Saturday, September 27, 2014

RE: [Avid-L2] FCPX offline to MC for finishing

 

Why not have the producer rent Avid for $50 a month and buy lots of steak dinners with the time and money and anguish you'll save.

 

Dave Spraker

 

Principal, spraker.tv

Shared Storage Solutions  |  Consulting  |  Sports Audio

www.spraker.tv

 

Northwest Territory Manager, Western Rep Associates

Broadcast and AV Manufacturer's Representative

www.westernrep.com

 

dave@spraker.tv
(503) 897-0250

 

From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 8:56 AM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] FCPX offline to MC for finishing

 

 

Maybe if you go from FCPX to Resolve and from Resolve to Avid the conform can be a little less painful.

Just a thought.

Enviado desde mi teléfono.

El sep 27, 2014 11:19 AM, "John Pale pale.edit@gmail.com [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> escribió:

 

I've done a couple of project moves from FCPX through X to 7/FCP 7 to Avid.  I would really only do this in a drop dead emergency.  There are way too many issues to make this a proper "finishing" workflow.  You'll be doing yourself and more importantly, the project a big disservice.  There is nothing to gain by trying to force this to work.

 

Honestly, due to the extreme differences in how FCPX handles things, you really should try to finish in FCPX.  I have no experience with it, but I believe Resolve 11 and Smoke can deal with an FCPX project better, as there is support for type of XML that FCPX exports. Avid really is so fundamentally different from FCPX, you'll basically spend more time redoing things and dealing with oddities than actual "finishing".

 

What are your issues with finishing in FCPX?  What do you hope to gain with bringing this into Avid?   You won't improve the visual quality and you'll gain nothing but headaches trying to move this edit into Avid.  I don't see any advantages, unless you are a PC based Avid-only house and desperately want to do this project despite all the headaches.

 

I much prefer editing in Avid myself, but there really is no sensible reason to use it for this.

 

 


On Friday, September 26, 2014, Terry Barnum terry@dop.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

 

 

Can anyone share insights into this workflow? I've also asked on FCP-L.

We've got a lot of Sony FS700 AVCHD footage Shot Put Pro copied to FW drives. The thought was to have the producer offline with the current FCPX and then convert the project with X to 7 and then Automatic Duck to Avid for finishing.

But FCPX won't allow (the AMA-like) "Leave files in place" when importing AVCHD footage, meaning it wants to copy and rewrap everything. Not only is this time and disk consuming, I'm concerned that I won't be able to relink back to the original camera footage once in the Avid. I haven't been able to get into an edit bay to test so I don't know if this is a valid concern or not. Anyone know for sure?

Based on lots of searching today, it seems that "Leave files in place" used to work with AVCHD in the 10.0.x version of FCPX but it could be that this was due to the OS X or Quicktime version that was out at the time. I do recall a change at some point where OS X stopped displaying an AVCHD file/folder hierarchy but instead showed a single window with thumbnails of the footage, treating it as a Package file.

I know this is a long shot (and I apologize it's kinda FCPX specific for the Avid-L) but has anyone offlined AVCHD in FCPX, leaving the files in place (or not), and then finished in Avid?

You can reply directly if you think this is too far off topic.

Thanks,
-Terry

Terry Barnum
digital OutPost
http://www.dop.com

__._,_.___
Posted by: "Dave Spraker" <avid@spraker.tv>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (4)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:01 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Re: Cinedeck recorders - any experiences? Also offline/online workflow questions.

 

"My point is that soon, nobody will be rolling tape anymore."


Unless they are archiving. Then they will be rolling LTO tape at least.

__._,_.___
Posted by: tcurren@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (9)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 2:36 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Re: Cinedeck recorders - any experiences? Also offline/online workflow questions.

 

EVS is much more expensive and not nearly as flexible/portable.  Cinedeck has embraced a more "deck Based" paradigm and is a viable option for many situations where EVS would NOT be practical.

Small studios, small remote productions WITHOUT a truck.  These are situation where Cinedeck shines.

Permanent installs like stadiums, big trucks, etc. and EVS clearly rules.  My point is that soon, nobody will be rolling tape anymore.

