converting AVCHD

Hi, I am new to FCP. I am currently converting AVCHD.mts 1060p/60 files from my Panasonic HDC-TM900 on ClipWrap2 on my MacBookPro. I'm using ClipWrap2 because I saw it recommended on this forum. I also saw recommendations for Volataic -- from what I understand, Voltaic is prohibitively slow. But I would appreciate advice on which of the two converters I should use. The ClipWrap2 is easy to use, so that is a plus. But if ClipWrap2 is damaging my files, then I suppose it is worth the extra download time to use Voltaic. Does anyone have an answer for this?

Another question: When I drag the files into ClipWrap2, should I drag the whole AVCHD folder with its subfolders directly into the conversion window (this works), or should I drag the individual .mts files into the window. Does it make any difference?

Thank you for any advice you might have. I have been struggling trying to figure this out for a few days now. I am a still photographer, so I have some grasp of how files work, but this is a whole new ballgame. I'm grateful this forum is here. I live in Canada by the way, so I can't come to the Wednesday night meetings, which sound amazing.

> But I would appreciate advice on which of the two converters I should use.

The first choice should be FCP's own Log and Transfer, because it embeds metadata such as time-of-day timecode, reel names, and clip-name information that allows clips to be re-transferred with identical attributes.

As for ClipWrap vs. Voltaic, I've only used the latter, and it's slooooow. From what I've read, ClipWrap is better.


www.derekmok.com

derekmok Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > But I would appreciate advice on which of the
> two converters I should use.
>
> The first choice should be FCP's own Log and
> Transfer, because it embeds metadata such as
> time-of-day timecode, reel names, and clip-name
> information that allows clips to be re-transferred
> with identical attributes.
>
> As for ClipWrap vs. Voltaic, I've only used the
> latter, and it's slooooow. From what I've read,
> ClipWrap is better.


Hi Derek, and thanks for this (I tried to hit "reply" but the window only responded when I hit "quote", not sure why).
Ok, here's the thing: I did try, a bunch of times, to Log and Transfer the files directly from my SD card. This works no problem with my Canon 5D MarkII files. However, while FCP showed the Panasonic files in the Log and Transfer window, the files all said they were 00.00 seconds long. So, it seemed to be able to see the files, but not register any of the content. I found this totally baffling. That's when I moved to ClipWrap.

Next question: Having managed to export a Sequence into a Quicktime movie (for a friend), she wondered why a 30 minute QT video was 50GB big. I know the files are big, but can I make them smaller (compress them), and where can I find out what settings to compress as?

Sorry to be so clued out! (and I haven't even started editing yet).

Thanks,
Rita

> However, while FCP showed the Panasonic files in the Log and Transfer window, the files all said they were 00.00
> seconds long.

I've only used Sony and Canon AVCHD files, but Panasonic may require an extra plugin. Read this older thread; it may be relevant:

[www.lafcpug.org]

> Having managed to export a Sequence into a Quicktime movie (for a friend), she wondered why a 30 minute QT video
> was 50GB big.

Your friend might not be very experienced, huh? ProRes HQ clips at 1920x1080, 29.97fps, works out to over 50GB at 30 minutes. That's normal, and in fact pretty light for HD video, because even ProRes HQ is pretty heavily compressed. Uncompressed 10-bit HD video at 23.98fps would be about 1GB every eight seconds. If you had been working in Uncompressed 10-bit HD, your 30-minute file would've been over 220GB.

> but can I make them smaller (compress them)

What is the purpose of your transporting the files to your friend? If you're just trying to send her screeners (ie. check editing decisions, get an idea of the product) then sure. But you don't capture into small files. You capture at online quality, then you compress smaller versions to send.

I think you should talk to a knowledgeable editor. It looks to me like you're forging ahead without completely understanding the philosophy behind post-production processes.


www.derekmok.com