Saturday, October 6, 2012

Re: [Avid-L2] Applying an effect to more than one clip in a timeline

 

This worked on Symphony last time I tried it (a few days ago), though I may be working one dot release after yours. There is a certain amount of delay in my own work situation, which is a rather extreme one, with lots of media being addressed through ISIS networked drives. I've learned to wait a few seconds for the beach ball to show up, and then sit tight while all the effects icons show up in the timeline.

The one thing I haven't figured out how to do is apply a stack of nested effects to a bunch of clips in one operation, i.e, pan and scan them all, then color correct them all, etc. I believe FCP is actually superior in this respect. If you can spare the track space, you might want to try dicing out some empty track space with add edits, then apply effects in the correct processing order to the empty tracks above the media tracks.

Good luck. Let us know what happens.

Shirley

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Breuer <tonybreuer@mac.com>
To: Avid-L2 <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 6, 2012 5:32 pm
Subject: [Avid-L2] Applying an effect to more than one clip in a timeline

Symphony 6.0.1.1, MAC Pro 8 core 16 Gig Ram

I'm cutting a corporate gig with a lot of repetitive effects (resizing
backgrounds, PowerPoint slides in a monitor screen, Spectramatte the presenter
and a bug on top) on 5 different video tracks.

It's been a while since I did a job like this, but I seem to remember that I
used to select a series of clips on the timeline by lassoing them from left to
right and then double click on the effect I wanted in my effects bin and the
effect would be applied to all the selected clips in the timeline.

I have tried doing that to no avail on this job and have been dragging and
dropping the effects on each individual clip in order to get what I want.

Did this change at some point and I am not aware of it?

If it did, this is a major PITA. It's a real drag and I'm ready to drop. .

Tony (Pun intended) Breuer

------------------------------------

Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Applying an effect to more than one clip in a timeline

 

Symphony 6.0.1.1, MAC Pro 8 core 16 Gig Ram

I'm cutting a corporate gig with a lot of repetitive effects (resizing backgrounds, PowerPoint slides in a monitor screen, Spectramatte the presenter and a bug on top) on 5 different video tracks.

It's been a while since I did a job like this, but I seem to remember that I used to select a series of clips on the timeline by lassoing them from left to right and then double click on the effect I wanted in my effects bin and the effect would be applied to all the selected clips in the timeline.

I have tried doing that to no avail on this job and have been dragging and dropping the effects on each individual clip in order to get what I want.

Did this change at some point and I am not aware of it?

If it did, this is a major PITA. It's a real drag and I'm ready to drop. .

Tony (Pun intended) Breuer

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] fix light flicker, MC 5.5

 

FlickerFiX, from 3-Prong...

http://www.3prong.com/

Steve Hullfish
contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
author: "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction"

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Re: fix light flicker, MC 5.5

 

If you can't get the current BCC "Flicker Fixer" (under image restoration in V8 only) then you can try these guys with a free demo <<http://3prong.com>>. I used them a ton in the SD days.

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "bartekz" <zbimages@...> wrote:
>
> Is there a way to fix a shot with a fluorescent light flicker in MC 5.5? I can't find the BCC flicker fix, which is in the newer version of MC, so is there an equivalent in 5.5? or do I need to get some extra plugin?
>
> thanks!
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] fix light flicker, MC 5.5

 

Is there a way to fix a shot with a fluorescent light flicker in MC 5.5? I can't find the BCC flicker fix, which is in the newer version of MC, so is there an equivalent in 5.5? or do I need to get some extra plugin?

thanks!

