So we seem to have found a fix for the audio. We already manually fixed the video. As a last ditch effort at the end of the night I suggested to the AE when he comes in today to first take the original offline sequence audio, which is correct and cut it into a new sequence with matching start time code. Then aaf that and see what happens. I just heard back and that seems to have eliminated the problem. He's checked it in Avid and it seems correct and he's going to double check in Pro Tools. I've had various anomalies fixed by this process and it should have dawned on me to try that first even with the video. The project is 59.94I 1080 and they brought all the 23.98 clips into a 23.98 project and opened those bins in the 59.94 project. So I don't quite know what confused the sequence. Just to recap, consolidating the audio and or video created difference in source time code/sync with clips video and audio that had been synced through Pluralize and brought back into avid via an aaf.
My feeling now is that they brought the 23.98 5D footage into the 23.98 project and also the 2nd system audio into the 23.98 project. They then pluralized and imported that aaf into the 23.98 project. This creates a sequence with the video and audio in a timeline much like you'd do in grouping. This was opened in the 59.94I project. Then as a trick/step so they could match back to the synced timeline the AE "Auto Synced" the sequence while in the 59.94I project. This made a subclip that could be matched to what was really the synced sequence. This allowed the editors the ability to match back to both the video and 2nd sysstem synced audio. That was great for editing but I think the "Auto Sync" created metadata confusion with the subclip/auto synced clip and Avid is confused as to whether the sources time code and durations are 24 frame or 30 frame based. Given the auto synced subclip is listed in the bin as DNX 220 and not DNX 175 that the actual video source is seems to suggest some time code/duration frame rate confusion. Glad just cutting into a new sequence made things rethink themselves but I really don't know exactly why that seems to resolve the issue, my gut says that's the fix live with it but my head keeps feeling like I should really know what's going on here.
---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <pale.edit@...> wrote :
Plural Eyes can easily make new media files with the "good" audio embedded in the Quicktime. You AMA those and consolidate/transcode to whatever resolutions you need. No need for stupid subclips and sync timelines. No jumping through hoops to match frame.
I think you need to get the AE who seems to have all the brilliant tricks to come in and make sense of this.
Sorry I don't have anything more helpful. I can't make sense of the workflow that was taken.
On Friday, October 24, 2014, 'John Moore' bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Got a sequence 59.94 where some 23.98 clips were synced to 2nd system audio with pluralize. I'm told one of the AEs had a trick so the editors could match back to the synced clip not the separate elements. Matching back video from the sequence matches to a sub clip which is listed as DNX 220 and the subclip is actually the stacked synced sequence that was imported from the pluralized aaf. If I match from the source side I get the video master clip that is 23.98. There appears to be major sync issues in the uprezzed online sequence. These clips are actually full resolution in the offline sequence and are in sync there. Somehow the uprez chaned these clips and they are also running at the wrong speed. They have 80 percent motion adapters but if I promote the motion adapter and set it to 100 percent they seem to run at the correct speed. The audio is also exhibiting sync issues and cut points are different when I cut the offline seq into the online seq.
>
> How can the sub clip actually be a sequence that was a pluralize aaf import? This was discribed as a trick the AE did but we can't get ahold of him. Also how can the sub clip show DNX 220 when the video clip is DNX 175? There seems to be some under the hood confusion about what's 23.98 and what's 29.97. Anybody got a clue what this cluster flop is that I've inherited?
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
>
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (10) |
No comments:
Post a Comment