Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
That shouldn’t be a problem.
Two things come to mind.
First, I’ve seen corrupt picture data files were every time the computer tried to stream the image data, the computer would crash.
Second, it might just be the sheer number of files overflowing some data buffer somewhere.
You could try starting with a few thousand images in a folder and see if you can get that imported.
If so, Divide the rest in half and try importing that. If THAT fails, use a smaller subset.Basically dividing the import will reveal IF it’s a capacity or a bad file issue (if it’s actually one of those) and the divide into batches will eventually reveal the bad file if you keep separating every pool into a group that successfully imports and another that doesn’t.
Good luck.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
Yes, I was being a bit silly. (long work-slog human decompression underway for few hours)
But this post is seriously useful. Thank you. Simon.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
[Oliver Peters] “Given what I see – and if I had to go strictly by the image I see in the viewer – I would say that the Premiere Pro is the more accurate and closest to matching the SDI image. The FCPX is the one farthest out on the lighter side. Resolve is also farther out than I would like, but in the darker direction.”
Kinda presumes that your rods and cones are working just like my rods and cones. Not sure if that’s consistently dependable or not.
What is pretty darn dependable? Scopes.
I consider everything else a variable worth spending money to get as close to standardized as reasonable, but not to overly obsess upon.
Partly that’s from walking into a sports bar years ago after a LONG editing sessions where I was trying really hard to perfect my distribution master – and on the 10 TVs in the bar – there were at least 4or 5 totally different picture looks displayed across them of the exact same signal! It’s better today, but is it any more “trustworthy?” Somebody likes their home Sony on Vivid – some of the subtleties of my work might be history. And so it goes.
No excuse not to get it as close to accurate as I can. But I think there are limits to what I can reasonably spend chasing that and to have my practice to remain as profitable as I’d prefer.
Plus, with so many gamma processing “adjustment points” at play in today’s digital systems, isn’t it easily possible to calibrate outputs enough to compensate?
Honestly asking.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
[Steve Connor] “I could not agree more,”
Me too. Generally.
But it’s kinda dependent on the type of work I’m doing at the moment. If I’m cutting something factual – what’s critical is the shortest way find the next fact. I marked B-Roll for the Johnson interview – system show me just THAT now.
If you’re doing more artful work. “I could really use a big visual here to heighten the emotional impact of what was just said.” Then absolutely, I want the ability to mine wide and deep to find something ideal.
I could also be working from a fixed pool of assets – JUST the stuff I’ve shot for this program. Or I could be looking in a much larger pool of stock footage or the entire historical archive of a TV station, for example.
I suspect most of us do many different types of searches all the time.
FWIW.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
Tom, could you email me a copy of:
160524NabiscoShowreelV2MOStexted2997unapproveduncolorcorrectedsubmasterwithoutCEOnotesforexecreviewdonotdistribute.
Thanks.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
[Oliver Peters] “In other words, finding something you didn’t know you needed, because you spotted something in the way to going for what you originally wanted. It was the thing close by but not the original target. The equivalent of shuttling through footage and finding the perfect shot in that process.”
Kinda like switching a filter from “Hide Rejects” or “Favorites” back to “Show ALL” where you can skim the entirety of your source material without any filtering whatsoever?
; )
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
[Shane Ross] “But I will give you that the proxy creation, and relink, is pretty slick and quick. A bit easier and more error free than Avid. But really….this isn’t revolutionary.”
Shane, I didn’t say it was revolutionary. I said it was “magic.” ; )
My point was (and still is) that moving from Legend to X has provided me with a large array of “a-ha!” moments where my capabilities as a working editor have gotten smoother and easier specifically due to the thought Randy U and Apple put into the re-design of X.
I never said that other editors don’t have their “points of pride” at all. Of course they do. Every advance in every software revision hopefully helps the users of that platform have an easier time getting what they need to do, done.
BUT – Remember the title of this forum. X was the singular case where it’s very ability to EVER delight it’s users was called directly into question starting DAY ONE. The forum name remains, so clearly the question is still up for debate.
So to come back with first hand experiential cases of happiness and delight specifically about FCP X is PRECISELY on topic re: the forum brand.
