Oh Steve I fear you are slipping away to the dark side. ;-) I remember being shown one of if not the first light pen edit systems at the CBS Radford lot back in my college days. One of the features was the ability to turn off the time code displays on the screen so they wouldn't be distracting to the operator. Even then I thought if you're afraid of or find a time code display too distracting then get the hell out of the chair and let a real editor come in. Of course we've come a long way but without drop frame time code how would we calculate a reasonable accurate show TRT? If you don't understand the reason behind and the nature of drop vs. non drop time code good luck figuring out when to record audio at 48,048 or 47,952 in the field. I thought I had that figured out and then I spoke with Michael Phillips and he told me that I had it backwards based on what he had been told by the Avid engineers. My thought was oversample in the field when shooting 24 to be telecined to 59.94 or 23.98 so when it's played back at 48K it will run slower and match picture. I recall Michael saying it actually worked the opposite way but I never figured out why and which was correct. Seems some of this ties in with how Avid will interpret a QT .mov at the correct running time or some such thing. I would appreciate some clarification on that as it's not something I run into in my day to day work.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hullfish <steve4lists@...> wrote:
>
> Honestly, I am rarely to be the one to tell one of us old curmudgeonly editors "You are too stuck in your old ways." but seriously, as long as there is some way to flawlessly off-line/on-line relink to the exact frame that I want I could care less about timecode. Who needs it? I think that each frame of video or film should be like The Weather Channel's new SuperStorm naming system or the Hurricane naming system. Each frame gets an actual name, like Hilda or Joe.
>
> Seriously though, timecode does seem antiquated as long as we can have some frame reference tucked into the metadata. Timecode definitely makes the most sense, but who really cares what the naming or identifying code is? Keycode worked fine for film guys. Half the young editors still don't understand the implications of NDF compared to DF. Timecode actually sucks. But its all we have for now. But you can definitely pry it away from my hands as long as there's something better to replace it.
>
> Steve "Happy to drop drop-frame or non-drop" Hullfish
>
> On Jun 4, 2013, at 12:21 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> > When I taught a couple editing classes at UCLA many years ago "The History of Time Code" an excerpt I found somewhere was required reading. I don't think I could live in a world without Time Code. What I mean to say is, "I'll give you my time code when you take it from my cold, dead hands". I think I speak for all the drop frames out there when I shout, "You can take your FCP duration and shove it." Been a long week and it's only Tuesday. ;-)
> >
>
>
>
> [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 (7) |
No comments:
Post a Comment