__._,_.___
Posted by: mraudonis@bunim-murray.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (8)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 2:33 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Re: Cinedeck recorders - any experiences? Also offline/online workflow questions.

 

"Bottom line, Cinedecks are replacing VTRs in many live recording situations.  You will be seeing them MUCH more frequently in the future.  Especially "truck based" multi cam shows."

I haven't compared them lately but EVS also can produce Avid media, not sure how flexible it is with the dual recording and high and low res options.  It would seem silly for EVS, who are already entrenched in mobile truck production and editing during the show, to let this become a cinedeck area. 

A few NABs ago I checked out Cinedeck and they were nice but not cheap.  Perhaps they are cheaper than EVS for similar capabilities?  In my limited remote truck experience those devices, like vtrs are rented on a job need basis.  That may be making it easier for Cinedeck to gain some market penetration in this area.

__._,_.___
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 11:47 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] FCPX offline to MC for finishing

 

Maybe if you go from FCPX to Resolve and from Resolve to Avid the conform can be a little less painful.

Just a thought.

Enviado desde mi teléfono.

El sep 27, 2014 11:19 AM, "John Pale pale.edit@gmail.com [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> escribió:
 

I've done a couple of project moves from FCPX through X to 7/FCP 7 to Avid.  I would really only do this in a drop dead emergency.  There are way too many issues to make this a proper "finishing" workflow.  You'll be doing yourself and more importantly, the project a big disservice.  There is nothing to gain by trying to force this to work.


Honestly, due to the extreme differences in how FCPX handles things, you really should try to finish in FCPX.  I have no experience with it, but I believe Resolve 11 and Smoke can deal with an FCPX project better, as there is support for type of XML that FCPX exports. Avid really is so fundamentally different from FCPX, you'll basically spend more time redoing things and dealing with oddities than actual "finishing".

What are your issues with finishing in FCPX?  What do you hope to gain with bringing this into Avid?   You won't improve the visual quality and you'll gain nothing but headaches trying to move this edit into Avid.  I don't see any advantages, unless you are a PC based Avid-only house and desperately want to do this project despite all the headaches.

I much prefer editing in Avid myself, but there really is no sensible reason to use it for this.



On Friday, September 26, 2014, Terry Barnum terry@dop.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


 

Can anyone share insights into this workflow? I've also asked on FCP-L.

We've got a lot of Sony FS700 AVCHD footage Shot Put Pro copied to FW drives. The thought was to have the producer offline with the current FCPX and then convert the project with X to 7 and then Automatic Duck to Avid for finishing.

But FCPX won't allow (the AMA-like) "Leave files in place" when importing AVCHD footage, meaning it wants to copy and rewrap everything. Not only is this time and disk consuming, I'm concerned that I won't be able to relink back to the original camera footage once in the Avid. I haven't been able to get into an edit bay to test so I don't know if this is a valid concern or not. Anyone know for sure?

Based on lots of searching today, it seems that "Leave files in place" used to work with AVCHD in the 10.0.x version of FCPX but it could be that this was due to the OS X or Quicktime version that was out at the time. I do recall a change at some point where OS X stopped displaying an AVCHD file/folder hierarchy but instead showed a single window with thumbnails of the footage, treating it as a Package file.

I know this is a long shot (and I apologize it's kinda FCPX specific for the Avid-L) but has anyone offlined AVCHD in FCPX, leaving the files in place (or not), and then finished in Avid?

You can reply directly if you think this is too far off topic.

Thanks,
-Terry

Terry Barnum
digital OutPost
http://www.dop.com

__._,_.___
Posted by: Agustin Goya <agustingoya@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 8:55 AM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Re: Cinedeck recorders - any experiences? Also offline/online workflow questions.

 

Wilson,


I've had very GOOD experiences with Cinedecks.   Last show was approx 12 cameras plus line feed
all recorded to multiple cinedecks.  I brought a pile of external firewire drives (G-Tech) with me, plugged them into the back of each cinedeck and was able to walk out of the truck with a copy of all media in hand.

