, they are not the same thing...

FCPX has matured into such a great NLE, and I really hope that in 2018, the dev team really concentrate on fixing the proxy workflow, it seems some want only 1 fixed codec, and others, me, want more...at least some way to reduce the overhead requirements.

As I see it, my ideal work situation is this, have the original media ingest, at the ingest window, select create proxy [codec of choice] then select proxy workflow under view, as per 10.4.

Then when I need to export the app can export from the original media [high rez version] and I can delete/archive whatever...

Really for me FCPX just needs a tweak with the proxy codecs, and I would be so happy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 20 Dec 2017 12:00 #92552

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 3589
  • Karma: 34
  • Thank you received: 496
What specific codec do you WANT to use for proxies?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by FCPX.guru.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 20 Dec 2017 12:32 #92555

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
According to Apple "Apple ProRes 422 Proxy
An even more highly compressed codec than Apple ProRes 422 LT, intended for use in offline workflows that require low data rates but full-resolution video. The target data rate is approximately 45 Mbps at 1920x1080 and 29.97 fps."

What I don't see happening, is Apple actually forcing a 6K file into 1920x1080 when you select "create proxy" and switch to proxy media, the material is still 6K in the timeline and for editing, this is of course no good, might not have bothered changing to proxy..I cannot see any difference...

Maybe that is the problem, the files play the same wether it is 6K or proxy, the file is still 6K proxy, which is not right...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 10 May 2018 20:20 #95468

  • AppleGuru
  • AppleGuru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: -4
  • Thank you received: 3
Thats not what Proxy means... you can transcode your media in what ever you want and then work with that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 11 May 2018 03:13 #95471

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 3589
  • Karma: 34
  • Thank you received: 496
That 6K proxy is lower resolution, must less image data, there is a difference.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 11 May 2018 04:38 #95472

  • MsJustine
  • MsJustine's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • I am in Durban, safe and warm...
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: -76
  • Thank you received: 46
I think my posts came before Felipe Baez demoed his technique, which is brilliant, proxy is really an alternative lower rez version. Felipe's method totally does the job, much better than the million dollar a year coders on the mothership can do.

To use compressor and automator to take a 6K file and crush it to something manageable is daft, it is time wasteful, an extra couple of steps that are just not good enough in 2018. Yes yes, closed captions and VR/360 is great, that could have waited..no rush for that..Alex4D and others had tools for VR/360...

There is no tool to take the pro res proxy of a 6K file and render it useful in 1 step, no tools exist, Apple should have fixed this oversight in 10.0.1, latest 10.0.2, before color correction was fixed, before 3D text.

It is not hard, and many many many editors would love to edit on the road, on cheap as chips Airs, which if Apple had supplied a simple tool in the style of Felipe's method, would have been perfect, you select the amount of compression...

Avid had this 30 years ago, I remember we had an avid of some kind, a big box of computer parts, and you could select the level of compression, we would broadcast at the VHS level, about 2/3rds on the compression select thingy...I think it had 1:1 and 1:2:, a couple more, full compression was basically 4 big blocks on a SD monitor.

The point is, you as the user self selected what you needed, not avid choosing for you, that was in the day.. Proxy workflow is perfect if you only went has high as full rez=1080p, then a 1/4 of that was ideal...Now we have 2 million flavors of codecs and wrappers, and only 1 flavor of pro res proxy native to FCPX, that simply has to be wrong...

How is no one else a bit confused as to why with the increase of native file capture size the pr res proxy has not changed??? We now have pro res RAW...and still pro rez proxy=1/4 of native file...we need from 1:1 to 1:16 at least.

Felipe showed and I have done it myself, taking the RED test library, 67GB and reduced it to under 30MB, and it works...took a couple of steps, compressor and automator...rename and replace.

As long as the file name and the audio passthrough is set correctly FCPX cares not what the proxy is, that is just the point, compressor+automator works...

I have tried emailing various tools designers, keyflowpro, frame io, with suggestions on maybe a new type of tool based on the Felipe Baez method...no dice...

I don't understand how hard it could be to create internally the idea of compression-->rename--->replace proxy with new proxy...if you use the Felipe method, the new compressed renamed replaced proxy file is really stunning, hard to tell it has been compressed to death...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

New Proxy Workflow in 10.4? 04 Dec 2018 09:10 #98055

  • AppleGuru
  • AppleGuru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: -4
  • Thank you received: 3

MsJustine wrote: KeyflowPro looks interesting, expensive for a single user, I do see how it could work in a large multi-user shop.

Why is it so hard for Apple to create a number of proxy file codecs that you the user can self select to encode to? Set this in Preferences and know that when you select Proxy in the view, it is the codec you select?

A suggestion maybe would have this on the import window, it would help so much with media management? I have no idea how this would affect say VR/360 I am sure it would be terrible to edit with, but for VR/360 you need monster systems anyway, so proxy would be useless...

Just when it comes to on the road editing, having a small quick to encode, proxy that is more than 25% of the original, 50% or 75% would be so handy, right on the ingest...Am I wrong???


Actually, Keyflow Pro for a single user with is 49 Bucks isn't even worth mention expensive if you consider how much a MAM actually cost.

It cheaper than many MotionVFX plugins which you can rebuild.

I would give the 30 days a trial and then buy it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2