Mark Raudonis
3
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
Bob,
Seems like you’re trying to revist those “glory days” of linear editing. We used to do this all the time… tracing back three, four, up to thirteen generations of cuts, selects etc. It was tedious. Unreliable. And… a major pain in the ass! Why in tarnation would you want to “go there” when storage now is so cheap? Sure it’s possible. I’ll dust off my old copy of “Turbo Trace” (on a 5 1/4″ floppy!) and you can have at it. On the other hand,
simply putting your selects on a spare firewire drive accomplishes the same thing.Mark
-
Welcome to the world of FCP. Glad you like it. Unfortunately, you’re in deep doo doo here!
Typically, a DV work copy of a film transfer will have a “Window Burn” of the timecode and/or keycode (film frames) so that you can reference the original material. You don’t say if that’s the case with your material.
It sounds like your DV copy is “clean” without any of that information. Trying to match this code is going to be an exercise in frustration. My advice is to bite the bullet and get the transfer done properly: (Matching timecode with a window burn). I know you don’t want to hear this, but you’ll spend more time and effort trying to fix this problem than if you simply started over and reconstructed your timeline.
This is a workflow issue, not a FCP issue. Good luck.
Mark
-
This is a bug. We’re still seeing it in 5.0. Here’s a possible fix for you.
If you open up the motion tabs of the new (managed) shots, you’ll see the speed change key frame markers. For some reason, an extra key frame gets placed in the new clip. Delete that keyframe and you should be back to where you started. This doesn’t work in all cases, but for some types of speed changes it will work. Also, be wary of still frames. They too can get confused by the media manager.
Hope this helps.
Mark
-
JL,
FCP also has a low res off-line codec called “off-line RT”. I think this is what you’re asking about. It an extremely low res image, but we use it for the classic “off-line to on-line” workflow. It’s comparable to the avid’s 20:1 compression.
In the world of Reality TV production, the shooting ratios are so high (300-1) that there simply is no way that we could even use the DV codec to store everything. Furthermore, we’ve now got something like 50+ systems all networked via x-san, so the bandwidth requirements for moving around all those data streams would be too high. Off-line RT ain’t pretty, but it gets the job done.
Mark
-
Was this project started in 4.5 and then opened in 5.0? If so, that may cause what you’re observing. We’ve noticed that there is some “wonkiness” with existing 4.5 projects that are brought forward to 5.0. It’s never a good idea to “cross over” versions. If possible start a fresh project in 5.0. If you already have a “clean”, new project, then I’m stumped.
Mark
-
[nate ford] “is there anything else that will work better for transcription? plugins or standalone software? the actual editing functionality can be minimal. he could even capture big clips in f.c. express and export quicktime for transcription elsewhere.”
Two programs come to mind. First there’s a company called “Pilotware”. They make logging software which is widely used in the reality TV field here in LA. Check out their web site. http://www.pilotware.com
Second, there’s a company called “Teresis” which provides a more “turn key” approach combining digitizing, logging, transcriptions, and media management. Check out their website at http://www.teresis.com
Both of these solutions are gonna cost money, and if your client doesn’t even have a full copy of FCP I doubt that they’re gonna wanna spring for this software. But hey, if you’re a consultant, then advise them to stop being cheap and get the right tool for the job.
Mark
-
Practically speaking, Jerry’s idea for creating a window burn is the best. If you want to geek out, you can see the TC info if you open a separate “get info” window when the clip is running. The info is there, it’s just not set up for display. Not very practical, but theoretically it would work.
As we move towards a very “networked” environment where many “non editors” are looking at raw footage, the need for a visible TC display in the standard QT player becomes crucial. I hope that the folks in Cupertino are listening.
Mark
-
Depends on how many items you determine need protection. APC makes some nice rack mountable versions (model # is 1400, I think). The model number represents the number of watts it can handle. We have some of these left over from our old AVIDs, but they’re probably overkill for a basic FCP system. I like ’em though ’cause when an earthquake hits, those racks arent going anywhere!
Mark
-
[Mike Most] “I think you and I know that on a purely business level, it’s not that simple. Things that might on the surface appear equal are not always equal.”
I think you and I know that you’re implying that the “Avid Status quo” is a safer business bet. I disagree. Look at all of the post houses that have gone under/sold out or consolidated in the last few years. Why is that? The economics of this business are changing. Gone are the million dollar on-line rooms. Gone are the high room rates that supported them. Gone is the “if we build it they will come” business model. In my mind, what appears to be equal is not… it’s better than equal.
mark
-
You’re correct in guessing that we’re all “in house”. However, all we do is longform, “network” reality television shows. Hours of it per week. Our “clients” are network programming executives who don’t give a hoot about what we cut on . They just want ratings.
I acknowledge that we are in different ends of the business, but the principle remains the same. If you’re basing a business plan soley on a “brand name” NLE, then you’re selling the wrong thing. Talent and experience will always prevail. The box is becoming a commodity. So… if it’s a commodity, then go for the best price and figure out how else to “add value” to your service. The days of high priced room rates are over for all but a very small slice of the market.
mark