Oh well I guess my first response didn't make it through the cyber channels. I don't disagree the mixdown is a more robust workflow but in my case the QT Ref without mixdowns saves time and storage space. Given it has worked for the last several years with a few burps I keep using it. The first three episodes went through just fine but for those I did not have to edit audio tracks back in in QT Pro 7.
I've done several shows where I did edit audio tracks back in using QT Pro and I've never been rejected on those shows.
I don't know if you got a chance to read the network document regarding this particular issue but it's very enlightening. I was surprised to see that auto desk products don't export with the correct track ID/order according to this document. Avid does it correctly but as I've learned edits in QT Pro change the order in manner apparently some players/hardware don't read correctly.
Surprisingly if I ama link to the problematic ordered QT Ref file and then export that clip directly from the bin Avid corrects the order.
I know Avid does mixdowns quick but not as quick as exporting a QT Ref and letting QT Pro bake the self contained file while I continue to work in Avid. This and the savings in storage space are the main reasons I work the way I do.
I completely agree the mixdown approach is safer and when I'm up against time deadlines where I don't have time to test the workflow I will use that method. At least I now have learned a concrete parameter in metadata I can view in MediaInfo to check if a file meets this requirement. It is perplexing still that everywhere I play these files they work just fine but the network states that some hardware/software can't read files with incorrect track ID. To me it sounds like the short coming lies on there end but it doesn't matter what I think I now know they have changed their delivery workflow and I know how to comply.
What the heck the network document made it all worth it for me to learn something new about the under the hood working of some player software/hardware.
Perhaps Bouke could illuminate on why the Track ID number order is critical to some players/hardware?
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :
Why not do mixdowns? In MC, mixdown video and do 'multiple audio mixdown' for all your audio tracks. Then you have a sequence which is all solid blocks on tracks in order, and you can export QT Ref and save as self contained.
I feel like I keep repeating myself. If you know a way that will work absolutely 100% of the time, why bother with other ways?
On 02 Aug 2018, at 18:51, John Moore bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Today I got a QC rejection stating:"The MOV file has a bad logical track order. Audio track atoms do not directly follow video track atoms."It does not matter where an atom is, as long as the numbers are correct.(You can put your socks in the bottom or on top of the rest in your weekend bag, they are there just fine.)Now, this has nothing to do with the track order. (A number how high the track is.)QT 7 pro can tell you a bit about that I think.So what they want is video to be track 0, audio 1 to be track 1 and so on.I think my remap tool will fix this.
__._,_.___
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (7) |
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2
SPONSORED LINKS
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment