It goes back to the original poster's point -- that the clips are
transcoded in a seemingly random order. So when you sort on clipname,
the '.new' duplicates are sprinkled throughout your bin, not all
conveniently grouped at the top or bottom.
If you have a lot of clips, then the procedure I suggested of building a
sequence and relinking to the AMA originals should be faster than doing
a visual sort based on duplicate clipnames. The latter approach is also
more prone to user error.
Cheers,
--Michael
On 13-01-08 6:29 AM, Andi Meek wrote:
>
>
> When you need to re-select clips for re-transcoding can't you just
> sift the bin to show file names? Because all the files that are
> transcoded will have the same name as the originals (with .new
> obviously appended) so you'll see original followed by transcode,
> followed by original. Eventually you'll reach a point where the
> original files aren't followed by transcodes and this is where to pick
> up from. Shouldn't take long.
>
> Andi
>
> > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Michael Brockington
> brocking@sfu.ca
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The seemingly random order of transcoding is annoying, for
> sure. But
> > > >> since nothing involving computers is really random unless you
> force it
> > > >> to be, there probably is an order to the transcode that doesn't
> happen
> > > >> to be obvious to the users. Maybe an engineer from Avid could
> drop us a
> > > >> hint as to what that might be?
> > > >>
> > > >> In the meantime, depending on how many files you're dealing
> with when
> > > >> your transcode breaks, you may find it easier to pick up where
> you left
> > > >> off via the following procedure:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Move your newly created transcodes to a separate bin and
> assemble a
> > > >> sequence of them.
> > > >> 2. Relink that sequence to your original AMA media.
> > > >> 3. Select the relinked sequence and use 'select sources' which
> should
> > > >> highlight the AMA media that was successfully transcoded.
> > > >> 4. Reverse the selection in your AMA bin, and you should be
> ready to
> > > >> pick up the transcoding from where it failed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Still cumbersome, but maybe less tedious than sorting through a
> long
> > > >> list of clips, weeding out duplicate filenames.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> --Michael
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 13-01-07 9:33 AM, Keld von Eyben wrote:
> > > >>> I continue running into various error messages while transcoding
> > > >>> AMA-linked AVCHD files from Sony FS100/700 camera.
> > > >>> Sometimes hundreds of clips will transcode without errors,
> other times
> > > >>> the process stops after 2, 5, 15 or other number of files.
> > > >>> Equally irritating: the transcode/consolidate process does not
> work on
> > > >>> the clips in the order they are sorted in the bin, but seems
> to follow
> > > a
> > > >>> completely random order. This makes it really time consuming
> to select
> > > >>> the clips that has not yet been transcoded before restarting the
> > > process.
> > > >>> Transcoding other media types like XDCAM EX always complete
> without
> > > >>> errors.
> > > >>> I'm on Win7 MCP 6.5
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Has anyone else seen this?
> > > >>> Is it a memory leak issue?
> > > >>> Will an upgrade of the AMA plugin solve the issue - and where
> should
> > > >>> this upgrade come from (Sony? Avid?)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best regards
> > > >>> Keld von Eyben
> > > >>> www.filmsolutions.dk
>
> >
>
>
> [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 (8) |
No comments:
Post a Comment