Good point to keep in mind. You are correct these are master clips so even if it is a split frame it will still be of the same image so it won't be the traditional flash field when cutting down a trailer or movie and getting a field of the outgoing or incoming shot when you try to edit right on the cut. Use to fight that all the time in the linear online bays with Avid lists where the Avid editor missed it or early on they were working in single field resolution so they had no way to play along.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Something to keep in mind when you're cutting with pulldown added material
> sources. If the source material is an edited piece, try not to cut on cuts.
> In other words, if you have something like this in 23.98:
>
> A B C D A B C D
>
> which looks like this with pulldown:
>
> AA BB BC CD DD AA BB BC CD DD
>
> If there is a cut in the source on a C or D frame, the pulldown added
> version of that could have the BC or CD frame composed of a field from
> before the cut and a field from after the cut. Be aware that most video
> output hardware (and the source/record monitors in software) won't show you
> both fields at once. So you can't see it unless you step through field by
> field. The solution here (to avoid field flashes) is just to not cut on any
> frame that is also a cut in the source.
>
> I hope that makes sense. More than likely you're not using 23.98 source
> material that has already been edited, so you wouldn't have to worry about
> this.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:39 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > From my day and last night of wrangling these 720P/60, 23.98 files I can
> > confirm when you "Convert", the term used in the transcode dialogue, it
> > warns you can't relink back to the ama master clips but if I had to I would
> > simply remount the ama volume and reassign the same tape name to the ama'd
> > clips and redo the transcode/convert and relink to the resulting clips. I'm
> > thinking I'm pretty smart here by baking in the 2:3 pulldown on my
> > trascoded/converted clips so I won't have sll the headaches a mixed frame
> > rate timeline can generate. Given I'm self contained on this project this
> > will work. The more standard workflow I've seen is bring in the 23.98 clips
> > in a 23.98 project and open those bins in the 1080i/59.94 project and cut
> > away with Avid adding motion adapters. I'm thinking by baking in the 2:3
> > I've eliminated any chance of the motion adapters adding any artifacts like
> > someone in the other thread had mentioned. I'm willing to be wrong if
> > someone knows better. Also my project is self contained without a massive
> > amount of footage so that's another reason. Hopefully I'll also be able to
> > convert the 23.98 radio cut to 59.94/29.97 to relink to my new baked in
> > clips. I've done 30 to 24 but 24 to 30 I've usually left to a digital cut.
> > Oh I love the file based world. ;-(
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, electropura212 <electropura212@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You can relink back to the original media (provides you are not
> > transcoding
> > > frame rate) from the .new clips on MC 6.5.
> > >
> > > Not sure it's possible in mc5.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, Wilson Chao wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm confused here. If you transcode everything at full resolution,
> > > > why would you ever need to go back to the camera original files. Why
> > > > wouldn't you simply retain the transcoded .new clips, edit with them,
> > > > and forget the original files? There's no need to relink, and no
> > > > need for the AMA'd clips after transcoding is finished. What am I
> > > > missing here?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Paul Dougherty <lists@
> > ...<javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Think I have this straight but want to make sure. (working in MC5) I
> > > > have many camera card directories (mostly Canon) in a big project on a
> > > > tight deadline. Don't feel like I have time for an off-line phase and
> > want
> > > > to keep everything full-rez. So even though there is no off-line, this
> > is a
> > > > legacy project that will be revisited. Am I right in thinking it's
> > best I
> > > > not (never*) to edit with the ".new" clips because they can never link
> > back
> > > > to the original camera directories?
> > > > >
> > > > > So in spite of the rush, once the transcoding is finished I will take
> > > > the original camera directories off line and link the now "empty of
> > media"
> > > > AMA bins to the newly made transcoded media, right? ( will also set
> > aside
> > > > the ".new" clips because they have served their purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > > *I guess the one exception - racing to a deadline knowing one will
> > never
> > > > go back to original camera directories, ever.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > >
> > > > > 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]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [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 (14) |
No comments:
Post a Comment