Keep the camera originals or not – what say you?

[Craig Seeman]

I always keep the camera originals. I use KeyFlow Pro to keep track of my archives. One concern is one never knows what permutations NLE development will go through (EOL for some and new ones arising from the ashes). I just feel safer in that I might be able to pull something up 10 years from now with the camera originals.

For example, I think it’s more likely Sony will have some form of Catalyst permutation that will read their old formats than NLE developers handling legacy formats (especially as they leave or enter the market).

[Tangier Clarke]

Thanks Craig. That is something I was thinking about – the notion of .mov files being supported down the road and/or this FS7 mxf format and folder structure being supported. In general I would agree that one should always keep the camera originals. By the time I start editing, I’ve rewrapped, custom named, and sometimes restripesd the timecode of my video clips based on the LTC audio from lockit boxes. Our editorial and archiving will reference these files. The process to get the clips into this position would never be retained with the original clips and one would have to redo this process to get there. Essentially it boils down to just sucking it up and having the originals backed up, the originals rewrapped and processed for editing backed up. It’d basically be having to accommodate double the storage needs for the same content.

[Tangier Clarke]

I guess this begs another question: Is the camera original any more future proof than the rewrapped version of the same file? Granted we’re not talking transcoded files either.

[Craig Seeman]

[Tangier Clarke] “Is the camera original any more future proof than the rewrapped version of the same file?”

I’d say yes. Keep in mind that it’s not only codec or container compatibility but how well supported is the specific codec container combination. While the codec and container may be widely supported the combination might not be supported if a specific NLE developer was using the combination for their NLE. If other NLEs aren’t supporting the combination you’d really want the ability to rewrap the camera original for the new NLE you’re using at the unknown future date.

[Joe Marler]

[Tangier Clarke] “Essentially I have duplicates of now of the same content. The original structure on a hard drive and the rewrapped….is there an incentive to keep the originals or is it safe to use the rewrapped files as the new masters and back up those?”

Tangier, as always a good question. The problem is the original camera files cannot be relinked to your library because you imported from rewrapped files. The filenames differ. In some cases you can change the suffix and it will relink but that is tricky. If any other part of the filename is changed it won’t relink.

Obviously you can frame match each clip in the project by eye or maybe timecode offset into the clip but that is very tedious.

If the files were wrapped before import with something like EditReady, the mov files are probably OK long term. There is a small possibility some future change in how metadata is handled might require re-import from the camera files.

I think there’s probably a greater chance of a future request for some slight change in the project, then you need to reload it (plus media) and make that change. In that case having the camera files wouldn’t help since you can’t relink to those.

If the material isn’t that big you could keep both. However for archival storage you need at least two separate copies. Any single disk or tape can fail at any time. So the feasibility/risk calculation should include this 2x penalty, which would be 4x for both camera and re-wrapped files.

I would personally rewrap those using EditReady, rename the files according to our system, import then discard the camera files. If the material was of extreme value I might also keep the camera files.

[Craig Seeman]

[Joe Marler] “I think there’s probably a greater chance of a future request for some slight change in the project,”

I’ve had a few clients that were creating entirely new projects and wanted shots that may not have been used in the original. Sometimes they’re looking for things left “on the cutting room floor” as it were. It only happens occasionally but it was far easier for me to import from the camera masters into FCPX than to try to resurrect and FCP legacy project. The new project wasn’t dependent on the legacy one.

[Bret Williams]

I Rarely rewrap. Just drag the fs7 card structure directly to an event. Edit directly with the mxf originals.

_______________________________________________________________________
https://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag https://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text https://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner https://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker https://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/

[Tangier Clarke]

Joe, I almost exclusively use EditReady to pre-process all of my media to rewrap it to .mov files and also to create unique nomenclature for the files; at least for AVCHD content coming from a C100. Also, it’s been my routine for many years to archive to to cloned SATA drives and then use NeoFInder to catalogue them. I agree, one will fail at some point.

In the case of the FS7 clips, FCP X actually retains more of the correct metadata importing it directly, rather than through EditReady. They’re close, but FCP X is still a little better. Essentially FCP X is rewrapping it too. I am not having it transcode on import being that FCP X supports MXF anyway. I just pull the clips out of the library package, and can use the Finder to rename them and bring them back in. I really wish FCP X would bring back the FCP 7 feature to rename finder clips based on the names in the NLE since FCP X can do custom naming like EditReady; albeit it’s bound exclusively to the FCP X database.

If there ever was a need to resurrect a project it for sure would be using the rewrapped media, not with the camera original. I am trying to avoid the 2x or 4x penalty too.

I hear what you’re saying though. There really is no perfect answer. It depends on the importance of the content among other things.

[Tangier Clarke]

Craig I would only see this as a real issue if when importing or pre-processing clips one picks and chooses the clips to import. I never do that. I always pre-process and or import all of the clips of every shoot. I don’t trust myself nor my associates to keep track of what we did and didn’t import. This way, when we rewrap or transcode clips depending on your process, we know we have it all. If a client want’s something that was left, we’d still have it. It’d simply be in mov form and not camera card original form.

[Tangier Clarke]

Bret how are you doing this? From the import window when I have an FS7 card ready to bring in, the option to leave in place is not an option; even with the cards are effectively folders on a hard drive where one would think FCP X would allow it. I am forced to copy to library. I’ll be honest that I found this a little strange. If I was importing from the cards then I could understand FCP X behaving this way, but from folders on a drive, FCP X still treated the media like removable cards for me.

FCP X 10.4.5