Mark Raudonis
3
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
Beware the term: “Fully filled M & E”. This means that they expect to receive an M & E track that “fills” in all sound FX EXCEPT the dialogue. For a typical “reality” show, this simply isn’t practical. Taking out the
dialogue often results in NO AUDIO. Therefore, some foreign distributors expect you to “foley” all of the background sounds back into the mix. This can take days of effort for a one hour show, and obviously cost a lot of money.So. Make sure your distributor is NOT expecting to see “fully filled” m & e. If they are…. get ready for a major headache and a big hit to the budget.
Mark
-
Back in the “film” days, every piece of film that you bought had a paragraph of legalese that essentially said that Kodak would only be responsible for the value of the stock, and nothing more. Obviously, there’s an entire branch of the insurance industry that covers the “value of the production” represented by the images on that stock.
Nick is absolutely correct in assuming that barring any explicit, written exception, the insurance will ONLY cover the cost of the tape stock and nothing more. It’s up to you to value it, and more importantly, pay the premium for covering that “self stated” value.
As productions now go “tapeless”, the completion bond companies that cover feature film production are getting very specific as to requiring multiple backup copies of file based acquisition media.
My suggestion to you is that it would probably be MUCH CHEAPER to duplicate your library yourself (maybe even X 2) and store it in two separate places. Money will never replace those kind of archive images. At best it will only ease the pain.
Finally, the longer you store your images, the less likely you will ever be able to recover them. People serious about archiving develop a plan to “migrate” their library every few years or so to the most current digital format available. There’s plenty of evidence out there that “hard drives on a shelf” can go corrupt in as little as a year if they”re not used.
Good luck.
mark
-
[Rafael Amador] “Things like the “Ultra HD (7680×4320)” are around the corner. “
When I asked the guy from NHK how they edited the ten minute presentation that was screened for the show, his answer was, “SUPERCOMPUTER!!!!”
Before you know it the answer will be “iPHONE!!!”
Mark
-
Chris,
What you’re describing is EXACTLY our workflow. Has been for years. Our source material is typically Sony XDCAM HD, or DVCPRO HD, or HDCAMsr, or in the past SD. We almost always ingest the material at “Off-line RT” resolution and then do a conform of the locked picture. We use the “off-line RT” setting of 320 x 240. (or anamorphic if appropriate)
Depending on which input device you’re using (AJA, Matrox, etc.) there may also be a setting called “off-line RT HD” which retains the full pixel size. This is very helpful when handling alot of grfx since you don’t have to reposition anything when you get to high rez. I would think that you’d WANT to retain the original pixel size because of this very reason. If, however, you really do want the smaller dimensions, then the basic “off-line RT” setting should do the trick.
By the way, we also work with a large team of editors sharing tons of media. For bandwidth and storage reasons, we’re forced to use the classic “off-line to on-line” workflow. It has it’s advantages and disadvantages, and if you know how to play to it’s strengths, it can be an efficient way to work.
Good luck.
Mark
-
Attendance is way down from prior years, but there’s still whole lot of people here.
Consensus from vendors I’ve met is that the traffic is down, but that’s not necessarily bad. Fewer “tire kickers” and more serious prospects.
It’s also easier to get a cab.
Mark
-
[Mark Suszko] “if it takes 30 minutes or so to upload fifteen minute’s worth of feed cleanly, “
From a hotel internet connection??? Not gonna happen!
You don’t need to travel to a third world country to test this out. Spend a hundred bucks and check into
your local Holiday Inn and test your workflow. I think you’ll be shocked at how slow it goes.Frankly, your plan is DOOMED! Theoretically, maybe. Practically? No way.
Mark
-
Michael,
Most networks are settling in on HDCAMsr as the master delivery format of choice, for the reasons mentioned earlier (12 ch audio and 4:2:2 color space). I’ve noticed that the old “DA88” requirement is changing slightly to include “or digital file on DVD”.
I too would love to see totally digital delivery, but I don’t see that happening very soon for the simple reason that a digital file must be archived in some way, and currently, for long form programming, it’s hard to beat videotape.
By the way, while I appreciate a good rant, you’re preaching to the choir on this forum. A more appropriate (effective) approach would be to speak to your contact at the network you’re delivering to, and bend their ear. Good luck!
Mark
-
Lars,
Let me just say that I DISAGREE with you 100%.
Your negative comments about “networked, group workflow” is exactly why Avid vs FCP is such a debatable topic.
What you’re describing is EXACTLY what we do on a BIG scale. We often have six different shows going simultaneously, with almost 100 seats connected. We’re using X-SAN and FCP, and the “project sharing” problem that you outline just isn’t an issue. Trust me when I say we couldn’t meet our deadlines if we had the issues you’re alluding to. We do reality TV with MASSIVE amounts of media.
Last time I checked, our SAN was at 81 terrabytes and growing. (After NAB)Maybe it’s our approach. We pioneered the switch from Avid to FCP over FIVE years ago. Back then, what you’re talking about may have been true, but if you set up your SAN properly, the “project” workflow ceases to become an issue. In fact, having the ENTIRE SAN as a source of media is a good thing. Avid is actually moving in that direction with their “Interplay” approach and now their new “AMA” media.
As I see it, the reason that many people slam FCP for it’s “group workflow” inadequacies is that they either just can’t imagine how to organize an entire company around FCP or they just don’t want to
give up their Avids. Don’t get me started on the financial differences between the two.Oh, and don’t forget “Color” and the final on-line process. As others have mentioned, this debate is a HUGE topic that can’t possibly be covered in a few posts.
Mark
-
Anders,
We’ve used both extensively. Our colorists will tell you that they prefer the DVCPro codec for it’s ability to “stretch” on the low and the high side. Meaning: You can pull more detail out of the blacks and seem to retain more detail in the blown out white (sky) areas.
By IMX 50 are you referring to the older tape based format? (Not the XDCAM disc based format?) If so,
I’d prefer the DVCPRO. If you really mean the XDCAM disc based format, then I’d prefer the post advantages inherent in a file based acquisition format.Compared side by side, you probably won’t notice much of a difference. I would NOT recommend using different brand cameras and codecs in a multi camera shoot however. Scene to scene = OK.
Personally, I’d avoid this “mixed mess” if at all possible. But you probably already know that!
mark
-
No dialogue. That’s the beauty of it. These clips convey an emotion or a thought WITHOUT
words. Each clip I found applies to a specific concept that I’m looking to reinforce visually.
It’s less “pantomime” and more “movie scene”.yes, the clips I found influenced the design of the slide and the overall presentation.
Mark