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

Friday, October 5, 2012

Re: [Avid-L2] C300 footage solved

 

My advice would be even more foolproof. I always tell my AEs to copy (via
option-drag on Mac) the DISC/CARD mounted on the desktop to the RAID. You
can't miss a single file or folder structure element if you do it that way,
and you can rename the copied DISC/CARD anything you want once it's copied.
Don't bother opening the DISC/CARD and poking around in its folders looking
for what to copy. You might not get everything.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Roger <rogershuff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Yup - copy everything into a new folder (nearly always). I've had to
> hammer this home to 80 freshmen (I think you call them) this week!
>
> On 5 Oct 2012, at 20:45, Steve Hullfish wrote:
>
> > I had not downloaded the 64 bit version. That was one problem.
> >
> > The other was stupid, and I should have known better, but it may help
> some other stupid person, so I will outline my error:
> >
> > I was trying to use the AMA VOLUME option instead of AMA FILE.
> >
> > When I copied the folders over from the card, I dragged the CONTENT
> folder from the card to my RAID, leaving it named CONTENT and not touching
> any of the other folder structure. I also had to copy ANOTHER card's worth
> of footage onto the same RAID, but of course, the folder name for THAT card
> was also "CONTENT." So, I created a folder on the RAID called "CURRENT
> PROJECT" and dropped the second card's CONTENT folder into that to keep it
> from overwriting the first card's information.
> >
> > When I tried to AMA the first card, using VOLUME, I pointed at the
> CONTENT folder and the Avid didn't see any AMA-able files. But when I
> pointed at the second folder, that had the second CONTENT folder inside of
> it, it worked perfectly. Since that worked, I created another folder on the
> RAID called "CURRENT PROJECT2" and dropped the first CONTENT folder into it
> and then the AMA of those files also worked perfectly.
> >
> > So the lesson is that the Avid is used to having you point to a CARD
> with the CONTENT folder IN it... and if you copy the CONTENT folder to a
> RAID or some other drive, you either need to put it into a folder on the
> RAID, or you have to point to the ENTIRE RAID, which of course, could
> import a LOT of stuff that you may not want.
> >
> > Lesson learned. I swear I didn't have to do this with the Sony F3
> footage or the P2 footage or the XDCAM footage that I've previously AMA'd
> from files copied to the RAID, but maybe I did and this is just a lesson
> RE-learned.
> >
> > Steve Hullfish
> > contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
> > author: "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction"
> >
> >
>
> With best wishes,
> Roger Shufflebottom
> +44 7973 543 660
>
>
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] C300 footage solved

Yup - copy everything into a new folder (nearly always). I've had to hammer this home to 80 freshmen (I think you call them) this week!

On 5 Oct 2012, at 20:45, Steve Hullfish wrote:

> I had not downloaded the 64 bit version. That was one problem.
>
> The other was stupid, and I should have known better, but it may help some other stupid person, so I will outline my error:
>
> I was trying to use the AMA VOLUME option instead of AMA FILE.
>
> When I copied the folders over from the card, I dragged the CONTENT folder from the card to my RAID, leaving it named CONTENT and not touching any of the other folder structure. I also had to copy ANOTHER card's worth of footage onto the same RAID, but of course, the folder name for THAT card was also "CONTENT." So, I created a folder on the RAID called "CURRENT PROJECT" and dropped the second card's CONTENT folder into that to keep it from overwriting the first card's information.
>
> When I tried to AMA the first card, using VOLUME, I pointed at the CONTENT folder and the Avid didn't see any AMA-able files. But when I pointed at the second folder, that had the second CONTENT folder inside of it, it worked perfectly. Since that worked, I created another folder on the RAID called "CURRENT PROJECT2" and dropped the first CONTENT folder into it and then the AMA of those files also worked perfectly.
>
> So the lesson is that the Avid is used to having you point to a CARD with the CONTENT folder IN it... and if you copy the CONTENT folder to a RAID or some other drive, you either need to put it into a folder on the RAID, or you have to point to the ENTIRE RAID, which of course, could import a LOT of stuff that you may not want.
>
> Lesson learned. I swear I didn't have to do this with the Sony F3 footage or the P2 footage or the XDCAM footage that I've previously AMA'd from files copied to the RAID, but maybe I did and this is just a lesson RE-learned.
>
> Steve Hullfish
> contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
> author: "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction"
>
>

With best wishes,
Roger Shufflebottom
+44 7973 543 660





[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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Avid-L2] C300 footage solved

 

I had not downloaded the 64 bit version. That was one problem.

