This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] XDCam workflow with MC 3.x vs 5.x ish?

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Re: [Avid-L2] XDCam workflow with MC 3.x vs 5.x ish?

eeer, the PDW U1 is relative cheap, and will allow avid to import 2 times
FASTER than RT.
For Uprez, Avid can batch import only used parts, same as with tape.
Let alone the madness with searching on the HD1500 if you treat it like
tape....

But even when you capture tape style, you could still use LTO for the Avid
MediaFiles, and transcode to an offline codec to save disk space...
(And, as stated, you can hook up a couple of them and have one person feed
multiple disks to the same CPU, but that will require a customized setup)

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN
The Netherlands
+31 24 3553311
www.videotoolshed.com
For large files:
http://dropbox.yousendit.com/BoukeVahl998172

----- Original Message -----
From: "namyrb" <namyrb@gmail.com>
To: <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] XDCam workflow with MC 3.x vs 5.x ish?

> We use the PDW-1500 xdcam decks for SD and PDW-HD1500 for HD hooked up
> Mojos which allows us to completely emulate a tape workflow. The only
> thing (besides the price of the decks :/) is that you wouldn't be able to
> offload everything to LTOs like Bouke would because you'll need each tape
> for uprez/recapture. The upside is that everything happens in realtime
> and
> you save a ton of space for uprezzes since it only captures exactly what's
> in your sequences (like tape).
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:19 AM, bouke <bouke@editb.nl> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> well, not sure about 3.x, but the file based workflow is pretty solid,
>> and
>> can be automated even without an Avid install.
>> You're wrong about not re-using the stock price wise.
>> you can offload using multiple drives on once CPU, and the transfer to
>> LTO
>> is lightning fast. LTO is way cheaper than the disk (like 50 bucks for
>> 1.5
>> terrabyte)
>> It highly depends on the amount of footage to decide what is the best way
>> to
>> handle it, but generally the proxy workflow using the build in proxies is
>> only for VERY high volumes or very little time.
>> The proxy image is REALLY bad, and the sound sucks. For the sound i've
>> made
>> a util that can rip the HQ sound and match it to the video, but later
>> that
>> was build in MC as well (not sure what version).
>>
>> IOW, how much footage are we talking about? How many editors have to
>> share
>> the footage?
>>
>> Bouke
>>
>> VideoToolShed
>> van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
>> 6512 AS NIJMEGEN
>> The Netherlands
>> +31 24 3553311
>> www.videotoolshed.com
>> For large files:
>> http://dropbox.yousendit.com/BoukeVahl998172
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Moore" <bigfish@pacbell.net>
>> To: "Avid L2" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:04 AM
>> Subject: [Avid-L2] XDCam workflow with MC 3.x vs 5.x ish?
>>
>> I googled Paul Sampson's workflow guide but it's pretty old. Trying to
>> figure out what people are doing for high volume XDCam workflows. We may
>> be
>> moving to HD on a reality series and XDCam was suggested for a format.
>> I've
>> heard lots of good things and I like the tape like aspect of XDCam as far
>> as
>> archiving goes. It was suggested to save money on stock that they could
>> reuse the XDCam disks after copying them off to drives and LTO etc... I
>> wasn't part of this conversation but that seems like a bad idea. One of
>> the
>> big pluses for XDCam is the disks are like tape on the shelf. At 23 bucks
>> for 85 minutes ish of record why reuses them. The transfer time to disks
>> and
>> lto would cost more than new disks. Any thoughts on this would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> When it comes to workflow we have a lot of 3.x mc stations. Some have
>> mojos
>> most use and additional video card for full screen playback. We're
>> thinking
>> of upgrading a number of stations but I'm not sure if that's going to
>> happen. Is the current approach to XDCam to ama and transcode or is the
>> more
>> traditional import method more solid? Is the proxy workflow better than a
>> traditional transcode to 10:1. There will no doubt be a bunch of mixing
>> and
>> matching of various other sources of acquired footage so I don't want to
>> work in a native format that is going to make it hard to do timeline
>> exports
>> etc... My gut says to get the XDCam in using the PDWU1 drives and
>> transcode
>> to avid SD 10:1 then treat as normal offline. Would this allow for a
>> traditional decompose and then a batch import of the XDCam material?
>> Basically what is the way to online uprezzing just the needed material
>> like
>> I would off tape. I know we could get the sony deck but can
>> this type of workflow be accomplished with the U1 drive just importing
>> the
>> need sections? Any experience would be appreciated.
>>
>> John Moore
>>
>> Barking Trout Productions
>>
>> Studio City, CA
>>
>> bigfish@pacbell.net
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>