[Cory Caplan]

I don’t know the QT internals as well as I did AVID, but I know that it was very possible to have some sync issues if you had some dropouts/error correction, difficulty etc during capture.

It had to do with the way avid calculated timecode– (I think it still works this way) It doesn’t lock the timecode to the media frame by frame, but grabs the starting timecode, and then simply offsets the current frame and voila, you get timecode from the current frame. When I was having cap & sync problems with Adrenaline 1.0, this was the problem.

I know QT supports timecode, but QT may internally be doing exactly the same thing– And streamclip wouldn’t have a problem if QT didn’t KNOW it was had ‘missing frames’ every so often.

You wouldn’t get “long frames” (I don’t think) if it was having issues with error correction (DV has robust error correction, obviously, and we rarely know it’s going on)

Whichever one is BEHIND is probably the tape (camera?) that is WORKING, as the other tape (camera?) might be generating corrupt frames that get dropped during error correction… Or FCP isn’t detecting long frames in this instance..

If you want to debug it more (after you finish) and your audio is very similiar on the cameras, you could try to find the place where it first starts running adrift by looking for the audio samples to diverge… (have no idea what your audio setup was…)

Just a guess..

Cory

[Cory Caplan]

Your entire argument revolves around what Final Cut pro is and is not designed for, as if you have decided it, and so therefore it must be. This is a fallacious argument.

If it supports importing footage at any resolution in a given format, guess what? it’s designed for that.

If it wasn’t designed to do something, it wouldn’t support it at all. It would forcefully limit the codecs you could use to “recommended”

Not that you care, but the screen codec that’s a part of the WMV spec nearly-losslessly creates unlimited resolution files– as you are well aware, screen resolutions <> video resolutions, and many times exceed them (especially SD) My point was if you wanted to capture a 1280×1024 or 1440×1280 of your application, and use FCP to zoom in and out on it in a SD timeline, that would be an extremely valid use– and a perfect use of a WMV file with the screen codec– a tiny file. As video codecs don’t support non-standard resolution, your only option would be to capture an uncompressed AVI, and that sir, is sheer insanity.

My point is not that this is going to come up a lot, it’s just that every option doesn’t fit inside what you personally have decided FCP was “MEANT” to do. What if you’re doing a documentary on video on the web, and your only source is WMV? You would force everyone to transcode something manually rather than just throw it in the timeline? That, sir, is insanity.

Your various suggestions involving additional steps as workarounds serve to demonstrate EXACTLY what drives me nuts with cult of Mac’ers. To come forward with a convoluted or more difficult solution than something that should (or in this case does) work in another, easier way is insanity– a bizarre form of self-flaggelation.

All of your workarounds and obsession with “designed for FCP” have to do with RT performance. That’s not always needed– and again, having an oversized (larger resolution) WMV with SCREENCAP codec, virtually lossless, tiny filesize is far superior to having a downrezzed clip that works in RT.

To recap

1: You don’t get to decide what FCP is or is not designed for.

2: Your interpretation of “open timeline” is dead wrong, and I can prove it. If you take a 320×240 video and put it into an SD timeline, FCP will automatically scale it to fit the timeline. Therefore, it is, in fact, DESIGNED to be exactly that — open to any form of media that can be imported. Would you argue that non standard size media– like say a still graphic is not what FCP is “DESIGNED FOR”? No. Of course not. If it’s digital media that can be imported into FCP, it is therefore usable in a timeline. Inherent limitations like no RT? Sure, that’s part of the deal, but if it wasn’t designed for it, IT WOULDNT WORK AT ALL.

3: Please don’t reply to people who are having problems and need help by crapping on them like this– cause that’s what you’re doing.. Coming up to someone who is injured on the side of the road and taking a dump on them. Stop it. If you don’t want to stop and offer help, fine, just don’t be a rotten Samaritan.

[Cory Caplan]

[SHANE #1]PRIME example of people doing something that isn’t optimal on FCP.

[SHANE #2]There might be PC software out there designed for this, but that is a very UN-TYPICAL use of FCP.

[SHANE #3]There is another post on this forum about capturing DV footage from an HVX-200 camera…the user attempted to capture it as DV-50, when it isn’t a DV50 format…is is a DV-25 or DV/NTSC format. USER ERROR.

[SHANE #4]I notice that easily over half of the questions posed are by people not familiar with the edit system or the capablities or doing something the system isn’t designed to do.