The other was stupid, and I should have known better, but it may help some other stupid person, so I will outline my error:

I was trying to use the AMA VOLUME option instead of AMA FILE.

When I copied the folders over from the card, I dragged the CONTENT folder from the card to my RAID, leaving it named CONTENT and not touching any of the other folder structure. I also had to copy ANOTHER card's worth of footage onto the same RAID, but of course, the folder name for THAT card was also "CONTENT." So, I created a folder on the RAID called "CURRENT PROJECT" and dropped the second card's CONTENT folder into that to keep it from overwriting the first card's information.

When I tried to AMA the first card, using VOLUME, I pointed at the CONTENT folder and the Avid didn't see any AMA-able files. But when I pointed at the second folder, that had the second CONTENT folder inside of it, it worked perfectly. Since that worked, I created another folder on the RAID called "CURRENT PROJECT2" and dropped the first CONTENT folder into it and then the AMA of those files also worked perfectly.

So the lesson is that the Avid is used to having you point to a CARD with the CONTENT folder IN it... and if you copy the CONTENT folder to a RAID or some other drive, you either need to put it into a folder on the RAID, or you have to point to the ENTIRE RAID, which of course, could import a LOT of stuff that you may not want.

Lesson learned. I swear I didn't have to do this with the Sony F3 footage or the P2 footage or the XDCAM footage that I've previously AMA'd from files copied to the RAID, but maybe I did and this is just a lesson RE-learned.

Steve Hullfish
contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
author: "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction"

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Re: Render Test Here's a new take that seems like BS?

 

Disk drive throughput could be affected by the larger bandwidth. That could slow things down performance wise.

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "memory footprint"? Are you talking about raw size of the media file or is this something that is more taxing in a RAM sense. The theory proposed was that one to one SD renders make the Avid timeline response slow relative to 10:1 renders. Given these are heavily nested and layered sequences I feel it is there complexity that is bogging down the response of Avid when navigating the timeline etc.... For example the spinning ball before the image updates to a new position is more lengthy in heavily nested areas as opposed to other parts of the timeline. I really don't see how the resolution of the render would effect this kind of performance after all once rendered the Avid is using pointers and I feel it's the excess of pointer and tracking of all the layers that slows things down for the operator.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Dom Q. Silverio" <domqsilverio@> wrote:
> >
> > The memory footprint of large media like 1:1 should be higher than 10:1 or
> > other older codecs like Meridien.
> > While heavily compressed media like 15:1s and 10:1 have higher CPU overhead
> > the processing is not much compared to modern codecs and they are very easy
> > memory wise.
> >
> > So something to consider
> >
> >
> > Dom Q. Silverio
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> >
> > > I think you're missing the issue. It's not how long it takes to render it
> > > is being proposed that because the renders in offline were done to 1:1, a
> > > fact I can not confirm, the sequence response is slow. I'm well aware of
> > > how heavy layers slow down a sequence but it's never in my experience been
> > > related to the resolution of renders.
> > >
> > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Coldiron <jciron2005@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OH YES....
> > > > 19 layers produces sluggish renders.
> > > > I had a show that had ten layered EFX in the V1 layer plus another 5-6
> > > video tracks above.
> > > > I was finally able to work with the show after the first episode.
> > > > I found that I could eliminate much of the 10 BCC EFX in V1 by making
> > > stills of the BG layers.
> > > > Offline editors don't think about the render issues they create when
> > > their show goes to Online.
> > > > I'm sure at 10:1 in offline resolution it worked fine. At 1:1 in
> > > Symphony not very well.
> > > > First episode took DAYS to render.
> > > >
> > > > [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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

RE: [Avid-L2] OT - Quicktime Player Pro & anomalies

 

Look under QT prefs to see if "use high quality render when available" is checked.

-----Original Message-----
From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Spano
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 1:22 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] OT - Quicktime Player Pro & anomalies

If you're viewing interlaced footage on a computer's progressive display, you'll see jagged lines as the fields get squashed together. This won't happen on a broadcast monitor.

