That is my plan but I'm only doing the offline not the online. I asked for workflow suggestions from the production company and was told anything I do will be fine. I'm just trying to figure out the potential pitfalls that one might encounter trying to go back to the original AMA'd files. In theory it's not my responsibility given I'm not doing the online to supply DNX 220 media. I'm curious what causes this "Off by One" error you mention. What exactly is the error? Are the shots off by 1 frame when relinked? These are the kind of things I hope to learn about in this "So much easier file based world we get to live in now."
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "bouke" wrote:
>
> I don't get it.
> If you transcode to 220 and transcode that to an offline codec, why not back
> up the 220 stuff and relink to that for online?
> No need to go back to the originals, it only takes time. Back up to anything
> you have, consolidate 220 to fast storage.
> And, be aware that 220 down to offline, offline relink to AMA might not work
> due to an 'off by one' error, expeccially on H264 material.
> That would mean REAL PAIN.
>
> Bouke
>
> VideoToolShed
> van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
> 6512 AS NIJMEGEN
> The Netherlands
> +31 24 3553311
> www.videotoolshed.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "johnrobmoore"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 8:45 AM
> Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Some AMA basic practices review and preparation?
>
>
> I do plan once I've transcoded to DNX220 to then transcode again to a lower
> rez for offline. I figure that will work and I can give the DNX220 to the
> online folks. I will for the sake of learning see if I can get the ama
> relink to work. I know it should and I've had success in the past but
> usually I don't have control of the start to finish offline workflow.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Ricardo Ismach wrote:
> >
> > That is likely from the XF 300 or XF 305, Canon XF at 50 Mbits. The
> > DSLRs record to H.264 at a somewhat lower data rate.
> >
> > I'm very interested in advice for a best post workflow, though! I have
> > had trouble using AMA (on Mac MC 6.5x), and have reverted to ingest and
> > transcode...
> >
> > Ricardo Ismach
> > Casual Dog Productions, LLC
> > Portland, OR
> >
> > On 2/5/2013 10:09 PM, John Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm starting up a project, well picking up a project that had been
> > > started and I've since added new media via ama transcoding. When I
> > > received the project one interview had already been transcoded to
> > > DNX220. Judging by the video format of CANON XF MPEG-2 50Mbits
> > > (1080p/29.97) I assume the footage came from a Canon 5D or 7D. No
> > > reel numbers were added to the already transcoded interview clips so I
> > > followed their lead and when I added the extra raw material they gave
> > > me I just linked to ama volume and transcoded to DNX220. At the time
> > > it was for a quick radio cut and wasn't going to continue on my end.
> > > Now I'm cutting the whole show and want to make things air tight for
> > > reconform. I haven't spent a lot of quality ama time but my plan is
> > > to name the bins for the individual card folder names I've been given
> > > for example "BCC-Portman-DAY1-CF1" without the " marks. This works
> > > for a bin name and a tape name but the dashes make me wonder if I will
> > > get burned with some illegal characters causing issues under the
> > > hood. So far so good but just wanted to ask. Now for the media I've
> > > already transcoded without adding a reel name first I can modify and
> > > add a source but I seem to recall that the reel number metadata gets
> > > baked in more robustly if it is done before the initial transcode.
> > > Should I be concerned about just adding a reel name after the fact and
> > > would it be worth re transcoding the media adding the reel number
> > > before the transcode? I can always modify the existing radio cut to
> > > match the reel names so it would relink to a new transcodes. I'm not
> > > under a big time crunch so I'm viewing this as a learning process as
> > > well as a job so I don't mind redoing some of my initial work if it
> > > will make for a better workflow when it comes to online. Heck I'm not
> > > even doing the online so I don't know why I'm so worried but it just
> > > seems like the right thing to do. Any suggestions and experience
> > > is welcome.
> > >
> > > John Moore
> > >
> > > Barking Trout Productions
> > >
> > > Studio City, CA
> > >
> > > bigfish@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (5) |
No comments:
Post a Comment