WORKFLOW: How do you take h.264 garbage and make it useable for editing (per requests)

Dronefriend · Jul 15, 2016

Two pages of text and 30 minute video to say this: Convert to ProRes.

GadgetGuy · Jul 15, 2016

Can Premier Pro CC convert H.264 to ProRes on a PC without buying a 3rd party program to do so? What's the recommended PC workflow, using Premier Pro CC and the CC Suite?

sergekouper · Aug 5, 2016

airwindow said:
"If you 1) have H.264 and take that H.264 and recompress it again so h.264 squared, your video WILL LOOK WORSE then if you did"

To what proportion of degradation of quality are we talking? Visible for the human eye or instruments to measure?
Can you please show part of the recording where was degraded the video quality after 3 transcodes?

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

The original video is H.264 (60mb/s), then natively edited and the exported again in H.264 (40mb/s) and Uploads to YouTube where the transcoded for the third time in H.264 (20mb/s).

If there is a loss of quality, it is not visible to the human eye. I would not bother with figures. I watch the video with the eyes and not with a calculator.

"2) took your h.264 and convert it to a larger color space such as ProRes, and then you compress THAT, it will be a better compression ........simply because you have a larger color space."

I would not agree.
If something is recorded 4:2:0 and to transcode in 4:4:4, still will be 4:2:0 with the difference that in the 4:4:4 format. It's easier to edit because less compression, but remains 4:2:0 for the simple reason that has been recorded so.

If you have something recorded 4:2:0, remains 4:2:0 "to the end of the world".

If you have a gallon of water, you can keep it in a bucket-size of one gallon or in the water tower. It is always a gallon of water. But it is easier to drink from the water tower because it has a larger opening, compared with the opening in the bucket.

That reminds me the guys who were upscaling 3/4" U'matic to Beta to edit and then went back to U'matic as "master". this little trip to an upscaled format didn't give a better result at the end of course. Kind of similarities on this...

sergekouper · Aug 5, 2016

Jussaguy and Airwindow: Nice battle! I'm still in the Airwindow camp. For me you can even transcode your.h264 to raw video on a supercomputer, and then re-transcode to h.264, you will not do better than if you were doing h264 to h264 direct. About Premiere: Premiere edit Native and doesn't use any kind of internal proxy to edit, it uses straight original files. When done, it delivers back an h264 (if you choose it) as if it was a simple copy. (if it is of any interest I have the same reasoning with analog: Take a cassette tape signal, record it to a 1" @38cm/sec and re-record it to a cassette tape, you will have not gain anything at all whatsoever over a direct copy cassette to cassette.
Now Jussaguy what I would love to see, is a proper spec sheet proving your point that I am ready to believe and get on board as a fact, if you can convince me with more than your own affirmations. For me, the benefit of this discussion is that so far I have come to consider things more closely, such as recording directly in prores 10bit 4.2.2, (out of my GH4 for ex.) which is probably the most sensible thing to do in the first place, But this mezzanine codec thing is still not going through. And after checking with Adobe experts, the only gain is still easying the process on weaker computers, which is ok but does not have the sort of impact you're describing about the treatment of the data.

Vegas_Sirk · Aug 16, 2016

Here is a question for this thread. I found an older (2015) thread on DJI's forums about how DJI offers tools for converting the d-Log H.264 files. Here is the link to software I'm talking about:

Inspire 1 - Specs, FAQ, manual, video tutorials and DJI GO | DJI

And here is the origonal thread in question: D-log and LOG mode Transcoding Tool (can i link to DJI's forum on here?)

As you can see DJI provides a DJI Transcoding tool. When you download it and install it, it says the it Transcodes to ApplProRes YUV 4:2: 10-bit and give you a couple of options. 1) Profile = 0-apco(Proxy), 1-apco (LT), 2-apco(SD), 3-apco(HQ) and the other is Gamma = Inspire 1, Gamma 2.2, Gamma 1.8 and Linear

My guess based on this would be to select 2-apco(SD) (guessing this is standard ProRes 422). and then picking the gamma based on how you want your footage - Inspire 1 would correct the d-log file to standard looking (normal gamma correction) and the Linear would keep the image flat (no color correction). No idea on the Gamma 2.2 or Gamma 1.8. The weird thing is that thread shows it being used on still images not videos and you can old do one file at a time (no batching)

So based on the tool it seems like DJI is expecting you to transcode. Here is my question .... would it only be worth using this tool for the Gamma correction? If I want to color grade my D-Log files is it better to have this tool revert it back to Inspire 1 profile and then use LUTs for the visual effects on top of this or would I just be better using a batch transcoding tool and do all the correction in Final Cut?