In addition, if the file can't be played at 1:1 resolution to the computer display, then any scaling on either interlaced or progressive material can introduce artifacts with any player.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Paul Dougherty <lists@postlit.com> wrote:

> It's understood that Quicktime Player Pro is better, more accurate
> than the default Qt Player. I have some HD ProRes files I made in FCP
> from a prosumer camera card that on a client's 2 yr old Mac (default
> Qt Player) play with bad jaggies.* The footage is fine when I play it
> on my system in Qt Player Pro. * I can replicate this in OS 10.7.3
> with the default Qt Player.
>
> I can tell here things like my set-up is a truer reflection of what is
> really there and don't worry, but she's freaked and I'd like to offer
> a more informed, definitive explanation. What would that be?
>
> p.s. I did an edit on site recently where a exported FCP seq (ProRes I
> *think*) had weird (colorized or blown out) 1st frames after each edit
> in Quicktime Player Pro but looked fine in the default Qt Player and
> After Effects. The lesson... Quicktime Player Pro is better, more
> accurate except when it's not? :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Re: Render Test Here's a new take that seems like BS?

 

What do you mean by "memory footprint"? Are you talking about raw size of the media file or is this something that is more taxing in a RAM sense. The theory proposed was that one to one SD renders make the Avid timeline response slow relative to 10:1 renders. Given these are heavily nested and layered sequences I feel it is there complexity that is bogging down the response of Avid when navigating the timeline etc.... For example the spinning ball before the image updates to a new position is more lengthy in heavily nested areas as opposed to other parts of the timeline. I really don't see how the resolution of the render would effect this kind of performance after all once rendered the Avid is using pointers and I feel it's the excess of pointer and tracking of all the layers that slows things down for the operator.

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Dom Q. Silverio" <domqsilverio@...> wrote:
>
> The memory footprint of large media like 1:1 should be higher than 10:1 or
> other older codecs like Meridien.
> While heavily compressed media like 15:1s and 10:1 have higher CPU overhead
> the processing is not much compared to modern codecs and they are very easy
> memory wise.
>
> So something to consider
>
>
> Dom Q. Silverio
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> > I think you're missing the issue. It's not how long it takes to render it
> > is being proposed that because the renders in offline were done to 1:1, a
> > fact I can not confirm, the sequence response is slow. I'm well aware of
> > how heavy layers slow down a sequence but it's never in my experience been
> > related to the resolution of renders.
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Coldiron <jciron2005@> wrote:
> > >
> > > OH YES....
> > > 19 layers produces sluggish renders.
> > > I had a show that had ten layered EFX in the V1 layer plus another 5-6
> > video tracks above.
> > > I was finally able to work with the show after the first episode.
> > > I found that I could eliminate much of the 10 BCC EFX in V1 by making
> > stills of the BG layers.
> > > Offline editors don't think about the render issues they create when
> > their show goes to Online.
> > > I'm sure at 10:1 in offline resolution it worked fine. At 1:1 in
> > Symphony not very well.
> > > First episode took DAYS to render.
> > >
> > > [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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Render Test Here's a new take that seems like BS?

 

The memory footprint of large media like 1:1 should be higher than 10:1 or
other older codecs like Meridien.
While heavily compressed media like 15:1s and 10:1 have higher CPU overhead
the processing is not much compared to modern codecs and they are very easy
memory wise.

So something to consider

Dom Q. Silverio

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I think you're missing the issue. It's not how long it takes to render it
> is being proposed that because the renders in offline were done to 1:1, a
> fact I can not confirm, the sequence response is slow. I'm well aware of
> how heavy layers slow down a sequence but it's never in my experience been
> related to the resolution of renders.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Coldiron <jciron2005@...> wrote:
> >
> > OH YES....
> > 19 layers produces sluggish renders.
> > I had a show that had ten layered EFX in the V1 layer plus another 5-6
> video tracks above.
> > I was finally able to work with the show after the first episode.
> > I found that I could eliminate much of the 10 BCC EFX in V1 by making
> stills of the BG layers.
> > Offline editors don't think about the render issues they create when
> their show goes to Online.
> > I'm sure at 10:1 in offline resolution it worked fine. At 1:1 in
> Symphony not very well.
> > First episode took DAYS to render.
> >
> > [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
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] OT - Quicktime Player Pro & anomalies

If you're viewing interlaced footage on a computer's progressive display,
you'll see jagged lines as the fields get squashed together. This won't
happen on a broadcast monitor.

