-
FCP X vs MC pricing
-
[Bill Davis] “But there’s a case to be made that in the modern metadata world, Traditional timecode is a less critical and, more important, DIMINISHINGLY USEFUL – tool.”
If I can get folks like myself, Oliver, and Mark to pinky-swear that we’ll stop using old-fashioned timecode and only ever use “unique sequential frame temporal identification metadata streams” instead, could we agree that there’s a place for it in FCPX’s modern database?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
No no…it’s a good thing! Even I spew out incorrect information, or don’t know what I’m talking about.
It’s all good.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
“Every time X (or PluralEyes for that matter) syncs stuff via audio waveform – timecode is a step closer to being marginalized. Same result, no need to overtly deal with matching TC streams via numbers.”
Except when a camera has no audio. Heck on many high-end shoots multiple cameras don’t have matching TC either. Then those “antiquated tools” like a slate/clapstick come in VERY handy. So I don’t see any mariginalization at all. Heck, as cameras go from prosumer to professional, the manufacturers ADD timecode functions.
“In the modern digital world there are lots of circumstances where timecode is increasingly inadequate for many tasks we do regularly – sub-sample synced audio editing being a notable example. (mixing multiKhz samples into a very gross 30 frame limited system is a kind of a huge pain, no?)”
While that is true, the irony is that Avid’s old Media Composer can resync audio at 1/4 frame resolution thanks to technology built for FILM. 😉
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “could we agree that there’s a place for it in FCPX’s modern database?
“Sure Walter.
Better that that, it’s already there!
In the Event Browser, just put your viewer in database rather than clip mode and you get timecode all over the place. It’s just a subset of the clip ID data and part of the metadata that flows through the program, just NOT one that X uses for much internally. Deep under the UI, X is tracking assets by larger hex IDs. These are vastly more useful than simple TC and I suspect they are the core of X’s search system, being MUCH more useful than “dumb” 8 digit timecode markers. (remember, even in traditional systems, TC alone is inadequate and needed slap-on user bits to do much real work.)
So whatever you call it – relying on traditional SMPTE TC in X was simply not robust enough to do much beyond the simple user comfort displays – BECAUSE it’s not nearly deep or flexible enough to do the work that the X DB actually needs done.
How I see it anyway.
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.
-
“In the Event Browser, just put your viewer in database rather than clip mode and you get timecode all over the place. It’s just a subset of the clip ID data and part of the metadata that flows through the program, just NOT one that X uses for much internally. Deep under the UI, X is tracking assets by larger hex IDs. These are vastly more useful than simple TC and I suspect they are the core of X’s search system, being MUCH more useful than “dumb” 8 digit timecode markers. (remember, even in traditional systems, TC alone is inadequate and needed slap-on user bits to do much real work.)”
Whether or not you believe it, EVERY NLE does this exact same thing and has been doing it since the 1980s when Avid and EMC (and CMX even before that) invented it. Timecode is something that helps the USER. NLEs don’t need it and have never needed it because TC itself doesn’t exist per se. It is interpolated from the TC stamp in the header of the first captured frame. It does fascilitate human tracking and interchange between applications.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Heck, as cameras go from prosumer to professional, the manufacturers ADD timecode functions.”
Absolutely, but don’t forget time sync was NOT always so easy. Until a few decades ago, video systems didn’t have much in the way of reliable crystal controlled timekeeping. So timecode was MUCH more critical back then. But today? Rolling even a crappy consumer digital audio “stick recorder” is time stable enough so that if you can get the sample rate right, you get virtually NO drift over even hours of recording. So one of the biggest reasons that they created timecode – (allowing machines to track playback drift and adjust accordingly) is not nearly as necessary today as it was yesterday.
Really, I acknowledge freely that timecode is still an extremely useful concept. And i wouldn’t want to try to work without it. But it’s also true that many of the tasks it HAD to do in the past, it simply no longer has to do.
Which is a pretty big change.
Like I mentioned earlier, when was the last time anyone here felt they needed “house black” or a genlock system for their home editing? Anyone?
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.
-
[Bill Davis] “But there’s a case to be made that in the modern metadata world, Traditional timecode is a less critical and, more important, DIMINISHINGLY USEFUL – tool.
“No argument here… I’d just argue HOW diminishing. Depending on the size scale and scope of your project, I’d argue that TC can either be a minor issue or a dead in the water deal breaker.
Bill, In your rush to move forward into your brave new database/keyword world, you’re dismissing an effective time honored (pun intended) tool that serves a useful purpose for multiple workflows, genres, and editorial styles. If Apple was in agreement with you, they probably would have eliminated TC reading from the program. They didn’t.
I’m well past the realization that FCP-X was NOT optimized for me and the kinds of workflows that I rely upon. No hard feelings. It’s business. Just please stop preaching that we just don’t “Get it”. I DO GET IT! It’s NOT for me and my specific needs. That doesn’t belittle you or anyone else. It just means that it’s NOT right for a certain kind of workflow that I require.
Now let’s get back to arguing about total cost of ownership, shall we?
-
[Mark Raudonis] “Bill,
Are you F***KNG kidding me???”A sentiment that neatly sums up about a quarter of my posts on this forum since it’s inception.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Bill Davis] “So one of the biggest reasons that they created timecode – (allowing machines to track playback drift and adjust accordingly) is not nearly as necessary today as it was yesterday.
“While SMPTE TC was/is used extensively for external synchronization, that really wasn’t one of the “biggest reasons” for its creation.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Though not identical, AvidFX is a companion compositor, just like Motion. FWIW – AvidFX also adds a healthy set of BCC and FEC filters, but there are very nice filters in X and Motion. So I consider that more or less equal.
“I like AvidFX enough that I bought Red to go with Premiere.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up