Hi all -- wanted to see what the recommended export and encode workflow is for the new Media Composer 2019 before I uninstall 2018.  I took a look at the 2019 manual but it seems to still reference the old workflow and presets (it mentions a preset for sorenson squeeze).

I've had a quick look, and it seems to me that nothing changed with regards to export (did not test import), even the old QuickTime is still needed, despite the claim of a new engine.

Yeah, this is really disappointing.  I'm not sure it's fully understood how critical export workflows are to users.

The fact that the brand-new "Export Workflows" video jumps right into old, slow, 32-bit Custom QuickTime Export is absolutely mind-blowing.  This should not be necessary any more.

Because there's no direct (ideally background) native H.264 export, much like there has been in Premiere Pro using Media Encoder since at least CS6 and probably before, so nearly 10 years ago, it actually forces users to jump through hoops in iall stages of workflow, for the sole purpose of being able to do quick exports as videos get revised and new versions are output.

Essentially, QuickTime Reference outputs are still essential, especially for longer videos.  Which means that everything needs to be transcoded right from the beginning, even on newer systems that are perfectly capable of processing linked media in real time.  This means hours of lost time on virtually every project, ESPECIALLY on AVCHD projects where I find background transcoding to error out every single time (persists in 2019.6), which therefore means planning foreground overnight transcodes and other ways of tying up edit systems.

All of this because of export workflows.

usatraveler:

I'm not sure it's fully understood how critical export workflows are to users.

Absolutely.  I deliver TV commercials to local stations and cable outlets.   They all have specific delivery specifications, and most want H.264, Mpeg-2, or ProRes.   I know I can't export ProRes because Apple still won't let PC users play in their sandbox, but expanding export options that don't rely on Quicktime would be a welcome feature, especially with the demise of Squeeze.

usatraveler:

I'm not sure it's fully understood how critical export workflows are to users.

In my shop it's only export workflows, tape is dead, and so is XDCam disks, except for some broadcasters. It's 99.99% file based, from in to out. Many colleagues confirm. Sticking to QT 32 is not up to the times, QT ref is badly needed, and so is transcoding, while not seeing a bundled Sorenson Squeeze replacement in MyProducts hurts, since SS is long EOL, and Avid export to widespread file formats relies on QT, or it's not available at all, at least in Windows (ever heard of ProRes?). Don't know why but I think usatraveler was being sarcastic.

You might think I'm a conservative kind of person, but instead of taking care of the interface it would have been much better to invest in functionality improvements with regards to ingest/output, dealing with different frame sizes/rates, playback AMA performance, subframe audio, and so on. Time will tell if MC 2019.6 is the foundation for a new MC, or it is just MC 2018.x with a new dress. For the time being we'll have to learn the new GUI, wait, and see what's next, hopefully very soon. I hope MC 2019 is out like it is to avoid missing the June deadline, and that a really new release is coming shortly, the upgrades release pace we've seen recently is promising.

For me, the slow/inefficient part of work wasn't (isn't) the interface.  It was (is!) the workflow.

Avid is all about workflow, so the fact that the actual workflow hasn't changed much in this "overhaul" is concerning.

An overhaul, and we're still advised to use 32-bit QT H.264 Export with "lock up the system" encoding, OR if we want to have some semblance of background export, we have to do loads of transcoding/consolidating beforehand, even though the system is more than capable of handling playback of linked formats.

And I still have to practically write a book for "how to export H.264" with multiple if/and/or clauses based on linked media, codecs of media, and so forth.  And in the end, they just say "eh, never mind, I'll just use Premiere. You guys really should, too."

Terry Snyder:

I know I can't export ProRes because Apple still won't let PC users play in their sandbox

I've had ProRes creation working fine on my HP using AME.  Try it out, I haven't had any issues with the resulting files.

Andi

I use a workflow with Resolve that is pretty quick to produce MP4s (H.264). I'll document the flow in detail tomorrow, but it basically runs as rendering the timeline, exporting the timeline as an AAF using the AAF Edit protocol and linking to the sources (i.e. a reference file), creating a compatible project in Resolve, importing the timeline (the AAF file) to Resolve, and then delivering an H.264 from there.

