Don’t want to bring clips in as spanned clips

[Jeremy Garchow]

You would have to break the metadata relationship that’s written in the files.

Otherwise, simply mark a range in the clips and import the separate ranges as separate clips if it is necessary.

[Michael Garber]

Any idea how to break them metadata? I have everything backed up, so not worried about damaging everything.

Good call on marked ranges. But there’s just so many clips. Would take forever to do that (but maybe not as long as researching how to do it another way ! 😉 )

Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Michael Garber] “Any idea how to break them metadata?”

I have an idea, but it would be a very trivial operation.

There’s a setting on the camera that will prevent this from happening next time. Did you shoot the material?

Jeremy

[Michael Garber]

No, but I’m aware that this is what happened. Now I know to mention it to anyone operating the camera next time.

It seems that all the spanned clips are spanning over separate reels, which is good. If I open up and import 1 reel at a time (and then close fcpx and reopen it so it forgets that it saw Reel 1 previously) then it seems to bring them all in separately. I can deal with the interviews not spanning since there aren’t too many.

Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Michael Garber] “It seems that all the spanned clips are spanning over separate reels, which is good. If I open up and import 1 reel at a time (and then close fcpx and reopen it so it forgets that it saw Reel 1 previously) then it seems to bring them all in separately. I can deal with the interviews not spanning since there aren’t too many.”

If only one reel is presented at a time, yes, that makes sense as FCPX doesn’t have the other footage available to span together.

In order to break the span, you’d have to delete the span info out of each of the P2 XMLs, but keep the spn info for the interview shots.

It’s possible, but I’m not sure it is worth it.

Jeremy

[Michael Garber]

Agreed that it’s not worth it for this particular situation.

Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP

[Bill Davis]

If by “backed up” you mean you kept formal sparse bundle or disk image copies of the intact origination cards, there are a couple of strategies you can use in X that will make your life a whole lot easier.

The key is that upon launch, X will “see” launched cards as the original disks and re-link footage to them.

So there’s actually no need to “bring in” any footage at all. Just open the card images – import them all into a project Event.

Then I’d start by using what I think of as the first order reductive filter in X – the Reject (red X) dashboard tag.
Just skim through your stuff and range select and apply REJECT to those ranges. You can wack out massive amounts of dead air, blown takes, and misc dreck in a hurry. If you set the EB display to “hide rejected” then what you’re doing is visually sub-clipping your overall long takes into usable clips. (remember it’s all metadata, so nothing is lost, just hidden!)

To address your need to concatenate long takes that span more than one card, just open a temp timeline and marry your multiple clips – then express that as a Compound back to the EB – then REJECT the original component clips – Voilá – what remains in the EB is a single full clip.

Once you have that done, you can go into the remaining clips (lots more since rejecting ranges virtually breaks apart clips in this view) and start applying your keyword strategy. (you DID develop a keyword strategy in advance right? If not, it’s really useful to do that before you start applying random tags.)

With big projects that’s my overall strategy. Reduce the focus first. Then separate the remainder into groups.

FWIW

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Michael Garber]

Hey Bill – As always, thank you for your input. Your recommendation on putting the interviews together in a compound is already something I was considering.

I’m well versed in X, now. So, at this stage of the game, asking me if I have keyword strategies sounds a bit like talking down. I know that’s your style when you write and not your intent (and we met in LA, so I know you’re a good guy!). But sometimes it just comes off like talking down.

I have a solid workflow for building news stories, now (which is what I’m working on). Happy to share that with you if you think it might help your own workflow.

Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP

[Bill Davis]

[Michael Garber] “But sometimes it just comes off like talking down.”

I know – , it drives me nuts that I comes across that way sometimes but I’ve built a bit of armor about it – becasue I truly believe that while the way I write here sometimes drives upper tier pros a bit nuts, it’s truly useful for those who lurk in the background who don’t always have the same level of expertise as others. I think the general tone comes from my years writing for general readership magazines where I couldn’t ever presume the knowledge level of the reader. I do know that there are large numbers of general purpose editors who drop by this forum without a whole lot of expertise in X, and I’m usually trying to be simple and clear for them. I know that sometimes comes across as “talking down.” Sorry it hit you that way. Not my intent at all. I suppose I’d rather be the “simple explanations of complex things” guy – rather than another voice that presumes that every reader is a fully qualified working pro. We certainly have plenty of those type of useful voices here already!

Again, sorry if I seemed to be “talking down” – that’s never my intent – just to be someone who tries to makes the complex stuff a bit simpler to grasp for the segment of the audience that prefers that.

[Michael Garber] ” have a solid workflow for building news stories, now (which is what I’m working on). Happy to share that with you if you think it might help your own workflow.”

And I’d absolutely love to hear about your workflow discoveries – share away!

And if you’re at NAB, I’ll buy you a drink to apologize if we can find a spare minute.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Michael Garber]

Thanks for clarifying that, Bill. I think it’s always best to speak to the top of your intelligence and to that of others.

When I post on the Cow, I specifically want to speak in editor/techie lingo. I’m here to get answers from people who are working at my level. I want to talk to others in a way which I know the top techies will understand me. At the same time, that’s also how I wish to be understood.

The thing is, I don’t think you need to protect anyone when you write on these forums. While it’s a forum that anyone can access, it’s also not an intro guide. I think that it challenges people to learn more when they read threads that speak, as I just wrote, to the top of their intelligence.

The other thing is that you should be responding to the OP, not to the world. I think this is where you pick up a lot of grief from others. My reaction to your response was, in a way, the same as what you are trying to avoid. My feeling was that, ugh, someone reading this thinks that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I’m being told very basic stuff.

All this aside, I’ll post my workflow in a bit… It’s pretty straightforward.

Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP