MTS files in FCP 7-Problem

Hi all:
I was recently sent some MTS files through Dropbox which I converted to .mov files. The conversions looks good. I dropped them into a FCP 7 timeline to edit them into selects but when I selected Apple ProRes 422 HQ, the resulting clips look horrible. For example, in the timeline one clip shows a seagull flying by and when I freeze that frame the seagull is one image. After marking an in and out of the section I wanted and using Apple ProRes 422 HQ, the resulting clip in freeze frame shows the seagull in two images, similar to a drop shadow. I tried H.264, same effect. And the clip itself looks wierd, like an obvious conversion. Any suggestions?

MacBookPro
FCP 7.1
OS X 10.6.8

Thanks,
Stan

what is the original codec, resolution, frame rate ? Interlaced or not ?

what do you mean by " converted to .mov " ? did you just rewrap them with something like ClipWrap ?

Just a note.
In my opinion you should never use H264 to edit with in any NLE.

If you used clipwrap on MTS files it is not converting it is simply fooling your NLE. Use to work well back in FCP6&7 but i have heard bad s couple of stories on its not the same in fcpX.

Take all of the clips and put them in something like Handbrake or Adobe Media Encoder and convert them to prores 422 (not prores 422 hq). Then re-import them and have at it.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

@Stan Are the two images "similar to a drop shadow" due to interlace? When you set the FCP7 canvas to 100% do you see interlacing? You can use my old method for seeing fields in FCP7 to see what's going on.
Saying they're MTS files says they're AVCHD, so H264, but this still leaves many options. Are they 1920x1080 or 1280x720. Are they 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p, 60p or are they interlaced? Converting them to .mov files may or may not change this, depending on how you do the conversion. I would have converted them to ProRes .mov files straight up, using either or ClipWrap or VoltaicHD, because these programs are less crazy, and less restrictive, than FCP7 log and capture. Take care what their resolution -- spatial and temporal -- are, because FCP7 can mess up when these don't all agree.

Quote
J.Corbett
In my opinion you should never use H264 to edit with in any NLE.

Oh, why this opinion? Even FCP7 almost succeeds in editing H264. Doesn't FCPX succeed? Doesn't Premiere?

Quote
J.Corbett
If you used clipwrap on MTS files it is not converting it is simply fooling your NLE.

ClipWrap has two modes. In rewrap mode it converts the .mts file, which is already H.264, to a .mov file in H.264. In conversion mode it converts the .mts file to a .mov file in a different codec. What's fooling what?

Quote
J.Corbett
... convert them to prores 422 (not prores 422 hq).

And why not ProRes HQ? I often convert .mts to ProRes HQ. For example, the Canon C100 camera has a pretty good sensor and can mount very good lenses, but it outputs 24 Mb/s AVCHD (H.264). Considering the efficiency of interframe compression, I think this 24 Mb/s H.264 warrants 184 Mb/s ProRes HQ. If one considers just the Y' channel, which carries almost all the sharpness information, it is a matter of 16 Mb/s warranting 92 Mb/s. Why not? Why go cheap on image quality in the editing stage?

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Quote
dcouzin
Oh, why this opinion? Even FCP7 almost succeeds in editing H264. Doesn't FCPX succeed? Doesn't Premiere?

Well, If you don't mind cursing at your computer and wishing you had converted to something else, then yes Premier can handle h264. (speaking for cs4-cs6)
I have only had h264 in FCPX 3times and yes it can edit h264 better than FCP7 or premier but still its a pain in the booty once you start adding filters and round tripping. This was my experience.
Premier does not like h264. They can say that mts and h264 are the same but try it. Leaving it .mts gets smoother editing than .mov (h264). While you are scrubbing a clip in the source monitor you will see more anomalies but its an illusion. As soon as its rendered in the TL its pretty.

Quote
dcousin
ClipWrap has two modes. In rewrap mode it converts the .mts file, which is already H.264, to a .mov file in H.264. In conversion mode it converts the .mts file to a .mov file in a different codec. What's fooling what?

I actually forgot about conversion mode but most people i see do not use it that way. They do a wrap. I have had more problems with a wrap on export than a file i converted to a true prores file. I will say that when i was using FCP as my main NLE it did just fine until export and then there was a chance of anomalies in the resulting file. peak noise and chroma clipping. I have also seen the resulting file strobe in hi action spots. I personally just dont use it anymore. So, that advice is a bit skewed.

Quote
dcousin
And why not ProRes HQ? I often convert .mts to ProRes HQ. For example, the Canon C100 camera has a pretty good sensor and can mount very good lenses, but it outputs 24 Mb/s AVCHD (H.264). Considering the efficiency of interframe compression, I think this 24 Mb/s H.264 warrants 184 Mb/s ProRes HQ. If one considers just the Y' channel, which carries almost all the sharpness information, it is a matter of 16 Mb/s warranting 92 Mb/s. Why not? Why go cheap on image quality in the editing stage?

Plenty of people do the same thing. The only thing i have found that it adds is more editable color space for grading. To me its not and incredible amount of extra space and from the scopes i don't see how it really helps a 4:2:0 24mbps file become better. I like the quality of footage at 24mbps and when i am shooting something where i know i am gonna need 3-6hrs of footage i shoot 24mbps on my HMC150 or GH3.
However, 4:2:0 at 50mbps and up, does enough to see in scopes. Saturation can be pushed and you can pull pixels out of blown out areas at 72mbps and up. If i am gonna increase file size i need more reason than a little more

Some of the cleanest files i have ever seen from 4:2:0 24+mbps were .mov with the NDxHD codec. It edits like butter in Premier. I have not tried NDxHD in FCPX yet but i hear similar things.

I am only saying what i know as my experience and there are more than 2 right answers to the OPs problem. I just seemed to me that the fastest way to rid himself of the problem was to convert to something else.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

J.Corbett:
ProRes 422 HQ requires 50% more space than ProRes 422. "An incredible amount"? Maybe. So this is an important decision for the editor.
My decision was based on sharpness and related image quality. You base your decision on your scopes. But scopes don't reveal anything about sharpness.
In 2010, Strypes and I did experiments comparing the different ProRes codecs through multiple generations. 422 HQ was much cleaner than 422 standard -- way fewer compression artifacts. But will the compression artifacts already in 24 Mb/s H.264 completely swamp the compression artifacts from ProRes 422 standard? We don't know. We certainly don't find out using scopes.

Your report that what ProRes 422 HQ "adds is more editable color space for grading" vs. ProRes 422 standard is surprising. Let's see if it's true.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

You can check the original codec, frame rate and etc.
On the other hand, Apple ProRes 422 HQ requires 50% more space than Apple ProRes 422.

@dcouzin

Pull some 422 HQ into your NLE and ad some effects and then compare that to the same effects on a PR422 file.
You can see it a bit that way.

I truly believe you on the sharpness. I just never worried about it as long as the CamOP gave me clean stuff.
On the GH4 they say that the 4k @4:2:0 can be converted to 1080p and become 4:2:2 but the only difference i have noticed is greater sharpness and a bit better blacks. In scopes the shrunken 4k and the regular 1080p looks about the same in color space. Scope may not be the best way to judge this but i use them pretty regular so i have seen a few things that are characteristics of certain conversion techniques and camera color engine nuances.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"