Each cinedeck is capable of recording EITHER a dual copy (1 int + 1 external) OR a hi rez plus  lo res file.  In my case, I chose to walk with a hi rez copy since we were editing at full rez.   Depending on your deadline, there are many different workflows.

Make sure that your truck can route an appropriate audio feed to each cinedeck.  I  didn't get the iso audio tracks to the appropriate camera files.  That's not a cinedeck limitation, but more of a set up planning thing.

Bottom line, Cinedecks are replacing VTRs in many live recording situations.  You will be seeing them MUCH more frequently in the future.  Especially "truck based" multi cam shows.

__._,_.___
Posted by: mraudonis@bunim-murray.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (6)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 8:06 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] FCPX offline to MC for finishing

 

I've done a couple of project moves from FCPX through X to 7/FCP 7 to Avid.  I would really only do this in a drop dead emergency.  There are way too many issues to make this a proper "finishing" workflow.  You'll be doing yourself and more importantly, the project a big disservice.  There is nothing to gain by trying to force this to work.


Honestly, due to the extreme differences in how FCPX handles things, you really should try to finish in FCPX.  I have no experience with it, but I believe Resolve 11 and Smoke can deal with an FCPX project better, as there is support for type of XML that FCPX exports. Avid really is so fundamentally different from FCPX, you'll basically spend more time redoing things and dealing with oddities than actual "finishing".

What are your issues with finishing in FCPX?  What do you hope to gain with bringing this into Avid?   You won't improve the visual quality and you'll gain nothing but headaches trying to move this edit into Avid.  I don't see any advantages, unless you are a PC based Avid-only house and desperately want to do this project despite all the headaches.

I much prefer editing in Avid myself, but there really is no sensible reason to use it for this.



On Friday, September 26, 2014, Terry Barnum terry@dop.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


 

Can anyone share insights into this workflow? I've also asked on FCP-L.

We've got a lot of Sony FS700 AVCHD footage Shot Put Pro copied to FW drives. The thought was to have the producer offline with the current FCPX and then convert the project with X to 7 and then Automatic Duck to Avid for finishing.

But FCPX won't allow (the AMA-like) "Leave files in place" when importing AVCHD footage, meaning it wants to copy and rewrap everything. Not only is this time and disk consuming, I'm concerned that I won't be able to relink back to the original camera footage once in the Avid. I haven't been able to get into an edit bay to test so I don't know if this is a valid concern or not. Anyone know for sure?

Based on lots of searching today, it seems that "Leave files in place" used to work with AVCHD in the 10.0.x version of FCPX but it could be that this was due to the OS X or Quicktime version that was out at the time. I do recall a change at some point where OS X stopped displaying an AVCHD file/folder hierarchy but instead showed a single window with thumbnails of the footage, treating it as a Package file.

I know this is a long shot (and I apologize it's kinda FCPX specific for the Avid-L) but has anyone offlined AVCHD in FCPX, leaving the files in place (or not), and then finished in Avid?

You can reply directly if you think this is too far off topic.

Thanks,
-Terry

Terry Barnum
digital OutPost
http://www.dop.com

__._,_.___
Posted by: John Pale <pale.edit@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 7:19 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Universal mastering field 2 program start, the latest QC BS

 

As your document.pdf points out there is a dirty little secret with Universal Mastering in HD and maintaining proper cadence.  I had always believed Avid would maintain proper cadence when inserting in Universal Mastering.  Having never before scrutinized this in HD I found that Avid begins every digital cut as if it's an A Frame as far as cadence goes.  Having read the .pdf you posted I see back in SD day meridian forced you to edit on an A frame and exit on a D frame.  I now understand the problems associated with doing otherwise.  As your document says I can pick any frame on SNDX and this will end up with an inconsistant cadence.  Also using the 30DF time code to monitor A frames is arbitrary based on the beginning of the sequence and has no baring on time code.  So depending on how much filler is at the top of the sequence before a 1:00:00:00 24frame start that corresponds to 1;00;00;00 30DF the frame is not necessarily flagged as an A frame.  I haven't check with the 30NDF code. 

