Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Beginners question: Final Cut Pro rendering?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 2:48:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If I have three video clips labeled: A, B and C and place them, in
that order, in a sequence and render everything. What exactly happens
with them if I later open the sequence in the timeline and regroup
them in another fashion, like: C - A - B, do they require rendering
once more or are they already "rendered" and the 'only' thing that
gets rendered, is the new sequence?

Any help would be most appreciated, thanks
mike
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 2:19:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:48:42 -0500, mike anderson
<please.keep.it.in.newsgroup@thank.you.com> wrote:

>If I have three video clips labeled: A, B and C and place them, in
>that order, in a sequence and render everything. What exactly happens
>with them if I later open the sequence in the timeline and regroup
>them in another fashion, like: C - A - B, do they require rendering
>once more or are they already "rendered" and the 'only' thing that
>gets rendered, is the new sequence?

Uhm, that is something you could easily try for yourself by shuffling
the clips around :)  If you see a red line in the timeline window
_after_ you did something to the clips, that means rendering is
necessary.
In your case, FCP should remember that the clips already have been
rendered. It will only require a re-render if you have titles on top
of those clips.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 4:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thank you for helping.


>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:48:42 -0500, mike anderson
>
>Uhm, that is something you could easily try for yourself by shuffling
>the clips around :) 

Hehehe :)  Well, I do not have it yet, just trying to figure out how
rendering works.

As I understand it, if i start with a empty sequence and drag a
(video) clip in to it and render everything, this will create two
render files, one for the sequence and one for the clip, am I correct
so far?

If my earlier assumption is accurate ... does it mean that the clip do
not need re-rendering until I do something to it - like adding a
filter or titles or something - that I can move it around in the
sequence without that it needs to be re-rendered? The sequence will of
course require re-rendering for each and every changes.

>If you see a red line in the timeline window
>_after_ you did something to the clips, that means rendering is
>necessary.
>In your case, FCP should remember that the clips already have been
>rendered. It will only require a re-render if you have titles on top
>of those clips.

Thanks again,
mike
Related resources
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 4:57:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

mike anderson wrote:

> If I have three video clips labeled: A, B and C and place them, in
> that order, in a sequence and render everything. What exactly happens
> with them if I later open the sequence in the timeline and regroup
> them in another fashion, like: C - A - B, do they require rendering
> once more or are they already "rendered" and the 'only' thing that
> gets rendered, is the new sequence?
>
> Any help would be most appreciated, thanks
> mike

Greetings Mike,

I believe they stay rendered, unless you do something like add in a
transition between them, in which case the transition will also need to
be rendered then. The minute you overlay something on top of them they
will have to be re-rendered again too.

If you set your sequence to the same settings as your clips, you don't
have to render AT ALL! :) 

-Richard
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:08:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:45:20 -0500, mike anderson
<please.keep.it.in.newsgroup@thank.you.com> wrote:

>As I understand it, if i start with a empty sequence and drag a
>(video) clip in to it and render everything, this will create two
>render files, one for the sequence and one for the clip, am I correct
>so far?

No. FCP will render the clip and in the timeline refer to that
rendered clip, instead of the original clip. If you move the clip
around, that link will remain intact.

>If my earlier assumption is accurate ... does it mean that the clip do
>not need re-rendering until I do something to it - like adding a
>filter or titles or something - that I can move it around in the
>sequence without that it needs to be re-rendered?

That is correct.

> The sequence will of
>course require re-rendering for each and every changes.

That is correct. And, keep in mind that the rendering process is
pretty dumb. While you are compiling your edit, it probably doesn't
matter to do render after render if you are stacking multiple layers.
The Quicktime-codecs are not the greatest on earth, so you will run
into generational loss after many renders. So, it is a good idea if
you are going to output (master) your programme, to clear the render
files, and re-render everything.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:08:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Martin Heffels wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:45:20 -0500, mike anderson
> <please.keep.it.in.newsgroup@thank.you.com> wrote:
>
>
>>As I understand it, if i start with a empty sequence and drag a
>>(video) clip in to it and render everything, this will create two
>>render files, one for the sequence and one for the clip, am I correct
>>so far?
>
>
> No. FCP will render the clip and in the timeline refer to that
> rendered clip, instead of the original clip. If you move the clip
> around, that link will remain intact.
>
>
>>If my earlier assumption is accurate ... does it mean that the clip do
>>not need re-rendering until I do something to it - like adding a
>>filter or titles or something - that I can move it around in the
>>sequence without that it needs to be re-rendered?
>
>
> That is correct.
>
>
>>The sequence will of
>>course require re-rendering for each and every changes.
>
>
> That is correct. And, keep in mind that the rendering process is
> pretty dumb. While you are compiling your edit, it probably doesn't
> matter to do render after render if you are stacking multiple layers.
> The Quicktime-codecs are not the greatest on earth, so you will run
> into generational loss after many renders. So, it is a good idea if
> you are going to output (master) your programme, to clear the render
> files, and re-render everything.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-

