Keyflow Pro or Not…

[Petros Kolyvas]

Too bad there’s no demo…

One thing that I couldn’t quite figure out is if it could import Final Cut’s own Libraries; lots of talk of exporting timelines, but what about shops that already have libraries with extensive keywording that want to import/export those assets and keywords to a shared asset library?

Maybe I’m just being myopic… product looks interesting regardless.

—
There is no intuitive interface, not even the nipple. It’s all learned. – Bruce Ediger

[John Davidson]

It’s good but not quite right yet.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.

[Robin S. kurz]

[Petros Kolyvas] “One thing that I couldn’t quite figure out is if it could import Final Cut’s own Libraries”

As with any and every other MAM I know of, that is done via XML, yes. Only in this case via FCPXML, which very few do and is obviously a huge advantage.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Neil Sadwelkar]

Actually, since FCP X supports the import of a large variety of camera files – including ArriRaw using Glue-Tools, Red with the Red workflow installer, and of course most small camera files, why not just use FCP X as a MAM.
Meaning, on a separate workstation with a large drive connected, one imports files, keywords them sorts them in events and stores them in a separate library. No files are copied to the library, but proxies are made for all. If one wants to save space, the one can make the proxies as SD files.

That way, the FCP X Library or Libraries *are* the MAM and can be transported around in drives. Anytime you need to search files you can search them by keyword. And the bonus is that FCP X is an editing system so one can even edit a few together, or import a project and audition files from this ‘stock’ library. Or even composite them if needed, or colour correct them, something no other MAM can do.

Just thinking aloud after seeing the KeyFlow Pro demo.

———————————–
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India

[Robin S. kurz]

I think you’re overlooking a huge portion of the feature set of KFP (or any other MAM for that matter). There are a lot of features of KFP that you couldn’t possibly cover with FCP X by itself as described.

[Neil Sadwelkar] “and can be transported around in drives.”

That being one of the many and biggest aspects i.e. advantages to using a real MAM. Not having to do that.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Craig Seeman]

It doesn’t support Camera Archives. While it’ll see the archive in won’t see the contents.

Given that, for me, Camera Archives are Camera Masters, that’s a serious problem.

It’s not clear at all if it’ll handle camera formats in which folder structure must be maintained in order for the metadata to be read properly. One example might be XDCAM EX recorded on Fat32 formatted SxS cards. Which, for me, the integrity is maintained through the use of Camera Archives.

[Robin S. kurz]

[Craig Seeman] “It doesn’t support Camera Archives.”

Yes, we’ve talked about that elsewhere. For em it’s definitely something that should to be addressed, too. Even (or especially?) if that means that they the only MAM that offers that.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Craig Seeman]

Otherwise I’d have to abandon using Camera Archives and pull apart all the “packages” I have.

There’s something incongruous to me about Apple implementing a feature that’s fundamentally not supported in MAM software (I don’t think this is specific to KeyFlow Pro). It’s almost as if the User Guide should carry a warning about Camera Archives and MAM. One can dig oneself into a very deep hole with it.

[Robin S. kurz]

Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s in any way Apple’s responsibility to work their development around the abilities of others. Good thing they don’t, too. That’s like getting mad at RED for using their own codec that no one understands out of the box either.

In fact I don’t see why MAMs shouldn’t be able to access/read FCP archives, since to anyone other than FCP X archives are JUST FOLDERS. Try moving one to any Mac or PC without FCP installed and see what you get. The MAMs simply need to figure out the basic (non-proprietary) structure. It’s no brain surgery or big secret. Nor did Apple come up with the whole thing to begin with.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Craig Seeman]

[Robin S. Kurz] “Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s in any way Apple’s responsibility to work their development around the abilities of others.”

While some features (most features) can be entirely internal, outside of FCPXML use, I think an archival feature should be accessible to other software.

I’m not sure it’s Apple’s responsibility but if you have “two sides’ each ignorant of the other, it is not good for the end user. Saying it’s no one’s responsibility doesn’t solve the problem.

So it’s my fault that I have four years of Camera Archives because Camera Archives seemed like a sensible way to back up Camera Master files ensuring their integrity?

I’ll add that even FCPX can’t read any of my BMPCC camera archive masters predating about May 2014. At some point FCPX stopped reading them, possibly through a change in FCPX. That was partially fixed in a recent FCPX update as I can now read my current BMPCC archives going back to May 2014.

Given these archives are simply ProRes files with FCPX’s added .plist, it would seem Apple changed something. BTW this has only impacted archives from BMPCC (possibly other BMD cameras?) but not my other camera archives.

If Apple can change something that impacts the ability to read its own archives that can certainly pose a probably for any MAM attempting compatibility.

[Robin S. Kurz] “In fact I don’t see why MAMs shouldn’t be able to access/read FCP archives,”

I’d agree but given the issues I had with BMPCC I don’t doubt there could be some potential pitfalls attempted compatibility. Perhaps this is why MAMs don’t attempt this. Perhaps FPCX Camera Archives is a proprietary can of worms.

So is this Apple’s fault? Is it the fault of MAMs for choosing not to go there. Is it my fault for Foolishly believe FCPX Camera Archives were an intended feature that would be useful?

Regardless of blame I have years of Camera Archives and if it means I have do “undo” or avoid and FCPX feature for outside world compatibility there’s a very serious problem with this picture.

Personally if the “recommendation” is to avoid using FCPX Camera Archives then I’d have to say that Apple “walked me into a problem.” If it’s a hinderance to MAM compatibility then perhaps the feature should be pulled or, there should be a recommendation against using it.