[Per Holmes]

Hi,

OK, that doesn’t actually work. I can’t tell if FCP is physically exporting all the media regardless of the Self-Contained setting or if it’s just rendering the black, but these files are huge.

However, posters in other topics have correctly pointed out that if your files contain renders, you’re linking to the render, which might change. And regardless, if your media ever changes location, which it might on a large project as this, your QT Reference will break down.

So this is not a viable solution.

All right, it seems I’ll have to suck it up and go back to simply stacking 5 to 10 layers in the timeline and turning them on and off.

It would be so awesome if FCP got a multicam feature! 🙂

Best,

Per

[Per Holmes]

Wait a minute, I read someone saying you can use reference movies as multiclip sources. I’ll have to test, and I’ll be back with an update.

Best,

Per

[Per Holmes]

Hi there,

I studied up on this, as Pluraleyes does not help. While it certainly helps line up multiple cameras that turn on/off and put them on a timeline — one angle on each track — it doesn’t help to work around Apple’s design limitation in the Multiclip feature. The makers of the software therefore merely recommend that you export each track into a separate file and re-import them into a multiclip.

So we’re no better off. I don’t know if Apple reads forums, but the fact that you can find this same question asked ad nauseum should tell you something as a developer. The export/import workaround might work for a small thing, i.e. a song performance or a quick interview. But I consider that a fantasy situation unless you’re working under highly controlled circumstances, like a TV taping in a studio.

As soon as you’re out in the real world, people need to change batteries, and sometimes nothing interesting happens for a long time in one camera so you stop it for a while. I have a 12 TB RAID 5 set up for this project, and even though that’s quite a lot of space for 720p 24fps video (many hundreds of hours), I can’t afford to duplicate all that media for the sole purpose of working around something that can best be described as really stupid.

It would take almost no effort for the developers to allow cameras to start and stop. They could even just start honoring the Angle field that they tell everybody to fill out. If the same Angle appears at a different timecode, simply honor that this is the same Angle, and don’t label Take #2 on Camera A as Angle #54.

But given that this feature seems to have been around in FCP for several versions without getting a look at, it seems that Apple is happy with the multicam feature as it is. Too bad, there’s no possibility of using it if cameras start and stop unless you’re willing to double your media usage.

Has anyone heard of some sort of camera switcher plugin for FCP? I wouldn’t mind having a timeline 5-10 clips tall, if only there was a simple way to switch between clips, besides cutting all 5-10 clips at each edit point and enabling/disabling clips, which is sure to drive you mad.

It really is a bummer.

Thanks anyway!

Best,

Per

[Per Holmes]

Yes, I’ve looked at it, I believe you recommended it in another post. But as I understand that forum user’s response, this software only helps you line up the clips, but multiple recordings from the same camera still become separate angles. So if you start camera C 3 times, you’ve created 3 angles.

As I explained very clearly, lining up the footage is no problem whatsoever. I have proper timecode slates on the first frame of every single take of every camera. So again, lining up the clips is no problem. And by the way, I have no audio on most clips, the main audio comes from a proper 4-channel sounds recording that is common to all angles.

So can you explain how this software helps with multiple recordings in the same angle? I’m not seeing it.

Thanks,

Per

[Per Holmes]

Yes, it was just suggested. Ordering right now. Thanks a lot!

Per

[Per Holmes]

Hi there,

Thanks for your suggestions, I will get that training. As for the hard drive situation, it’s just that I’m sticking with Areca, because they have never, ever let me down. I’ve been through a number of RAIDs that did something funky, but I edited my last project on Avid with an Areca RAID, and it’s very fast — 200 MB/sec sustained read/write is pretty good from 4 drives. Unfortunately, at present, they only offer an external 4-drive enclosure. Had this been PC, it would have been no problem to make an internal 12-drive Areca RAID 5, but on a Mac, I can’t do it internally. However, I’m very keen on sticking with Areca, because I’ve seen them perform exceptionally well in an emergency, and I’ve just lost data with other RAID 5s — in emergencies. For example, I’ve seen a compromised RAID 5 fail completely because one more drive was accidentally disconnected, even though nothing was written because it wasn’t connected. In the same situation, Areca doesn’t dissociate the drives unless it absolutely has to. That’s why I want to keep using them.

