-
Renders for sequence and nested not the same
-
Nests most defiitely ripple a sequence. One thing I dislike about them. Stepping into a nest and extending the length of something should NEVER ripple the sequence it is in.
-
The former. But even then sometimes it won’t update until you muck with it more.
-
Shane: Thanks for the feedback. I get your workflow, but I think nests may have changed since the last time you tried.
Nests DO reflect changes in duration – longer or shorter. When I edit a sequence that is nested in the assembly, the assembly changes. Gets longer or shorter. In fact, as far as I can tell, it reflects every change I make in the sequence EXCEPT the renders.
I unfortunately need to view the whole show all the time, several times a day. Producers want to see from x to y, and x and y are often not in the same segment. For me nesting is working great, except for the renders.
As far as I can tell, you and I are actually doing the same thing (editing segments of a show), except I have an assembled sequence I can show upon demand. My only request here is to understand why FC doesn’t connect the renders in the segments to renders in the assembly.
But I reserve the right to be totally wrong and have the whole thing blow up in my face (first time I’m doing this, but loving it so far).
Thanks for your thoughts.
– Frank Laughlin
Digitonium -
[Frank Laughlin] “Nests DO reflect changes in duration – longer or s”
OK…that is new from the last time I used nests…in FCP 5.
[Frank Laughlin] “As far as I can tell, you and I are actually doing the same thing (editing segments of a show), except I have an assembled sequence I can show upon demand.”
And you can do that rather easily with a full sequence full of clips. I do this all the time, no issues whatsoever.
So the nests aren’t working in your case. You make changes that aren’t reflected…so it isn’t working. Why not try the cut and paste method and see what happens?
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Bret Williams] “Nested sequences is the only time FCP does destructive compositing. If a nested sequence is already rendered, it will use those render files as the source for effects added TO the nest within another seqeunce. It has to really. Because if the nest is in multiple sequences, and it rerendered the nest from the ground up, it would destroy renders in other sequences. Destroying one point of nested sequences in the first place.”
That’s not an accurate description of what’s going on. FCP is never adding effects or anything like that to render files. All it does to render files once they are rendered is managed them. If Sequence A is rendered and dropped into sequence B, FCP is simply pointing to (referencing) those original sequence A render files. If you then add an effect, change the opacity or composite something else ontop of that FCP is no longer referencing those sequence A render files. When You render it creates all new render files completely seperate from sequence A’s original render files these are now sequence B render files. Etc etc.
It’s not destroying those sequence A render files…they are still sequence A render files and are still available to any sequence that references those sequence A render files.
-mattyc
-
Absolutely incorrect. Take a sequence that takes 6 hours to render. Drop in another sequence. Then add a TC effect to it. By your logic, it should now take 6 hours to render. It does not. IN FACT it will actually play that in real time because it’s simply compositing the TC effect over a simple video clip (the rendered nest). If you were to now render that TC effect, FCP DOES in fact utilize the render files as the source for the rendering of the TC effect placed upon the nest. It doesn’t take 6 hours. So you are actually going down a generation. If it did not, and didn’t do destructive compositing, then adding that TC effect would now mean you have another 6 hour render on your hands. Make sense? And this phenomenon is partially why FCP doesn’t always update your nested sequence. Because there are different render caches at hand. The first, the nested sequence itself, and the second, the nested sequence as a rendered clip within another sequence. Just updating the first sequence doesn’t trigger anything to tell the sequence(s) it’s nested within to break their render.
Destructive compositing is great much of the time. In AVID it certainly is helpful, especially when you’re working with a client. You can add layer after layer and render each one as you go. So when you add the topmost layer, it utilizes the rendered composite beneath as a singular source. When you’re ready to output, you can of course delete the render files and AVID will render it in one pass as non-destructive. In the world of DV, it needs to be a 1 pass render. Now with ProRes, we could use some destructive compositing.
-
Sorry Matt, after a reread, I think we agree. You just misunderstand my term destructive compositing. I don’t know if it’s a real phrase or not, but I take it from Apple’s use of NON-Destructive compositing. Meaning renders always refer back to the original source files. So each time you add a layer, even if the layers beneath have been rendered, it loses the previous render and rerenders the whole stack from scratch. The phrase doesn’t refer to the destruction of render files, but whether you’re going down a digital generation or not. Non-destructive compositing actually destroys the previous render and creates a new one. Destructive actually utilizes the previous render files to create the newest and doesn’t delete the render.
-
I know what destructive editing/compositing is but used in your terms it’s rather confusing. I was pointing out the fact that it’s not destroying anything…it’s creating new ones. Then I was making the distinction that Render files don’t ever reference each other. This doesn’t mean (as you’ve pointed out) that render files aren’t used as source media in order to speed up a render or provide realtime playback of effects. It just means that when Seq A is in Seq B it’s creating completely new render files for Seq B. Therefor A within B no longer needs those original A render files, but the Independent seq A (as well as any other sequences that also contain seq A) are still referencing the original A render files.
Does that clear up a little more about what I was saying?
-mattycp.s. I don’t know which is more complicated…the actual nesting process or trying to discuss it via an internets forum.
-
I agree completely.
-
I have done both ways. Nests are really nice because you never have to adjust anything in your main assemble because the timing always auto updates when changes are made in the nest. And I assure you this feature was working in FCP 5 because I didn’t it all the time. It’s also a really simple way of just throwing the broadcast safe filter on as a last catch.
The downside is the renders don’t carry over as Frank is finding out.
[Shane Ross] “Why not try the cut and paste method and see what happens?”
I like the copy and paste method because then I can see everything right there and go to a point quickly. But once I’m in my full timeline, I can’t easily jump back into one of my section timelines. If I extend a section and want to copy and paste that into my full timeline I need to manually move clips down the timeline so I can paste my new section in. No auto updating.
I see this way as much more of a finishing step.
Anyways, what makes editing great is theres so many tools and ways to the final destination. What’s great about the Cow is, I can learn those different ways from the many great people here who share so much wisdom and knowledge.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up