(PaulD, I give a suggestion at the bottom for a fix/workflow/workaround for this)

Shane, this is exactly the sort of ‘punk’ behavior I was talking about. You didn’t help the guy, he made it very clear in his post that this was a stopgap measure, and you have exhibited that PRECISE cult-of-mac attitude which drives people like me insane.

You responded simply what– to make him feel bad?

Let me address, one by one, what is wrong with this attitude, and your post, since this seems to be lost on you.

Shane #1) You’re right, this is not an optimal practice on FCP. I agree with you 100% here. But did you give him a workaround? No, you proceeded to tear him down for several paragraphs.

Shane #2)So, you say it’s a “UN TYPICAL” use for FCP. Again, I agree with you 100% here. It’s un-typical, but that doesn’t make it wrong, or invalid. I’ll give you a perfect example of how this would be a great “typical” use. What if you had an application you were doing tutorials or demos for, and you wanted to do these in FCP. What if it was a windows application? WMV has a fantastic “screen” video encoder which is made for just this purpose, and FCP’s mixed-resolution timeline (should) be a perfect match for this– You’re doing your video, and anytime you want to show/zoom in to the application, you pop the video into your timeline and go. If you used the aforementioned WMV components for QT, this would be a perfectly valid (and great) use in FCP– Untypical, sure, but not INVALID. You are treating him as though he asked for something FCP should not do.

I posit that it should be able to do this. Do I blame apple if it doesn’t work properly? Of course not, it relies on 3rd party codecs which haven’t shown themselves to be particularly stable.

Frankly his ACTUAL use is a valid one– to use these offline web clips as standins to edit with… What he ACTUALLY wants to do is very valid.

Shane #3) Straw Man argument Shane. Somebody else had a setting wrong and you’re comparing him to this guy? Two entirely different things. One had his settings wrong, and this guy wants to do something you don’t consider typical. Not only did it not support your post, it makes you look just mean by implying this user is ignorant, just like another user who had his settings wrong.

[edited to reply directly] After I posted this, I saw the thread you referenced directly under this. If you read the thread in order, you’ll see that he originally tried DV25, and then switched to DV50 after finding the PDF on HVX200 workflow.

APPLE’S DOC DOES SAY THIS:

480i 60/480p 30 DV-NTSC or DV50-NTSC

and does not distinguish between recording data rates. Unless you are very familiar with the myriad of recording formats, you wouldn’t know the implication here. You can record 480i 60/480p 30 in EITHER DV25 or DV50 on that camera. Apple does not make the distinction in that document. If you knew that about the camera, yeah, you would logically assume to set it on the appropriate setting– in his case he recorded to tape, so it HAD to be DV-NTSC- and his 1st guess was right (I have no idea why he had dropped frames) In his continued troubleshooting, he found the document, and tried the DV50 preset, which, based on Apple’s chart was a reasonable assumption to make, if you don’t know all the underlying data rates.

From his first post “I thought it would just be a straight DV NTSC setup but when I hook up it complains about drop frames.” He got the right setting the first time.

But you didn’t take the time to find that out, you’d rather add it to your “Users are idiots” arsenal. Is it likely he has a problem with his configuration or process, rather than a bug? Almost assuredly, but’s not a “USER ERROR” of picking a wrong setting.

So, basically, instead of helping the guy in his own thread, you came here to use his so-called “USER ERROR” as a straw man argument. Classy.

(Shane #4)Yeah, lots of n00bs. Is that a surprise in a HELP forum? If they run into a perceived tehncial problem, they come here instead of the ‘beginners’ forum. Yeah, they may be doing it the wrong way– so if you’re going to reply, tell them the right way to do it– or a workaround, or whatever, don’t just jump in to tell them they’re idiots.

Finally, you, Shane, are not the gatekeeper on what FCP “is and isn’t supposed to do.” What this guy requests, in a very general way IS something that FCP is supposed to do, as far as I can tell– put a mixed-resolution clip of a type that can be handled in a QT wrapper into the timeline. Should he be able to edit it in RT? No, that’s an unreasonable request, but an “open resolution” timeline should (theoretically) be able to playback, or at the very least render a quicktime file that the OS plays back.

Here is my response to the OP, maybe you can take a note of one way to respond, providing some help, without just piling on to demean the guy.

