Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
Walter,
That’s not true.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Yet that doesn’t stop a good number of posters from breathlessly marveling at the awesome power of the FCPX Database (with a capital D) or gushing about the wonders of the relational database model.”
Walter,
The “database” threads on here tend to be a lot of proselytizing – usually about power and imagined features – and little actual information.
A comparison of actual database structures (between Avid, 7, X, and Premiere) might be a place to start. I’m not sure we have either the information or expertise here to do such a thing – though I would love to be proved wrong.
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] “My suspicion is that there’s going to be a HUGE variety of approaches out there. …isn’t it going to be an issue if you’re going to import different types of REEL IDs into a unified REEL ID field and then ever want to SORT them into meaningful lists?”
Bill,
In my workflows, the purpose of these fields is to communicate sources effectively to the lab so that they can conform back to original materials.
As such, the requested format of this information differs from lab to lab (and sometimes project to project).
I have not been particularly pro-active in seeking or promoting any sort of standard, as I’ve been quite happy with this workflow – it’s always been simple enough and it works.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “… just like with a 7toX translation, you’ll get a project file that renders the correct output …”
Walter,
I think this speaks to my question. Restricting ourselves for the moment to the question of timelines, I’m speculating that most people would be satisfied with a timeline that looks the same on output (even with a few qualifiers), as well as replicating keys structures of the timeline, and would not expect it to look “as if it had been originally created in” the software in question. I think the underlying model is of less interest than the practical implications.
Again the OMF example – it is in some ways quite limited both in what it brings from the original project, and in the way it exploits the possibilities of the importing software (like ProTools), but it is a very useful translation nonetheless. One might even say “proper” (though limited).
The FCP7 to PProCS6 example might illustrate the point, because if you created a project in PPro you might exploit features not in FCP7 (like some of the audio features), where in FCP7 you would not use these features because they don’t exist – therefore the project would not, strictly speaking look “as if it had been originally created in” PPro.
Where this may falter is – as you’ve pointed out above – the (significant) issues of organization outside of timelines.
I take it you feel there are translations (like FCP7 to PPro?) that fulfill the “as if it had been originally created in” criteria?
Franz.
-
Keith,
My post was the cheap shot.
Franz.
-
Walter,
… considering this was originally posted as a cheap shot a Apple regarding the persistent PIOP issue, it would seem the point of wit has been rather blunted.
Franz.
(It still raised an interesting and unexpected exchange though, and I am still rather surprised by your take – so I’d still like to hear you talk about project translations using other examples.)
-
Walter,
I’m not sure you’ve really explained why this would be the definitive objective of an NLE translation – that “there is no way to translate” or a translation cannot be done “properly” unless “you’ve derived what would have been the original FCPX timeline from a Legend timeline as if it had been originally created in X in any 7 to X translation.”
As I pointed out in my ProTools / OMF example above, I am not necessarily (ever?) looking for a translation to “look as if it had been originally created in” the new tool. Different tools are just that, and creating in them often brings different decisions or different ways of expressing those decisions (ie stereo tracks vs. stereo clips). It is one thing to present the limitations of a translation, quite another to say that it can’t be done.
In any case – pixel interpolating metaphor aside – you seem to be implying by your argument that 7toX is not a “proper” translation.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “… there is no way know if you’ve derived what would have been the original FCPX timeline from a Legend timeline as if it had been originally created in X in any 7 to X translation.”
Walter,
Would this be an objective for anyone wishing translate a project from one NLE to another?
Franz.
Edit: … to provide a more pointed example – if I were to “originally create” a session in ProTools, it would have both stereo and mono tracks; an OMF from FCP gives me mono tracks only which have been panned. The translation does not give me a session in ProTools “as if it had been originally created” in ProTools. It would seem an absurd claim to say that “there is no way to “translate” or bring in” a project “without changing or losing data”, or that the original project does “not have enough information in them to properly translate”. Translation requires a change of data on some level (otherwise it is just an import).
There is probably an entire thread to be had here on the nature of translation. Starting with Esperanto.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “… if someone at Apple could figure out how to do it (w/o breaking other things in the process) it would be a handy feature to have around.”
Andrew,
Just keep in mind this is the software development team that said “there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects [from 7] without changing or losing data.” and “FCP7 projects do not have enough information in them to properly translate to FCPX”.
You may have more luck hoping for third-party development on PIOP.
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] “That’s EXACTLY what a range select then favorite or otherwise tag it operation does. It creates a persistent in and out selection in the event library.”
Uh oh …
Here we go again.