Also any videos about workflow for color grading? as I'm having a hell of time making my d-log files look great. I can make them look decent, but not getting that "awesome" effect I see a lot of other people getting.

GadgetGuy · Aug 16, 2016

Vegas_Sirk said:
Here is a question for this thread. I found an older (2015) thread on DJI's forums about how DJI offers tools for converting the d-Log H.264 files. Here is the link to software I'm talking about:

Inspire 1 - Specs, FAQ, manual, video tutorials and DJI GO | DJI

And here is the origonal thread in question: D-log and LOG mode Transcoding Tool (can i link to DJI's forum on here?)

As you can see DJI provides a DJI Transcoding tool. When you download it and install it, it says the it Transcodes to ApplProRes YUV 4:2: 10-bit and give you a couple of options. 1) Profile = 0-apco(Proxy), 1-apco (LT), 2-apco(SD), 3-apco(HQ) and the other is Gamma = Inspire 1, Gamma 2.2, Gamma 1.8 and Linear

My guess based on this would be to select 2-apco(SD) (guessing this is standard ProRes 422). and then picking the gamma based on how you want your footage - Inspire 1 would correct the d-log file to standard looking (normal gamma correction) and the Linear would keep the image flat (no color correction). No idea on the Gamma 2.2 or Gamma 1.8. The weird thing is that thread shows it being used on still images not videos and you can old do one file at a time (no batching)

So based on the tool it seems like DJI is expecting you to transcode. Here is my question .... would it only be worth using this tool for the Gamma correction? If I want to color grade my D-Log files is it better to have this tool revert it back to Inspire 1 profile and then use LUTs for the visual effects on top of this or would I just be better using a batch transcoding tool and do all the correction in Final Cut?

Also any videos about workflow for color grading? as I'm having a hell of time making my d-log files look great. I can make them look decent, but not getting that "awesome" effect I see a lot of other people getting.

Easiest way to get awesome looking video is to shoot with "None" selected instead of "D-log" in the first place!

I spent a lot of time doing what you are doing, just to come full circle, and accept the decent "None" look! It's pretty darn good, and saves a lot of frustration! I hate the flat D-Log look, if I don't have the time to edit the video. After you have 100 hours of videos, you'll appreciate the time savings, so you can spend more time flying, and still immediately enjoy your last flight's video!

Bbc14f · Aug 16, 2016

GadgetGuy said:
Easiest way to get awesome looking video is to shoot with "None" selected instead of "D-log" in the first place! I spent a lot of time doing what you are doing, just to come full circle, and accept the decent "None" look! It's pretty darn good, and saves a lot of frustration! I hate the flat D-Log look, if I don't have the time to edit the video. After you have 100 hours of videos, you'll appreciate the time savings, so you can spend more time flying, and still immediately enjoy your last flight's video!

Agreed.

Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

Vegas_Sirk · Aug 16, 2016

I know thats the easy way out lol ... but I really want to learn the proper way to color grade. Just like I enjoy adding film effects to my still photos

Thomas. · Aug 17, 2016

GadgetGuy said:
Easiest way to get awesome looking video is to shoot with "None" selected instead of "D-log" in the first place! I spent a lot of time doing what you are doing, just to come full circle, and accept the decent "None" look! It's pretty darn good, and saves a lot of frustration! I hate the flat D-Log look, if I don't have the time to edit the video. After you have 100 hours of videos, you'll appreciate the time savings, so you can spend more time flying, and still immediately enjoy your last flight's video!

I definitely agree very much, too!

Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app (living near Cologne, Germany)

MisterDavo · Aug 17, 2016

OK, I spent a solid chunk of an evening reading this whole thread and watching both movies at the beginning. I get it. But...
I took a 290mb d-log clip from my 2.7K phantom 3 Advanced and re-encoded it as pro-res 422 via Adobe Media Encoder. It blew up 5x to 1.45gb. That sucks. I can live with it if the benefits are obvious, but yeah, that kind of sucks.

So I brought both clips into Premiere Pro 2015.2. I can tell that scrubbing the clips is noticeably smoother on the pro-res version. OK, fair enough and I totally understand why. But I'd argue that conveneicne isn't enough to re-encode it. When I simply 'play' either clip in Premier, I can't really see the original h.264 is any jumpier - it's just fine. I have a top-end macbook and it seems to cope just fine.

So it has to be color/output that gives me some ROI here. I tried 2 tests.
- I took the clips and applied the exact same color adjustments to them and exported a h.264 file out for viewing. I'm not a total video nerd, but I am a professional photographer, so I have a somewhat discriminating eye, and I simply can't tell the difference.
- I color corrected each clip separately, seeing how far I could push each clip before I had to back off. I found that both appeared to react the same and the pro-res didn't seem to have any different lattitude for making changes.

What am I missing? or am I just not discriminating enough? I feel like a boob - I have to be missing something here.

airwindow · Aug 18, 2016

Words, numbers, words, nimbers, words....lets see some real action, shall we?

This is only a sample of manipulating h.264 clips and exporting to Youtube preset of 40mb/s. Without transcoding to ProRes or something else...just simple drop on timeline and add some magic...Original was 60mb/s.... For human eye (and we are filming for eyes, not for instruments) this is far enough...or is it not? I belive that now we all see useless of loosing time and space on hard drives for making that "h.264 garbage" better.

Enjoy:

airwindow · Aug 18, 2016

sergekouper said:
Jussaguy and Airwindow: Nice battle! I'm still in the Airwindow camp. And after checking with Adobe experts, the only gain is still easying the process on weaker computers, which is ok but does not have the sort of impact you're describing about the treatment of the data.

Thank you. At the end, we are going the right path now...slowly, but...we are...

ussvertigo · Aug 18, 2016

Air window, really liked the video, how'd you do that?

airwindow · Aug 18, 2016

ussvertigo said:
Air window, really liked the video, how'd you do that?

First - you need to transcode to ProRes..I'm joking

))

First need to track shot in After Effects to have "starting point" for "adding things" in footage that will be "moving" as your shot moves. After that...only your imagination is that matters..planets, soccer field...and some blending modes, little Photoshop to prepare jpegs....
Voila!

kingkong90210 · Aug 20, 2016

Subscribing for later viewing, when i habe a few daya to read and watch everything.

tempforananswer · Aug 21, 2016

airwindow said:
First - you need to transcode to ProRes..I'm joking ))

First need to track shot in After Effects to have "starting point" for "adding things" in footage that will be "moving" as your shot moves. After that...only your imagination is that matters..planets, soccer field...and some blending modes, little Photoshop to prepare jpegs....
Voila!

If you are impressed with his VFX ", and it's half decent, and think for some reason that gives him the knowledge of what's right and wrong, I will just say I wouldn't do that.

I am not allowed for a something I said or did but on Sep 2nd, I will explain why what so much of what has been said as of late in this thread incorrect, I just wanted that known.

But it's true at the end of the day, we just want to make the best looking image, the way we invisioned it. If you ecomplish that, there is no wrong or right way to get there. (Unless there is a boss that is).

airwindow · Aug 21, 2016

For 45 minutes editing and composing for posting free, non-charged video on forum...I think that "half decent mark" from YOU is fair. Imagine what can you do if you take day or two

Cheers

Poslano sa mog LG-D802 koristeći Tapatalk

aaronrivera · Aug 21, 2016

Rilly nice vfx.. Wanna do that kind of work!.. Can u make a tutorial on after effects and how u added ur "dream". Thanks!

airwindow · Aug 21, 2016

I will try in a week or two, when I have few days off. Now I'm on project untill end of november and my editing suite is 410km away.

Poslano sa mog LG-D802 koristeći Tapatalk