PaulD, the WMV components plugin is a commercial app written by a 3rd party, and as such, might be a bit flaky when it comes to interacting with apps other than straight playback. Also, it has built in mechanisms to prevent using their free plugin from being used for purposes which they’ve designated as “pay” features (such as import/export)

I regularly use the AVID codec in my FCP timelines, and it works fine for rendered stuff, but not for RT performance. Whether this is purposely done by AVID or Apple, I have no idea. I’ve found that sometimes the best practice is to take these in through compressor (which I also use to transcode XVID AVIs with Perian) to a format FCP can deal with naitively in RT, DV or whatever. I don’t see any reason as to why this wouldn’t work with the WMV files. Obviously, you’d want to use whatever format your sequence was for best results.

I have purchased the WMV components (PRO HD) and In the latest version of FCP, I can drop WMV videos onto my timeline, and they’re scaled fine, requiring a (red bar) render.. Obviously you wouldn’t want to use these as a standard-practice for video, but if you need to get WMV into your timeline, this works for me.

Obviously, I’m not using the exact same compression settings you are, but I think the variable framerate etc, calls for transcoding, rather than using your timeline… with an older version of FCP with a newer WMV plugin, I think you’re asking for trouble here.

If you’re just using them as standins, I would think the watermarks wouldn’t make any difference, as you’ll be onlining them anyway. If you need them for production work, I would highly recommend paying for the plugin. The assumption is that this work would be paid, and your budget should reflect any costs associated with dealing with WMV format.

But, I would try compressor before making any purchasing decisions.

Gosh, Shane, that wasn’t too hard was it? Yeah, your post might have been more on-topic than Paul’s, but you are EXACTLY demonstrating my original “Punks” comment– right in this very thread that somebody else posted. (Or were you being ironic and I missed it?)

My point is not to continue the flamewars. All I’m asking for is a little introspection. There is something very unique to Apple culture that I’ve never experienced anywhere else with such a high % of users– A defensiveness/accusator tone, where every attack on XXX Apple product is taken personally, and the accuser is called an idiot, (politely or not) or is laughed at, berated, accused of trying to do something Apple never intended… Why?

I think I know one of the answers. The cult of Mac fell in love with Apple however long ago, and does’nt like being ‘the minority,’ especially when many Mac users feel their product is SO superior. I think it’s human nature to feel this way about being an outsider. One of the instinctive reactions of the Mac crowd is to become ultra-elitist… Trying to turn the (now fast-growing) small marketshare into a positive– “Only we smart people are mac users.” And those which threaten any facet of Mac superiority complex must be destroyed.

I don’t know if this is your issue here, Shane– I’m not accusing you of being this hardline, but it is AN issue that I’ve seen repeated over and over through the macosphere. And it’s typified by the conformist attitude of attacking the “UN TYPICAL” Don’t help them find a way to make it work– or find out what they’re trying to do– just attacking them for non-conforming.

Mac users often fail to see that Apple, and many Apple users, not Wintels, in 2007 much more represent that Dystopia in that 1984 Mac commercials. It’s “Think Different” But only if you think EXACTLY LIKE US.

And this is coming from someone who’s #1 daily visited website these days is tuaw.com. I’m not trying to knock you down Shane, I’m just trying, desperately, to make some cult-of-Mac’ers see the irony here.

[edited to specifically respond to HVX-200 thread reference]

[Cory Caplan]

Something that seems lost on many of those who say “I don’t have any problems” is that even with similarly configured machines, people use FCS VERY, VERY differently. I’m pretty sure if I was only doing A/B cuts with dissolves, everything would be perfect for me.

The fact is, most of my instability comes when doing something complex– the documented issues (Motion integration, etc.) push many facets of the software, multiple FCS apps working together, complex openGL/ cpu interaction, multi-threading or lack there of, hardware IO (kona etc.) all working in conjunction. And yes, all of this moving together with changing QT spec.

My earlier frustration (again, not aimed in anyone in particular, especially not you, the reader who is about to get offended) is that it can turn into a vicious cycle of the following dialog:

“I’m having a problem with XXXX.”
“I’m not having any problems at all with XXXX, it must be something you’re doing.”
“Well, specifically, I’m doing XXXX when YYY is happening, are you doing the same thing?”
“I don’t see why you would want to do XXXX with YYY at the same time, you shouldn’t want to do that, so therefore it’s your fault.”
“Screw you.”
[explosion of ZZZZ]

I really do appreciate those who contribute– I’m way to n00b here to help out, I realize I take more than I give, and I’m grateful to those who contribute so much and make this forum a great resource.