I also was trying to modify pullin on the sequence to get the A frame to line up with 1;00;00;00 program start but it is greyed out.  Seems like unlike a master clip you can not modify the pulldown on a sequence.

Now that I understand this I know to manually only edit in on A frames and exit on a D frame.  Why this functionality isn't at least an option in the HD world is perplexing.  I was able to end up with a 2:2:3:4 cadence by editing a 4 frame  edit out to tape.  It feels a lot like the old days of turning on forced color framing so you could only edit every other frame trying to maintain a proper sch relationship, but that too was a joke as it was based on time code that didn't necessarily reflect the true sch nature of the source in my experience.

__._,_.___
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (13)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 1:58 AM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Re: Cinedeck recorders - any experiences? Also offline/online workflow questions.

 

Mr. jeff,
Are you saying that Avid when facing multiple copies of media will relink to the one date stamped earlier?  I've never quite figured out how Avid chooses when there are multiple choices.  Of course with the later ability to relink based on resolution etc... I believe would override any date stamp.  It has always seemed random when I have multiple volumes with the same media unless I tell Avid to relink to a certain volume.

__._,_.___
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (5)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 1:40 AM 0 comments

Friday, September 26, 2014

Re: [Avid-L2] viewing C300 on computer

 

Scratch play?

Plays most everything.

__._,_.___
Posted by: "Mikeparsons.tv" <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 6:41 PM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] viewing C300 on computer

 

Canon XF Utility.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300?selectedName=DriversAndSoftware

Pick the correct OS. It is under "Software"

On 9/26/2014 8:45 PM, Lou Wirth loutv@mindspring.com [Avid-L2] wrote:
> Hi
> I have a producer that can't view her c300 footage on her mac. Says Canon says she can't without an editing app. I thought Canon has some simple viewing software to download from their site. Or am I thinking of another cam maker?
>
> thanks
> Lou
> Lou Wirth Productions
> 500Tamal Plaza, Suite 522
> Corte Madera, CA 94925
> www.louwirth.com
> 415-924-9411p
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Lou Wirth <loutv@mindspring.com>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

__._,_.___
Posted by: "Dom Q. Silverio" <domqsilverio@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:56 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] viewing C300 on computer

 

Hi
I have a producer that can't view her c300 footage on her mac. Says Canon says she can't without an editing app. I thought Canon has some simple viewing software to download from their site. Or am I thinking of another cam maker?

thanks
Lou
Lou Wirth Productions
500Tamal Plaza, Suite 522
Corte Madera, CA 94925
www.louwirth.com
415-924-9411p


__._,_.___
Posted by: Lou Wirth <loutv@mindspring.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:45 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] FCPX offline to MC for finishing

 

Can anyone share insights into this workflow? I've also asked on FCP-L.

We've got a lot of Sony FS700 AVCHD footage Shot Put Pro copied to FW drives. The thought was to have the producer offline with the current FCPX and then convert the project with X to 7 and then Automatic Duck to Avid for finishing.

But FCPX won't allow (the AMA-like) "Leave files in place" when importing AVCHD footage, meaning it wants to copy and rewrap everything. Not only is this time and disk consuming, I'm concerned that I won't be able to relink back to the original camera footage once in the Avid. I haven't been able to get into an edit bay to test so I don't know if this is a valid concern or not. Anyone know for sure?

Based on lots of searching today, it seems that "Leave files in place" used to work with AVCHD in the 10.0.x version of FCPX but it could be that this was due to the OS X or Quicktime version that was out at the time. I do recall a change at some point where OS X stopped displaying an AVCHD file/folder hierarchy but instead showed a single window with thumbnails of the footage, treating it as a Package file.

I know this is a long shot (and I apologize it's kinda FCPX specific for the Avid-L) but has anyone offlined AVCHD in FCPX, leaving the files in place (or not), and then finished in Avid?

You can reply directly if you think this is too far off topic.

Thanks,
-Terry

Terry Barnum
digital OutPost
http://www.dop.com

__._,_.___
Posted by: Terry Barnum <terry@dop.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 3:41 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)