In addition, if the file can't be played at 1:1 resolution to the computer
display, then any scaling on either interlaced or progressive material can
introduce artifacts with any player.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Paul Dougherty <lists@postlit.com> wrote:

> It's understood that Quicktime Player Pro is better, more accurate than
> the default Qt Player. I have some HD ProRes files I made in FCP from a
> prosumer camera card that on a client's 2 yr old Mac (default Qt Player)
> play with bad jaggies.* The footage is fine when I play it on my system in
> Qt Player Pro. * I can replicate this in OS 10.7.3 with the default Qt
> Player.
>
> I can tell here things like my set-up is a truer reflection of what is
> really there and don't worry, but she's freaked and I'd like to offer a
> more informed, definitive explanation. What would that be?
>
> p.s. I did an edit on site recently where a exported FCP seq (ProRes I
> *think*) had weird (colorized or blown out) 1st frames after each edit in
> Quicktime Player Pro but looked fine in the default Qt Player and After
> Effects. The lesson… Quicktime Player Pro is better, more accurate except
> when it's not? :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Avid-L2] OT - Quicktime Player Pro & anomalies

It's understood that Quicktime Player Pro is better, more accurate than the default Qt Player. I have some HD ProRes files I made in FCP from a prosumer camera card that on a client's 2 yr old Mac (default Qt Player) play with bad jaggies.* The footage is fine when I play it on my system in Qt Player Pro. * I can replicate this in OS 10.7.3 with the default Qt Player.

I can tell here things like my set-up is a truer reflection of what is really there and don't worry, but she's freaked and I'd like to offer a more informed, definitive explanation. What would that be?

p.s. I did an edit on site recently where a exported FCP seq (ProRes I *think*) had weird (colorized or blown out) 1st frames after each edit in Quicktime Player Pro but looked fine in the default Qt Player and After Effects. The lesson… Quicktime Player Pro is better, more accurate except when it's not? :-)

Thanks,

Paul

------------------------------------

Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [Avid-L2] FR: Bins and Folder creation

 

Or being able to make a folder in a bin

John Kilgour
Avid & Final Cut Pro Editor
www.digitalcut.com
631-680-8316

On Oct 5, 2012, at 1:16 PM, avideditorrob@gmail.com wrote:

> It would be a great time save to have new bins and folders created directly inside an existing folder,
> rather than on the top level of a project, and having to move them.
>
> thanks,
>
> rob
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] FR: Bins and Folder creation

 

It would be a great time save to have new bins and folders created directly inside an existing folder,
rather than on the top level of a project, and having to move them.

thanks,

rob

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Re: Render Test Here's a new take that seems like BS?

 

I think you're missing the issue. It's not how long it takes to render it is being proposed that because the renders in offline were done to 1:1, a fact I can not confirm, the sequence response is slow. I'm well aware of how heavy layers slow down a sequence but it's never in my experience been related to the resolution of renders.

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Coldiron <jciron2005@...> wrote:
>
> OH YES....
> 19 layers produces sluggish renders.
> I had a show that had ten layered EFX in the V1 layer plus another 5-6 video tracks above.
>  I was finally able to work with the show after the first episode.
> I found that I could eliminate much of the 10 BCC EFX in V1 by making stills of the BG layers.
> Offline editors don't think about the render issues they create when their show goes to Online.
> I'm sure at 10:1 in offline resolution it worked fine. At 1:1 in Symphony not very well.
> First episode took DAYS to render.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:   http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
.

__,_._,___
There was an error in this gadget