One of the reasons I (inadvertently, I swear!) touched off some recent discord was that I was soliciting opinions on OS upgrade, when a small aside derailed the conversation. As I stated then, if this were Windows/Avid I would wait a LONG time until the company came forward and said “It’s okay to upgrade now.” Because they’re different companies.

The reason that I’m so anxious for Leopard is that I’m hoping (praying) that FCS 2 was designed to be used with Leopard– as others have mentioned, Leopard was originally supposed to ship at the same time as FCS 2, so I think it’s reasonable to suspect that they may have been designed to work in concert from the beginning. I’m hoping that leopard will sooner, rather than later make FCS MORE STABLE, not less.

I am also very anxiously anticipating “Time Machine.” As others have stated, AVID has been very finicky on Windows with respect to the Quicktime version, OS upgrades, etc, etc, however the company PROVIDES you with that sort of information. (Which QT version, etc.) Also, on windows, it’s possible to uninstall updates without reinstalling the OS (risking a flamebait, I can’t believe that updates are one way on OS X– what hubris to assume the fixes will always work and won’t break things! breaking nudge in Motion, for example) I can’t wait until time machine lets me backrev an OS or QT update that wrecked my system in some unexpected way.

I asked what the opinions were, based on those who “lived through the last one” I searched, but was unable to find tiger-related (specific) discussion. I’m sure there were lots of related discussions happening at the time, but there were no major “upgrade results” threads I could find near the date of the release.

Based on those who responded to the actual question, I’m going to ‘bide my time’ and wait.

Apple is very slow to update its support information on the website with respect to FCP, and has a “radio silence” policy when it comes to any full-duplex interaction with the FCS dev team, and I think this is bunk. As many issues I had with AVID over the past few years, they have made very decent strides in giving users (especially power users, like those who are in this forum for FCP) access to Avid employees, and a somewhat direct line to company, even those who don’t pay for support.

Two years running at the AVID event at NAB, they flooded it with actual AVID engineers, technicians and designers.

I don’t think some interns anonymously videotaping you at the FCPUG meeting comes close. Frankly, it’s no different than the anonymous feedback form. Maybe they’ll pay attention, maybe they won’t. In any case, they’ll never tell.

We only hurt ourselves when we degenerate into fingerpointing (and yeah, I can be guilty of this too.) Maybe we can come up with a way of focusing our energies on getting a real dialog with the FCP dev team, rather than tearing each other to shreds so there’s no focus, and only the most glaring, obvious bugs get addressed.

I have a constructive idea. Maybe somebody at the COW could come up with a user-admined WIKI or KB where bugs are documented and users can comment on them and vote or something– a database of “bugs” that is much quicker than the very-slow to respond apple technotes. It would have menus asking OS/QT/FCS version info, descriptions on where to find that stuff, configuration info, other popular apps/ hardware etc.. Basically a user-driven, more detailed version of the FCP feedback system… Issues could be given “grades” based on number of users with the same issue, etc.. Any issue with 2 or more users reporting would be given a case number, and in some wiki fashion, users would be able to link similar issues. Anyone agree? I’ll even pledge $100 donation towards development of such a system.

Cory

[Cory Caplan]

Seriously. If you read the original statement, in context, you can clearly see that I wasn’t making any specific accusation or even a generalization. I think if you read my whole post clearly, the implication is clear that folks here are NOT those aforementioned punks. (I posit that FCS has the ability to bring folks out of it..)

Specifically, I was referring to the apple.com forums (as well as other, non FCP forums) but here you came out of the woodwork to prove my exact point. If my statement paints me in a negative light to some, apparently it does that itself, it doesn’t need you to come out and point it out.

Furthermore, you final paragraph proves that you are exactly that kind of poster by implying that I either have a lemon or are doing something wrong. (Unless you were being ironic, in which case, I’m sorry if I didn’t pick up on the humor…)

My issues with final cut are very well documented,** and to imply that I’m doing something wrong is proving that you are, in fact, one of those aforementioned ‘punks.’

Another responder to this thread who called himself an “old punk” (though again, if you reread the original post, I wasn’t even calling anybody around here punks) ISN’T EVEN ON FCS2 YET BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL ISSUES. SIX MONTHS AFTER IT SHIPPED.

And, yeah, it is frustrating as a x-windows user to come over here after hearing the marketing hype about how Macs ‘Just Work’ for so long and finding out that’s not true at all, simply by viewing the lengths and processes people go to based on past experiences in this thread ALONE.

