Beginners question: Final Cut Pro rendering?

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
9 answers Last reply
More about beginners question final rendering
  1. 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?
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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?
  5. 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
  6. 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?
  7. 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
  8. 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?
  9. 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?
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Rendering Desktops Video Graphics