Greetings Martin,

Actually it's not the Quicktime encoder.. Well it is, and it's not.
It's the DV codec architecture. The reason why DV achieves such awesome
compression, is because key luma elements are striped out. parts that we
can't see with the naked eye.

DV is mostly 4:1:1, and yes will suffer from multigenerational losses.

If you used another higher end CODEC like a 4:4:4 codec, you would have
no generation loss.. or course the down side is about 20+ Megs per
second of render.. So, it's kind of a tradeoff. :) 

Also.. I hope no one is mixing up "render" the time line, with
"exporting" the time line.. They are 2 totally different things.

-Richard
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:10:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:57:33 GMT, Richard Ragon <bsema04@hananho.com>
wrote:

>I believe they stay rendered, unless you do something like add in a
>transition between them, in which case the transition will also need to
>be rendered then. The minute you overlay something on top of them they
>will have to be re-rendered again too.

Just to clarify this: only the section where the actual change will
take place, will be rendered, and not the rest of the clip. So, if you
make a 2 second dissolve between two clips, the timeline will refer to
the clip, except for the last second, then refer to the rendered
dissolve for the next two seconds, and then refer to the next clip,
1 second into the clip.

>If you set your sequence to the same settings as your clips, you don't
>have to render AT ALL! :) 

That depends :) 

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:10:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Martin Heffels wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:57:33 GMT, Richard Ragon <bsema04@hananho.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I believe they stay rendered, unless you do something like add in a
>>transition between them, in which case the transition will also need to
>>be rendered then. The minute you overlay something on top of them they
>>will have to be re-rendered again too.
>
>
> Just to clarify this: only the section where the actual change will
> take place, will be rendered, and not the rest of the clip. So, if you
> make a 2 second dissolve between two clips, the timeline will refer to
> the clip, except for the last second, then refer to the rendered
> dissolve for the next two seconds, and then refer to the next clip,
> 1 second into the clip.

You kind of lost me here, but I think yes in theory. Of course
everything has an exception though.. But, in general, you can render a
clip in the timeline that clip will stay rendered and even though moving
it around in the timeline, unless you overlap it with something like a
dissolve, then it has to re-render than little spot again.


>>If you set your sequence to the same settings as your clips, you don't
>>have to render AT ALL! :) 
>
>
> That depends :) 
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-

No depends here.. setting your settings in your timeline to the same
setting that's in your clip will cause the timeline to NOT have to
render when placing clips into the timeline.

This is one of the very first things that you should do when your
creating a sequence and setting up your project.

This is pretty straight forward for all editing systems.

-Richard
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 9:56:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:43:24 GMT, Richard Ragon <bsema04@hananho.com>
wrote:

>DV is mostly 4:1:1, and yes will suffer from multigenerational losses.
>
>If you used another higher end CODEC like a 4:4:4 codec, you would have
>no generation loss.. or course the down side is about 20+ Megs per
>second of render.. So, it's kind of a tradeoff. :) 

Yep. But I tried to keep it simple, and most people use the dv-codec
preset only to do their work on FCP, and simply do not realise this
pitfall.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 9:59:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:29:23 GMT, Richard Ragon <bsema04@hananho.com>
wrote:

>You kind of lost me here, but I think yes in theory. Of course
>everything has an exception though.. But, in general, you can render a
>clip in the timeline that clip will stay rendered and even though moving
>it around in the timeline, unless you overlap it with something like a
>dissolve, then it has to re-render than little spot again.

See, you didn't get lost :) 

>>>If you set your sequence to the same settings as your clips, you don't
>>>have to render AT ALL! :) 
>>
>>
>> That depends :) 
>
>No depends here.. setting your settings in your timeline to the same
>setting that's in your clip will cause the timeline to NOT have to
>render when placing clips into the timeline.

Yes, unless you want to preview the material _with_ effects on
firewire out, then you _have_ to render.

>This is one of the very first things that you should do when your
>creating a sequence and setting up your project.
>
>This is pretty straight forward for all editing systems.

I agree. It's just a thing causing many headaches if settings are
wrong.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
!