But I WORK in advertising. I understand that Advertising != truth– but it’s annoying when users who have been brainwashed by said advertising spit it back in your face and say “you must be doing something wrong” just because you don’t have the exact same issues.

(*losing renders, although the ‘workaround’ with duplicated sequences is not 100% effective, the absolutely useless conform in Color, abysmal Motion render template/compressor performance using FCP timeline. etc.. etc.. etc..)

I didn’t come here to pick a fight. Furthermore, if you actually read my previous post with a fresh mind, you’ll see it’s genuinely thankful. If the single ‘punks’ reference made you react so defensively, maybe you should examine YOUR attitudes when it comes to your responses.

It is no help whatsoever to anyone at anytime to say “I’m not having any problems, it must be you.” unless you happen to have the exact same configuration and follow some reproducible steps. Otherwise you’re just rubbing salt in a wound, and that’s just plain rude.

(Thanks again to everyone else.)

Cory

[Cory Caplan]

Thank you so much for your help. Genuinely. I wasn’t meaning to spit on your recommendation, but it probably came out that way. After the past year with Mac OS as my primary system (as opposed to a decade of ocassional mac use) I’ve really been feeling frustration with the mac hype lately (iPhone user as well, f@#$# 3rd party apps, blah blah blah)

The truth of the matter is that my mac is no more stable than any recent vintage XP edting system I’ve used, and frankly FCStudio 2 has been a total abomination when it comes to stability. Motion crashes if I breathe wrong, — and combine the (absurd) slow render of motion stuff in the FCP timeline and the losing-render files for no good reason bug and my head wants to explode….

I just find it frustrating that my FCP system made by Apple– hardware, O/S and software is no more stable than any PC editing system I’ve been on in several years. But the pricepoint is really great. I guess you get what you pay for.

It would be easier to fully leave the ‘reality distorion field’ if there weren’t so many punks so steadfastly stuck inside it writing the ubiquitous “I don’t have any problems, you must be doing something wrong” or “It’s DESIGNED to be that way, you’re not thinking about it right” emails…

FCS has a way of knocking down that distortion field however.

Thanks so much (everyone) for your help and advice!
🙂

Cory

[Cory Caplan]

I know there’s not that many apple fanboys here like there are in other places, but seriously? Wipe the drive?? I’m floored at how often Mac users recommend/require clean OS installs compared to my experience on windows systems.. I’m not saying I never did it, but my current AVID is running on a 3 year old heavily used (many, many apps, games, etc etc) PC and doing fine..

Then again, to be fair, I didn’t exactly use the vista upgrade discs, either… 🙂 (Don’t have any earthly idea if avid is even qualified on vista at all…)

[Cory Caplan]

Does it know not to transcode the video? I surely wouldn’t want to recompress my dv just because somewhere there’s a glitch in the process.

Interesting you say panasonic. I use a panasonic (2500?) deck to ingest, but the footage came from a sony DVCAM initially.. Never had problem #1 with my avid and this config… So I assume it’s a bug (#4007 I’ve encountered in my 6 weeks since switching) The grass is always greener….

Cory

[Cory Caplan]

Also, I forgot to mention that making the sequence 486 lines and into a prores hq timeline “fixes” this problem.. however, I prefer the DVCPRO 50 codec, as PRORES is softer & bigger based on my previous testing (loss of detail in low contrast areas is especially noticable.)

[Cory Caplan]

Sorry if I didn’t make this clear, but I was comparing the capture from BETA SP via analog component, and IMO, DVCPRO50 trounced prores422 w/ smaller file size. Because it was analog, 10 bit resolution was a possibility, and that is technically an “advantage prores” but no big deal.

A day and a few tests later, I stand by my original assessmnent– dv50 looks clearer with easily visible higher-resolution, with no blurring of details from the original– some noise, yeah, but much more detail.

The source is auto factory footage, many varied shots, if anyone is interested. I could see how vain females might like the “smoothing” effect prores has in similarly colored areas… But I didn’t run any comparisons with people.

🙂

As opposed to 10-bit vs 8-bit on 8-bit source, my thought was simply increased color resolution, ie “finer” control. Theoretically, I should have much “finer” control, and apps like color that use curves would make smoother corrections, color-blend wise, I would think think, in theory, but I’ve never really tested 1 vs. the other.

Anybody w/ real world 8 vs. 10 bit COLOR experience wanna share? I’m thinking I might go prores anyway, because multi-generational DVCPRO HD scares me. Plus I feel like DVCPRO HD crushes blacks too much, but I might be imagining it.