Basically, come up with stuff that AVID or PPro or Vegas do in a unique to them maker that is actually superior to how X does them (and I KNOW those exist) and this would be the place to discuss that “or Not” thinking.
I don’t think it’s enough to simply say “but the others do some form of this too” – because the premise we’re starring from here (again, see the forum title) is that the debate is still open and there must still be good reason’s NOT to use FCP X.
You and I and every other long timer here, knows the winds have largely shifted regarding X as a dependable professional tool, but not necessarily so for the youngster or transitioning editor looking for wisdom about X and newly arrived here.
That’s all.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
[Walter Soyka] “We also need a good understanding of the problems we want to solve, so we can create the right metadata architecture to support our needs.”
Another LOVELY Walter S. post.
Dude, I miss chatting with you. Come back more often.
Re: the above…
As most of you know, I’ve been with FCP X from the start. I’ve tried to study stuff like taxonomy and tagging strategies – but even after 5 years, the fact that I don’t edit the same material, for the same clients, to the same ends, over and over again, means I have to constantly switch around even something as basic as my fundamental tagging strategies searching for the best results.
Some things have been consistent and profound. Like the joy of using the REJECT tag to remove the pure crap from my field footage early, so that it never enters my field of view unless I need to mine it for something.
And many sorting and display strategies I’ve developed to help express how I think about organization, onto my asset searches.
But I feel every day that I can constantly improve on my metadata tagging and access strategies JUST in terms of how I apply keywords to my clip ranges. And this doesn’t even begin to touch at ALL on the types of universal “across whole systems” metadata strategies that Walter discusses in this post.
The only thing I’m totally sure of, is that I’m decidedly NOT going to get bored between now and when my active editing time someday ends!
And so it goes.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
[Joe Marler] “FCPX is very fast, most people know that, but there’s no magic that enables it to edit H264 camera-native 8K on an iMac. It can do this if (a) The codec is easier or (b) If using proxy.”
To me the “magic” is that due to the way X designed you essentially never NEED to directly edit 8k camera native files.
The entire purpose of the “pointer switching” nature of the X workflow is that you can do ALL your editorial work on a resolution your system can best handle (with excellent screen representations – fine for everything up to and often including – via ProRes Optimized Media – grading work) and only when the editing is complete, apply ALL that editorial metadata directly to your Original Media with a simple switch. Bingo. Same result as if it had all been on-line – but with tremendously less system and human stress.
For the VAST majority of editors, there’s less and less need to spend hours work directly with original media anymore. What the editor often needs instead, IMO, is super quick ACCESS to the Originals for judgement calls – when and if required.. As long as you can safely and consistently make critical decisions about what you’re seeing – you’re good. Particularly in regards to editorial flow.
I know this runs counter to the old days where proxies were pale comparisons to what was going to end up on the screen. But I simply don’t think that’s where we are anymore.
The article author seemed to be delighted precisely because he got exactly what he needed. A workflow where he got to quickly work with what he wanted – when he wanted it.
And isn’t this is the same path Premier Pro is headed toward? As I understand it, they made a pretty big deal some months back about introducing their own, more integrated proxy workflow. So that Apple went there nearly 5 years ago shouldn’t be particularly controversial anymore. Nobody smart copies bad ideas.
Metadata-based editing – which every NLE more or less does – has changed everything.
Including the need to think “on-line” ALL the time – or you’re not making progress toward your final.
FWIW.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
Not sure I understand what you mean by “a project worth 9 hours.”
Do you mean you put 9 hours worth of content into a project?
If so, isn’t that content still in the Event?
What did you do to it?
Did you edit it?
Did you do other processing to it?
What did you name it?
Do you know what date and time you originally created it?Answering these questions can help you determine where it might be – or if there was some fundamental glitch in how you were working that messed things up.
For example, upon initial import – all your footage (9 hours?) doesn’t magically get sucked into X. It starts the process of processing the footage in the background and just presents you with low rez temp files in order to let you get to work editing. At that point, depending on how you’re managing your Original/Optimized/Proxy caches – you may or may not be interrupting processes if you don’t ever give the software time to do it’s basic work before you shut down the program.
Basically, we need more info to help.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…