- December 4, 2020 at 1:14 am
I like to read, my grades reflect this… I get A’s and B’s. but I dont have time reading every document on that page..
which one has “Read Audio Timecode”
and which one has the manual for the latest version of media composer?
- December 4, 2020 at 9:06 am
I think that Film/Sound TC are only avaible in Film type projects (an option when you create a new project).
- December 4, 2020 at 11:20 am
Glad you got it working Christian. I know Avid can feel like it’s complicated when starting it out, but I think the reason for that is it wants to offer you control and precision. Like an F1 car. If most people tried to drive one, they’d probably be slower than they are in a regular car at first. The method of assigning the LTC to an AUX TC track, rather than the main TC track, makes perfect sense in the context of a post workflow, where you never want to strip any metadata away.
- December 4, 2020 at 12:31 pm
That makes sense to me.
- December 4, 2020 at 12:54 pm
Actually, its just comes down to preference and advertising… If I was to develop a crappy video editing software but I was popular enough to advertise it to millions of people… and regardless of the actual control or precision that program would be “popular.” and those who are purchasing software will assume its the industry standard because so many people use it… that dont make it better, that just makes it “industry standard.” If I can do the same thing in another program in less than 3 steps but it take me 4 steps to do it in MC which one is more efficient? time is money right? all F1 cars dont even make it to the finish line because their engine blow up or their gear box breaks… it dont make them better than a Honda it makes them more expensive because they have convinced the public that they are high performance and that is a matter of public opinion, and they have won a lot of races in the past. Meaning, If I can use brandx to get the job done… but brandY does the exact same thing… the brand with the most users will be deemed better than the other. I disagree. Being more complicated just to be complicated dont seem like a good trait. I have literally tested the theory of how efficient I am with FCP compared to MC. I could literally finish any project within ONE day compared to finishing projects in MC which could take me day(s) or a week… simply because of how complex MC is set up. Its not for ordinary users. What I really discovered is that MC does everything that FCP does… but MC just does not have convenient tools set to default. MC may keep track of metadata better… thats important…. Meaning, I see the pros and cons of both applications. It comes down to the use and need. My professor who is obligated to use MC dont even use MC for clients. They use Premiere or FCP or something else… that says a lot about MC. If you want to do a large film with a budget… use MC. great, it has great pro level features others may lack…. but if you want the project actually finished anytime soon, You can use FCP. Thats my experience, not opinion. Yes, the more your familiar with anything you will naturally become more efficient… but doing the math… if it takes you 3 extra steps to do the same thing in another program, Which is more productive and saves you valuable time and money? I have to do at least 10 steps to make a proxy in MC. Whereas other programs its like 2 clicks and your done…. why? In order to move or slide over a clip from one place to another… why does it take so much when other programs are more user friendly? In FCP everything you want to do is in the menu… but I guess that was too easy for MC. so yes… you will love what you are use to. Im used to getting the job done and the project finished vs. here is my shiny new super car but your driving on the 405 freeway during rush hour traffic… what does that do you? I see the benefit of using MC. but I cant say its “better” than a less popular software simply because a major film company uses it… also… I have the full version of MC. I get at least ONE crash per day. I hardly get a crash with FCPX. When FCPX does crash… something remarkable happens that MC does NOT do… when I open FCPX back up… all my edits are still there… maybe not the last step that it crashed on… but when I open up MC… I have surely lost at least 5 steps back…. so in that comparison… which one is more efficient for me? I only started using AVID products because im in college. I like Pro tools but I dont use it… I use Logic Prox. I like MC but I have to learn it if I want to work with “professionals.” I like how FCP handles multi-cam way better than MC. So it comes down to experience and preference. Everyone will feel that there favorite is the best.
- December 5, 2020 at 1:48 pm
Historically speaking on the Film TC/Sound TC syncing. It was the only method by which AutoSync could sync from two different metadata columns. This was to support a very specific workflow back in the film production/transfer days for productions using Arri or Aaton systems to record timecode on film when shooting. The film camera and audio devices would sync to a master clock, and when the camera started rolling, it would expose an encoded timecode at the film’s edge. Something that looked like an elongated QR code.
During telecine, the Aaton or Arri readers would decode the timecode and drive the audio syncing process during the transfer. The metadata was mapped to the Film TC columns (since it was the timecode on the film) and Sound TC. Capturing from analog or DAT devices at the time, the timecode from the audio would be placed in the SoundTC column.
The goal was to minimize the amount of column manipulation and allow AutoSync to sync across two different columns: Film TC on video sources, and Sound TC on audio sources. The request to be able to sync across different columns was part of the original plan but stopped at the Film TC/Sound TC columns. There are several features in MC that could be expanded to better fit today’s workflows, and some, like AutoSequence did find additional uses beyond its original design concept for MOS film transfers and audio layback from sync in Media Composer. Another great feature that languishes is stereo-3D’s ability to sync the Left eye from one bin, and the right eye from another bin and put the result into yet a different bin. Something I have been asking since it was added in v6 to apply for AutoSync and even grouping might find some uses.
While film is still being used, the use of timecode on film has faded away and the overall usefulness of FilmTC has as well but still exists as an available column. It behaves like 24TC in the sense that is hardcoded to count at 24fps unlike the aux TC columns which will inherit the frame rate from the project rate. And as Job teBurg mentions, it functions as described in a film project.
Log in to reply.