FCPX and skeuomorphism

[Jeremy Garchow]

We talked a little about it at the end of this thread:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/41500

Jeremy

[Oliver Peters]

[John Heagy] ” My number one request for FCPX is a very modest one: Read the embedded “Reel/Tape” ID in movies. I fear that despite how utterly simple/obvious this would be to implement, Apple has some anti-legacy doctrine that will prevent them from doing this based on the fact that reel/tape has it’s roots in tape.”

I don’t think there’s any conspiracy here. Merely unfinished software. You can currently enter manual reel numbers. My guess is that this has something to do with camera SDKs and how it’s implemented between Apple and camera manufacturers. That’s a “work in progress” at this point.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[John Heagy]

[Oliver Peters] “I don’t think there’s any conspiracy here. Merely unfinished software.”

I certainly hope you’re right. I have high hopes reading embedded “reel/tape” ID in .mov files will be in the next version. I spoke directly to Apple multiple times on this request and, given it’s utter ease of implementation, seeing it missing in the next version would really dash my hopes that Apple is still interested in the Pro customer.

John

[Bill Davis]

Time moves on. I once cared about Reel and Tape IDs – but now I don’t.

I know others still do – but I just don’t.

I know there are people who MUST still work with them – even if they don’t physically use reels. And I certainly can understand how it’s a comfortable convention for many. But the truth is that in file based workflows – it’s an arbitrary construct that I think will continue to have diminishing importance.

I first started getting an inkling of this when I first started adopting X – well before I developed my present “finder level” numbering system for my disk images. I had created probably 40 “reels” (cards actually) that ALL had exactly the SAME finder level name. Know what? That didn’t bother FCP-X a bit. It didn’t USE those finder level names for ID so it didn’t care that I had cards with the same names. It was using deeper metadata to keep things organized.

It’s increasingly a world of varied digital storage devices and cards, and pre-numbered downloaded stock video clips, or iPhone files etc, etc, etc. The vast majority of which simply don’t necessarily have “reel names” associated with them.

So I don’t want to build a workflow based on them – but rather one where Reel IDs are just something that you can append when or IF needed.

I get that people who are accustomed to having them, miss them.

But as you learn X, ask yourself what they’re ACTUALLY doing for you. If you’re working in a shop that requires them, by all means. But if you just use them personally because you always have – consider whether or not thinking in “reels” is actually important for you anymore as you come to learn how X accesses and links footage data. And how the program might let you NOT bucket things in virtual reels.

After all, a card is NOT a reel. A video stream from a stock video clip might not even HAVE a “reel” ID attached – but it STILL might live in my project and need to be managed. So the card (reel) is just one kind of a bit bucket. If you want to base your workflow on on that ONE form – fine. But in the new world, I think more in terms of creating and managing cloned buckets of the DATA that reel originally contained. With that attitude, I see it as a virtual data arrangement that I can label and store and move and re-name and ALL the foundational metadata about date, time, image IDs, etc, etc, etc, remains attached.. So the Reel Name is just a reflection of how I USED to store things. I couldn’t clone a physical reel. I CAN clone a disk image. It’s a different beast. So I want an ID system that reflects that new reality.

Your mileage WILL vary – this is just me.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “Time moves on. I once cared about Reel and Tape IDs – but now I don’t.”

I think you’re overlooking the point a bit. Reel IDs and/or Source IDs (even when we are talking about SxS cards) are the same thing. They are essential if you need to work outside of FCP X in a lot of other applications. The insult on top of things is that FCP X doesn’t even read the embedded info within QuickTime media files – Apple’s own format. Reel/Source ID info is part of the metadata used by most professional cameras.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Michael Gissing]

Bill, although reel numbering seems redundant in your workflow, drama with double system sound requires audio files to be autoconformed to guide audio. This is true when multi channel audio devices record polywav files but send a rough mix to camera or that rough mix is a stereo file used to sync rushes.

In this common scenario an EDL is required to conform the broadcast polywav files in DAW. An EDL requires both timecode and reel numbers. So foundation formats like EDLs are still a solid part of sophisticated long form drama workflows.

Any NLE that is to be used in this workflow must have reel numbering and timecode base that can be used to create an EDL. So for many of us in the data wrangling world still see value in reel numbering both for organisation and critical autoconform. If Apple make a choice to leave out foundation formats that many of us rely on, without a viable alternative, then complaint is to be expected. Frankly EDL and source code/reel info is trivial. If it stays out of FCPX then that signals priorities to many of us that continue to erode trust in FCPX being a part of our workflows.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Bill Davis] “But the truth is that in file based workflows – it’s an arbitrary construct that I think will continue to have diminishing importance.”

Bill, I know that you posit yourself the Ray Kurzweil of the debate forum sometimes, but what in the actual f*ck are you talking about? And I say that with all due respect.

It’s not an arbitrary construct. As file based organization keeps growing and growing, reels, in my mind, will be absolutely important, even if the definition of what a “reel” is needs to change. Sometimes, that reel number can point to one very specific file on a server of thousands (millions?) of video files, regardless of location, file name, whatever. A reel does not have to be a folder, and probably shouldn’t be.

When you have something like P2 which records op-atom MXF files (video and audio separately) a reel number is extremely important in keeping those files together in the case of mistake or disaster.

Since ‘Reel’, at this point, is a universally understood metadata field, we should put it to good use. It is a thankfully generic term that can be transferred very easily between differing systems.

[John Heagy]

[Bill Davis] “ask yourself what they’re ACTUALLY doing for you”

It can be boiled down to UUID vs Reel. UUID is what a computer needs “Reel” is what people need.

To answer what it does for us specifically. Reel, along with TC, identify content while UUID identify files. How is this different. If I have a 1hr interview and I select a sound bite and save it off preserving reel and TC. A UUID based system see these two as completely different as they will have different UUIDs, that’s the universal part of UUID. If I look at reel and TC I can easily determine that the1hr interview contains the select and they have content in common. This enables advanced workflows like linking to small files that used to be a large file. This is necessary when doing partial file restore. It can also link disparate media, as mentioned before, like linking video and audio from different recordings.

[Bill Davis] “After all, a card is NOT a reel.”

And a file is not a piece of celluloid hanging in a bin but everyone still calls them “clips” including Apple.

John

[Walter Soyka]

[Jeremy Garchow] “It’s not an arbitrary construct. As file based organization keeps growing and growing, reels, in my mind, will be absolutely important, even if the definition of what a “reel” is needs to change.”

I think I get Bill’s point, and I do think it’s largely that the definition/terminology of “reel” should change.

A reel ID, taken in conjunction with timecode, uniquely identify individual frames, helps you conform EDLs across systems, and helps you match back to the original source media.

We still need to uniquely identify frames from pools of files, and we still need to conform, but the tape metaphor is no longer relevant for many, and now there’s no physical piece of media to catalog. A single field for reel may also be needlessly restrictive. (Look at your kick-ass P2 metadata system — how much information do you cram into the one reel field?)

Basically, we used to think in units of reels, and now with file-based recording, we can think in units of shots. Whether there’s a practical distinction between shot ID and reel ID is debatable, as long as there’s some kind of portable unique identifier.

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

[John Heagy]

[Jeremy Garchow] “When you have something like P2 which records op-atom MXF files (video and audio separately) a reel number is extremely important in keeping those files together in the case of mistake or disaster.”

You should join me in asking Panasonic to include “reel” as part of the MXF metadata then. 😉

It’s a shocking omission IMHO.

John