-
P2 Cross Application Workflows
Hi all,
I’m currently evaluating P2 HD acquisition as a potential replacement for all of our existing Standard Definition infrastructure (largely SP Betacam with some DVCPro, DVCam and DV).
With some 80 productions going to a broadcast finish in a period of some 16 weeks, efficient workflow is essential.
I’m interested in feedback from anyone who is using P2 on this scale with an “off-line” to “on-line” workflow – particularly if going from one NLE to another (FCP, Avid, Premiere, etc.).
Our limited experience to date is that the lack of “source” identifier (REEL, TAPE or similar number) in the MXF metadata means that conforming at HD from an SD “proxy” edit is problematic unless the media remains on the one closed system – ie: cannot edit on one NLE system at standard definition (say a lap top) and easily reconform to High Definition at a facilities house.
I suspect this is going to be more of an issue for all of us as we move to a “tapeless” data-centric world (P2, RedRaw, Infinity, etc.) .
Any feedback would be most welcome.
Regards
David Price
Senior Lecturer, Visual Effects / Post Production Co-ordinator
VCA School of Film and Television, Melbourne
Australia
PH: 61 3 9685 9001
Fax: 61 3 9685 9001 -
2 Replies
-
Hey David, can you make it out to SMPTE in Sydney in July? Should be lots of booths to present and show you how it all works.
There are plenty of identifiers in the MXF metadata. First is a “global clip ID” which is absolutely unique; second is the individual clip name and perhaps most useful is the User Clip Name, which can be set to whatever you want it to be, and which many editing applications use (EDIUS and Avid and Quantel, at least). Then there’s individual metadata for the program name, scene number, and individual take number.
Not every program takes advantage of all the metadata; EDIUS does, most don’t yet. You can use P2 Viewer or HD Log or P2 Log to set and track the metadata for every shot. And the User Clip Name will automatically increment each take for you, too.
—————–
Get the most from your DVX camera. The DVX Book and DVX DVD are now available on ebay and at Amazon (https://www.fiftv.com/db) -
Hi Barry,
yes – I am going to SMPTE in Sydney in July for an update on where everybody is at.
You wrote:
“There are plenty of identifiers in the MXF metadata. First is a “global clip ID” which is absolutely unique; second is the individual clip name and perhaps most useful is the User Clip Name, which can be set to whatever you want it to be, and which many editing applications use (EDIUS and Avid and Quantel, at least). Then there’s individual metadata for the program name, scene number, and individual take number.
Not every program takes advantage of all the metadata; EDIUS does, most don’t yet. You can use P2 Viewer or HD Log or P2 Log to set and track the metadata for every shot. And the User Clip Name will automatically increment each take for you, too.”
I’m well aware of the above – what I have been banging on about since my first trial by fire with P2 last year is the following:
In post since the inception of CMX50 (I’m showing my age here but I actually cut on Australia’s first CMX50 system in the 1980’s) REEL or TAPE numbers (ie: part of the “source” data) have been one of the main cross reference points for conforming between platforms (say from a CMX340 offline to a Sony 9100 on-line).
To allow transportability / relinking across systems (no matter which “brand” of NLE) I believe we need a “source” identifier in the metadata of any of the tape-less media systems.
This is not a point of say Avid versus Final Cut Pro or Edius but rather that Panasonic (in the case of P2) have not provided this particular “identifier” that we have used to move between NLE’s (eg: translating projects via Automatic Duck to go from one NLE to another).
Should the makers of file based acquisition (whether it be P2 , Red, Infinity, etc.) include this additional field (which we have all used since the inception of EDLs) then the NLE manufacturers would have a source identifier which would make reconnecting / reconforming to the media a somewhat easier process.
One can always find work-arounds but these solutions are often found by working on closed systems (ie: in house on only the one application) or by becoming time intensive (read expensive) manual matchbacks.
In considering our options it almost suggests one should remain with film & tape based acquisition!
Regards,
David Price
Senior Lecturer, Visual Effects / Post Production Co-ordinator
VCA School of Film and Television, Melbourne
Australia
PH: 61 3 9685 9001
Fax: 61 3 9685 9001https://www.vca.unimelb.edu.au/ftv/
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up