Markers or Metadata – The Debate!

[Michael Gissing]

[David Lawrence] “So what’s more efficient? Markers or metadata?”

The one that makes the most sense to the individual. It comes down to how we best think. Metatdata needs to start on location. At the moment I am shooting documentaries that I will end up posting but not editing. I know how difficult it is when shooting ob docs, to be on top of adding metatdata in the field. There are times when it makes no sense to be distracted by shot, take or description metatdata. Ultimately it needs to be a negotiated workflow with an editor and director and can very much depend on what their personal computer system or type is.

In grading/finishing which requires versioning, I much prefer markers. Metatdata coming in from edits can be totally inconsistent plus markers refer much more to timeline not individual clips which is where I am working. I use Smart bins in Resolve where there is useful metadata to shortcut rather than remembering which bins a shot might be in. So my answer would be both with a preference for markers.

[Steve Connor]

The only thing that takes me back to Premiere Pro now is when I have a project that will benefit from “pancaking”

[Simon Ubsdell]

[David Lawrence] “Seems to me Vashi falls heavily into the spatial camp.
“

This seems to be the case, yes. (Thanks, David, for starting this thread. It’s certainly ground that’s been covered before but I still think there’s a lot more to say.)

What’s important to highlight here is that Vashi’s use of markers is an embellishment of the all-powerful string-out method and it’s fundamentally the string-out that’s giving him the instant access that he wants with the markers acting as information-rich, searchable helpers.*

He also touches very briefly on the reasons why string-outs work for him creatively as well as organisationally and to me these are just as interesting to consider.

* I think in some ways the “marker vs metadata” distinction is a red herring conceptually – a marker is “metadata”. It’s just that we tend to use a very narrow technical definition of metadata that doesn’t adequately cover the range of possibilities.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Joe Marler]

[David Lawrence] ” he discusses his logging method and why tags and metadata do not work for him”

He said he doesn’t like metadata tagging because other people might not tag the right shots. That means he can’t use CatDV or any other MAM, just markers that he himself applies. That might work on 6 Below which was mainly a one-camera shoot with an approx 66:1 shooting ratio. I’m not sure how scalable that is to the 200:1 ratio used on some films or the 400:1 ratio used in reality TV.

But he actually IS using metadata, as shown at 15:00-16:00 into the video. Using a dry-erase marker board and 3×5 cards, he essentially constructed a paper version of FCPX’s Event Browser, with tags hand-written on each card. Instead of rejecting the clip via software, he wrote a red X on the white board.

OTOH if a film of this complexity can be done without software-assisted tags and metadata, maybe that means it’s less important than often depicted. He obviously got the job done, and effectively.

However this was a scripted narrative. The script forms a pre-defined organizational backbone and he used timeline markers to quickly find scenes and takes. For observational documentary there is no tightly defined script, the shooting ratio is higher and the storyline is often discovered during the editorial process. In that case I’m not sure his method would work as well.

[Tony West]

[David Lawrence] “So what’s more efficient? Markers or metadata?”

For me it isn’t either or, but both.

I use the metadata in the browser as I log and create favorites. I then write into the favorites notes about the clip and why I chose it.

I use markers in the timeline for notes like “get rights to this photo” and check them off as they are completed. I can search those out in the timeline index quickly.

I really enjoyed his presentation. He is old school with those hand written notes.

I prefer as much of the clients notes in email form as possible. Them “I don’t remember saying that” Me “here is your email” : )

I can paste their email right into a marker in the timeline. I prefer it there, instead of on my desk. I don’t like clutter.

Like he said, when that client wants to see something as long as you can get it fast it doesn’t matter how you do it.

[Mark Smith]

I agree with Tony, the note card/ marker in the time line dichotomy is a litte odd. We are fortunate to have so many options to choose from in creating methods to organize our work. I painted a wall in my office with White board paint so I can write out big picture notes on the wall and change them as necessary. Other than that I try to keep notes, metadata, “programmer’s comments ” in electronic form unless I’m building something in 3 dimensions and then I use lots of masking tape and magic marker for comments.

[Bret Williams]

I’ll often get into lots of detail in the email diatribe back and forth for that very reason. There’s an electronic trail. But sometimes they get frustrated and the phone rings.

_______________________________________________________________________
https://BretFX.com FCP X Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists

[Oliver Peters]

[Joe Marler] “OTOH if a film of this complexity can be done without software-assisted tags and metadata, maybe that means it’s less important than often depicted … For observational documentary there is no tightly defined script, the shooting ratio is higher and the storyline is often discovered during the editorial process…”

What he’s doing is essentially the same as every NLE editor working on shows, films and docs has done prior to the introduction of FCPX and still today if they don’t work on X. So why would you think that it doesn’t work on other forms?

– Oliver

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

[Bill Davis]

[Oliver Peters] “What he’s doing is essentially the same as every NLE editor working on shows, films and docs has done prior to the introduction of FCPX and still today if they don’t work on X. So why would you think that it doesn’t work on other forms?”

I dont recall anyone saying “it doesn’t work” Oliver.

My contention has always been that it’s “significantly more efficient” to deploy the tools Apple built into X to bring order to the chaos of increasing complexity in today’s post landscape. Those tools were PRECISELY designed to do that. Reduce repetitive actions, eliminate unnecessary steps, and re-structure editorial thinking more in line with file-based and metadata based modern workflows – and pay less homage to the classic processes that developed during the analog era.

It makes perfect sense if someone who has been cutting on AVID for the past 15 years feels that any efficiency gain is NOT worth the pain of adaptation for them. That’s totally rational.

The extra efficiency, however, may be VERY important for many types of editors – and, in fact, it may be critical for those who see the flood of complexity increasing in their practices and find themselves needing to produce more good work faster, just to keep up with their clients expectations.

From my talks with the big European producers switching to X, the reason most cited is EFFICIENCY. They value getting more work done faster. The editors enjoy switching their thinking towards less time in software operations and more time in the content.

Sure ALL NLE users are able to reach that state. But it’s hard to argue that the reasons for all the design changes in X were aimed at anything OTHER than to make the creation and deployment of modern digital video and audio content faster and easier.

In this recent release, once again, one highlight – direct titling at the timeline/clip level? AGAIN, puts them closer to where X went more than 6 years ago.

Or am I missing something here?

Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “I dont recall anyone saying “it doesn’t work” Oliver.”

I was responding to Joe’s post. He seemed to imply that Vashi’s technique would be less useful with non-scripted content.

[Bill Davis] “From my talks with the big European producers switching to X, the reason most cited is EFFICIENCY. They value getting more work done faster. The editors enjoy switching their thinking towards less time in software operations and more time in the content. “

I wasn’t challenging the point in the context of “X versus others”. Merely whether the same techniques would work well across the board for all types of editing.

– Oliver

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