I’m also averse to drives that are too big, RAID 5 or not, because I’ve experienced file-system crashes as well. The antidote to that is to make multiple partitions, but then you’re not really better off than having multiple drives. I additionally make full project mirrors on two sets of regular drives, so that one entire project, with all files needed to reconstitute it, is rotated off-site. So while I understand where you’re coming from, I’m pretty attached to the multiple SAS RAIDs. I’m only mentioning the so-called multi-drive problems because I read threads that hammered on it — like you, I can’t understand why, it shouldn’t matter where the data is coming from, as long as it’s reliable.

I’m extremely encouraged that you don’t consider a few hundred hours a “large” project, because neither do I. But again, I’m just going by what I’ve been reading. If all this is in a single project file, then for sure, it would bring down FCP, but it would bring down Avid too to have all that in a single bin. It’s truly a relief to hear you say that.

In this case, pruning will still be a key part of the workflow, because for a good portion of the footage, there are 15 takes and we’re using the last one. These are firm decisions that can be made, and can significantly decrease the space needed. Still, I can easily see going over 4.5 TB.

And yes, I will be editing a full test project before doing FCP for real. I don’t expect learning to end — I learned my favorite Avid keyboard shortcut days before being done with a year-long project. At this stage, I’m primarily trying to make project-management decisions that won’t become a huge problem later. The suggestion earlier of treating FCP Projects as I would treat Avid bins, I think is huge.

Thanks,

Per

[Per Holmes]

Hi,

If that’s the case, it seems that FCP is no more limited than Avid in handling projects of any size, because it lets you open only the databases you need.

Funnny, how FCP then has gotten the blame for being unstable, when all you’re doing is poor media management. Having too many bins open crashes an Avid any day, trust me, I’ve had this happen often.

If FCP allows you to only open the “bins” / “projects” you’re working with, and you use this to segment the data-load on your project, then Avid should have no edge over FCP in handling projects of any size.

I’m extremely encouraged by this, and I just tested — yes, it allows you to open multiple projects and drag and drop between them. In that case, you can do the same healthy segmentation that you’re forced to do on Avid.

Thank you, sir!

Per

[Per Holmes]

Hi,

OK, that’s very interesting. So what you’re saying is that I could actually partition my source footage into various project files, i.e. Location 1 goes into Project File #1, Location 2 goes into Project File #2, Green Screen presentation goes into a GS project file? Then it sounds like I could also make each chapter, or group of chapters, into their own project file, and finally have my output-timelines be a separate project file for each disc?

In other words, is it a reasonable analogy to think of a FCP project file as an Avid bin?

Thanks very much,

Per

[Per Holmes]

I’ve partly answered my own question regarding subtitles, given that FCP both has XML in/out, and there’s also the TitleExchange Pro. The XML way would surely require some script programming. What do people think of TitleExchange Pro? Anyway, I don’t mean to hijack my own conversation, I’m far more interested in the large-project stability issues.

Best,

Per

[Per Holmes]

Hi Guys,

This is Per. Well, thanks for backing up! I did feel that a lot of people stepped in to defend issues that didn’t really need to be defended, this is just a scientific inquiry!

I only have to add that this is not a matter of having too high expectations by comparing the HVX-200 to 35mm in a blanket kind of way. My personal reference IS in 35mm scanned to 10-bit log at insane resolutions, so I’m used to ideal conditions.

I don’t expect this from the HVX at all. My concern was that the HVX exhibits a problem that I’m not entirely convinced HAS to be there, and which could possibly be corrected in software. I analyzed the problem to be a sort of chroma echo that I’ve been able to basically remove in software using a certain pixel shift process to offset part of the chroma signal.

My concern therefore was that the green screen quality of the HVX could be improved by a firmware upgrade to whatever DSP they use to process the raw CCD data. And that would be in everyone’s best interest! If the camera CAN do it, I think it SHOULD do it. Especially if it’s software, not hardware.

I don’t think that comparing a camera to 35mm should be off-limits. Certainly, in the most overall and general way, the HVX will not be able to stand up. But with a specific issue, the comparison can’t automatically be brushed off with the broad (and true) observation that the HVX can’t in GENERAL be compared to 35mm.

I’m convinced that the fringe doesn’t have to be there, and that the camera is capable of producing a better image than it does with the same hardware. I back this up with Andromeda footage I’ve seen that doesn’t have the fringe. But I’ve been able to reverse it enough that I’m fine, and I’m actually quite proud of what I’ve done with the HVX green screen. In fact, I don’t think that my 35mm green screen is THAT MUCH better than the HVX green screen when the signal is properly treated. I also don’t rely on the HVX, and this is sort of just a toy for me. Still, if it CAN be great, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t.

Anyway guys, thanks for your support!

Per