This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Some AMA basic practices review and preparation?

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Some AMA basic practices review and preparation?

Hi Bouke:

I have been working on v.6 for awhile on Mac, so perhaps that
accounts for the difference. But here's a step-by-step of the tests I
have run to confirm what I wrote in my previous post, in case you want
to compare the behaviour on your system.

Test1:

- Take 2 different Quicktimes of different lengths, in 2 different source folders, but with the same filename and starting timecode. In my test, the first clip was 2:00 seconds long, the second was 8:12, and both had a starting timecode of 00:00:00:00. Both clips were named test1.mov on the desktop.

- Use AMA to bring the clips into Avid.

- Transcode them to DnxHD.

- Cut the first second of each DnxHD clip into a sequence, so you have a 2 second sequence with footage from both clips in it.

- Select the sequence and the first AMA clip (with nothing else selected), and relink to 'selected items in all open bins'. Allow relinking by filename, etc. If you play through the newly relinked sequence it will now have 2 repeated instances of the first AMA clip.

- Select the sequence and the second AMA clip (with nothing else selected), and relink to 'selected items in all open bins.' The newly relinked sequence will now have 2 repeated instances of the
second AMA clip.

This shows that when relinking a sequence to AMA clips, Avid pays no attention to the overall length of the AMA masterclip, nor the path to the file. It only cares about the timecode range of the
part of the clip used in the sequence and the source filename.

Test2 (a more common scenario):

- transcode an AMA clip with duration longer than 1 second to DNxHD.

- Cut 1 second of the DNx36 transcode into a sequence.

- Consolidate the sequence to a new drive with 0 length handles.

The consolidated sequence now points to a source masterclip with media that is only 1 second long.

- Select the consolidated sequence and the original masterclip and relink to 'selected items in all open bins'

- The relink should work with no problem -- again indicating that the different lengths of the consolidated masterclip and the AMA masterclip are no obstacle to relinking a sequence.

Cheers,
--Michael

On 13-02-06 9:22 AM, bouke wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Brockington" brocking@sfu.ca >
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com >
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 6:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Some AMA basic practices review and
> preparation?
>
> > While what you describe is troubling, it sounds like a problem with
> > relinking a transcoded masterclip to an AMA original, which is maybe not
> > such a concern for an online workflow.
>
> Yes it is, if my ideas are the right ones :-)
>
> > My usual workflow is to bring in AMA clips, transcode those to an
> > offline resolution, cut the show, relink the final sequence back to the
> > AMA originals, and transcode the relinked sequence to a finishing
> > resolution. This isn't likely to have a problem with the off-by-one
> > error you describe.
>
> Yes it is, if you have an 'off by one' error in the transcode, it fails.
> (again, got the T-shirt with GoPro footage...)
>
> > When relinking a sequence, the relink is typically looking for matching
> > filenames/tapenames and matching timecode. The relink would only fail
> > if you used the very last frame of a clip with an off-by-one error in
> > your edit (and it would only fail for the problematic clip.)
>
> No it isn't. AFAIK, AMA relinks (partially) based on clip duration. (at
> least 5.0x)
> AMA clips do not have a Reelname, they have pathname and clipname.
> Not sure how it relates to 'normal' (also cumbersome) relinking, but it's
> different.
>
> > The only major issue I've encountered with this workflow is relinking to
> > the wrong clip when there are clips with duplicate filenames and
> > overlapping timecodes. Off the top of my head, I've used this workflow
> > with 7D, R3D, c300, XDCam, Samurai/Hyperdeck recorders, and various
> > prosumer AVCHD cameras -- so a mix of higher and lower-end cameras.
>
> This confuses me, as it is really different from my experience...
> What version are you on? And, Win or Mac? (god knows if that's a
> difference...)
>
> Bouke
>

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