Mark Raudonis
3
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Bring it on, just don’t call people names and tell me I’m being flip. I am here to help. “
I just reread my posts. No names called. I said your response was “flip”… not you. But, it’s not a help to advocate something that may not be the best solution in the long run. To me “archiving” means long term… ten plus years. I stand by my opinion that harddrives on a shelf are NOT a viable long term archiving solution.
[Jeremy Garchow] “That simply won’t work for us”
The forum isn’t just about you. There’s plenty of other people out there with different requirements, workflows, and needs. Keep that in mind.
[Jeremy Garchow] “they refuse to accept the world we live in today”
We all live in that same world. Some just see it differently.
[Jeremy Garchow] Now is the time to start figuring this stuff out because it’s not going away.
“On that I agree.
Mark
-
Jeremy,
Sensitive to opposing points of view? Just a little!
Project files and ancillary media (stills, grfx, etc) can get burned to a DVD as data.
Do I think there will be Beta machines around in 15 years? Yes, absolutely. We still have 3/4 machines laying around from the 80’s that work. Don’t ever use ’em, but they work.
Until this archiving conundrum is solved, the tapeless production workflow will remain a problem for many producers with network delivery requirements. Blue Ray is the most promising archive medium, but going there negates the whole concept of faster, better, cheaper and turns it into, slower, worse than before, and more expensive.
For a self contained, “in the moment” project, tapeless is great. For a project that has the possibility of long term commercial exploitation, it creates problems that many people may over look in their haste to adopt a new product. Namely, the hoops required to navigate a viable archive plan end up costing more than using tape in the first place.
Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messanger. Corner your friendly Panasonic or Sony rep at the next tradeshow and ask them what they’re recommending for archiving digital media.
Mark
[Jeremy Garchow] “Final programs go to tape (of course), but how the hell do you expect me to archive my project files and all other ancillary material to BetaSP? 15 years? I bet it’ll be hard to find a beta machine that is working in 15 years. I am willing to wager they won’t be on every street corner like they are now so I pose that challenge back to you. “
-
Jeremy,
Do you deal with network deliverable requirements?
You can make all the flip comments you want, but a hard drive is just not a reliable way to store media in the long term. Are you even going to have a compatible operating system 10-15 years from now that will recognize that drive and how it’s formatted? We regularly dip into our vault and pull out tapes from shows done over ten years ago. That stuff was plain old Beta, and I can pop it into a betacam deck (yes, we still have one) and it will play. I challenge you to do the same 15 years from now with a cheap ATA drives.
Mark
-
All you “hard drive” advocates are doomed to suffer a painful, agonizing experience when you discover that those drives fail to mount two years from now.
Realistically speaking, hard drives are NOT a viable archive medium. Blue ray, LTO, or video tape are MUCH more reliable.
Notice, I didn’t say “practical”! But, they are more reliable.Most networks will NOT accept a hard drive as an archiveable production element.
This is why we’ve been slow to adopt the “tapeless” cameras. I love the concept, can’t deal with the archiving.
Mark
-
I agree with John.
You’d have to export a single QT of each angle “sequence” then multiclip those QTs. It will work, but if you need to “uprez” or media manage this project, I’d do a test.
Mark
-
] “i miss the simplicity of holding film in my hands, physically cutting it (with a razor blade rather than a wireless mouse), and marking a dissolve on it with a grease pencil.
“Look, I’m old enough to have “touched film” too, but I sure as hell don’t miss it from a Post perspective.
Mark
-
“24p” goes to tape @ 29.97 with pull down added. That camera will not record at any other speed.
24fps is ONLY critical if you are going to do a FILM OUT. THen, it’s a whole ‘nother workflow.
If you’re never going to film, then don’t worry about it.
Mark
-
[Sycophant] “Production is already shooting with 2 Varicams – they don’t want to learn a new workflow.
“That’s the wrong answer! They’re dooming you to hours of work trying to establish a look. I’m sure the production manager (if there is one) would be interested in knowing how much time can be saved in post by making a simple change in camera/settings on the set.
You should be more assertive with your production team. May I suggest a whack upside the head? Really!
mark
-
Chrispy,
It sounds like you’re caught going between progressive and interlaced.
The “Stroby” motion is coming from going from progressive to interlaced back to progressive. I’ve found that FCP can end up confusing the cadence and end up with something like 2;2;2;4 which contributes to the strobey motion that you’re seeing.
The easiest way to confirm this would be to go out to tape with both flavors and advance through the fields on an NTSC monitor. Then, you can confirm that it’s the fields that are causing your issues.
Good luck.
mark
-
Michael,
DV is full size, so therefore, it’s not a problem. The off-line RT codec is the problem because it creates a 320 X 240 size image which is why the grfx are so whacked.
Bottom line, if you’re doing a lot of grfx in off-line, using the “off-line RT” codec is not a good idea.
Mark