[Joseph Owens]

[Marcus Moore] “Exactly, we need organization, but not “tracks” as other NLEs have them. Track information is just another form of metadata. What we need is for Role info to be represented in the timeline.”

This is outmoded thinking. Who needs the timeline? This obsession with structure, order of things and hierarchies and stuff is so last-century. The real problem with FCX is that it is not revolutionary enough. It dropped too much of what people were comfortable with and offered something which wasn’t actually different enough to warrant changing a whole way of life.

The winner of the edit sweepstakes will be the one who can get rid of the whole timeline/tracks paradigm. Everything should take place in the browser, which is your storyboard-in-waiting. Maybe it (the browser) should be the whole edit, everything optional, nothing written in stone, no gaps, no broken process links.

Edit in the bin.

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

[Shane Ross] “Only two words? Worth a shot.”

With the “direct-to-camera” angle, wipe in somebody else’s lips saying “Hi Guys”. Send it to me, I’ll do it for $40,000 — way less than ILM or R&H, and I hear they don’t really charge much for their (perhaps) over-rated services anyway, right? shane? 50 Large sound about right? Maybe put a little push on the still. Animate in a wink.

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

It is curious that you would get these different behaviours if your source media has been transcoded to ProRes — there should be no memory of what the original source might be. Is it possible that you are really using a Quicktime proxy wrapper, and what is really happening is that FCP/Quicktime will have one interpretation of the footage when it is thinking it is dealing with ProRes, but another, when it actually looks back further, when it “renders” from the actual source codec, which might still be the Canon whatever-it-is. This does have the feel of an RGB/Y’CbCr scaling error.

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

First things first, what are your project settings?

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

[Florian Gintenreiter] “The Clip “XXX” can’t be linked to the media file “XXX” because the timecode extents do not match.”

Always a good one.

It could be a slight discrepancy between posted and actual frame rate, ie the clip is advertised by Quicktime as 23.98, but its really 24.000. Your clips may not actually have time code, or it may be a different code altogether, like some kinds of Long-GOP codecs and a synthetic count.

Very often, if those clips have been imported into the media pool, you will be able to hand-conform them into the timeline, and almost 10/10 times they will fit so perfectly, you will seriously wonder what could possibly be different about the time code extents.

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

[MichaelMaier] ”
In this process you would have rendered 2 times. From Resolve and from the NLE. If you had done it from Resolve, you would only render one time. Straight to your deliver format. Am I wrong?”

As Juan put it, it would vary on a case-by-case basis. The vast majority of my workflow dictates a kind of “generic” donor timeline which could not be finalized in any way directly from Resolve. There will always be several versions of the final show; textless elements, seamless versions, different languages, widescreen, letterbox, pillarbox, widescreen with text protected for center extraction, and so on and on and on and on…. So maybe if the show is a very simple one-off with no variations, then sure, pump out the flat single file/project and that will be it… upload to wherever its going and whatever happens to it after that is somebody else’s challenge. Just don’t expect to be able to make any revisions without tearing it apart first, or doing it all over again. Maybe you can charge for that!

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

[MichaelMaier] “If they export the final output straight from Resolve or not. It seems to me that it would be preferable to do it from Resolve to avoid re-compression.”

Sorry, you lost me there. Resolve creates new media as part of its export process. Any editing or mastering software will point to these new files the same way it would with the original source files, no recompression necessary, as long as the export codec is compatible with the application. Resolve is not necessarily intended to be used as a “finishing” package, as it isn’t generally regarded to be either an editing or compositing tool, both of which would be necessary to integrate the titles, layback, captions/subtitles, versioning and so on and on of a general release.

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

Agreed, Keep going in 30fps. If, for some reason, you need a 23.98 or 24.000 master, then go back to the people who have the Teranex. They will, or should, know what to do.

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

[Shane Ross] “We will still see it in heavy use in Hollywood for 3-4 more years. “

Might be a little bit optimistic but without evidence to the contrary not likely to go away… until…

Apple does something that disables the suite with an OS change, or 4K starts getting more traction. Some new format may be the FCP7 killer. If enough people start insisting on some new breed of codec, then it will be all over. Will it be XAVC? Would enough people decide its not worth the trouble to use wrappers, proxies and transcodes?

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.

[Joseph Owens]

[Calin Casian] “-evga gtx 580 3Gb classified,”

You’re only running one GPU?

jPo

“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.