BTW, exporting in Resolve is dependent on your graphic card(s). The more powerful the card, or the more cards you have, and it exports faster (but you need the Studio version if you have more than 2 cards).

On my system it takes about 30 minutes to create a 10 minute H.264 (most of this is the encoding in Resolve). A faster card, or adding a second card would likely increase the speed.

Avid is very good at creating an "almost" mp4.  

You can export an op1a .mxf using any of the Panasonic AVC long-GOP (H.264) codecs.  It then has to be re-wrapped with the audio converted to AAC.

I've been using Shutter Encoder to do a direct re-wrap or TMPGenc Video Mastering works to first create the AAC file, then using its multiplexing tool to remux the streams into an mp4 (deleting the PCM audio.)  In either case, not having to reconvert the video makes that part go very quickly.

Ideally of course, Avid would include a non-quicktime-dependent AAC audio encoder and the whole process could be smoother.

I’ve been using the QT reference for quick exports ( using mixdowns to get around linked media ) and the using Elgato turbo h624 ( software only ) to do the encode as it uses the quick sync on the intel chips, I get about 60 FPS in 1080 HD and 120 FPS in 720 HD

For mastering I’ve been using the AMA export option and the MXF Op1a codec, Then FFmpeg to do the encode to H264. But this is problematic because FFmpeg cannot easily read the two mono audio files in the MXF as a stereo pair, and I have to do a work around. 

Does anyone know how to make FFmpeg read the MXF as having a stereo mix?

Regarding stereo in FFmpeg , in the new FF works version of IFFmpeg, there is a audio merge filter:

set that to channel layout = stereo with FL (front left)= stream 1 (audio stream) and FR = stream 2

Andi, having to use a product from a competitor company is ridiculous, and expensive: two licenses instead of one just to accomplish a task that has to be naturally built in? And Dave, the same applies to using Resolve, I know I could do it, but it's somehow cumbersome. Other than that, if I was Avid I'd make sure my customers remain my customers, and I do not push them to install/use another competing editor to accomplish a task that should obviously be a part of MC. Even export to an intermediate format, as fast as this can be, and going to a third party editor/encoder is ridiculous, time and GBs consuming, especially if You have to transcode or videomixdown first. In the worst case scenario, with MC not able to efficiently export to file, a  companion app should very well be bundled, and I mean bundled, not sold separately (at a steep price) like Sorenson Squeeze was. On top of that Squeeze is dead, listing it in the MyProducts page is a bad joke. I trust Avid, and expect to see this addressed very soon, along with the dropping of QT 32, or else the ACA outcome is questionanable, unless the marketing department doesn't take the ACA suggestions into consideration, which indeed makes the ACA outcome very questionable. All in all, if MC 2019.6 is a rush out release to meet the june deadline and a new, really improved version is coming out very very soon, fair enough; if not, it's been a waste of time and resources to just change the MC skin.

luca.mg:

Andi, having to use a product from a competitor company is ridiculous, and expensive: two licenses instead of one just to accomplish a task that has to be naturally built in?

Luca, my comment is purely to point out that ProRes creation is possible on Windows nowadays. Nothing to do with Avid's export process.  I agree, they need to make it better.

Andi

ripvanmarlowe:

I've had ProRes creation working fine on my HP using AME. 

I don't have Adobe Media Encoder.   The only Adobe product we use is an older version of Photoshop for prepping graphics.   AFAIK, I can't buy AME separately.   Or can I?

luca.mg:

it's only export workflows, tape is dead, and so is XDCam disks

Same here.   It's been all file based delivery for years now.   I agree that no matter how great an editing program is at editing, if you can't easily export in industry-wide formats, it's a major drawback.   Having to purchase and rely on additional programs and/or jump through hoops just to do a simple export is going to kill MC's current user base and discourage those new users they so sorely want to attract.