Sean Oneil
Forum Replies Created
-
[nshuppert] “what did you do to get the issue resolved?”
My hypothesis was that because they were wav files, FCP was reclocking them as they were imported. Since you have aif, I highly doubt that’s the problem.
You can use FCP’s modify timecode function on your aiffs to make your TC whatever format the pro tools TC is (like 29.97 non-drop). Then get on the phone your Pro Tools person and compare TC numbers to specific moments in the audio. Then you can at least eliminate user error from either end.
Sean
-
Automatic Duck sells a lot of plugins for Final Cut. One of them lets you import OMF files from Pro Tools without losing the crossfades, etc. Sounds like they’re just trying to get audio from Pro Tools to FCP. But if Plan A was to just capture a DA88, it sounds like you really don’t need all of that.
Ask them to output eight AIFF files and burn them to a data DVD-R. And make sure they write down what the first TC number is supposed to be (eg 00:58:30:00 non-drop). You can then easily just import them into FCP and assign the proper TC values using the “Modify-Timecode” function.
Sean
-
How did the mixer deliver the audio to you? A while back I had the same problem when our Pro Tools guy gave me .WAV files. It seemed FCP was calculating the length of the audio based on number of samples and was getting the length wrong which caused drift.
Sean
-
Also, if you capture and edit at 23.98 from a Kona or BM, you can still use the EDL conversion route. It still doesn’t prevent you from doing that because the 29.97 TC is still intact so you can make a 29.97 EDL. Additionally, you won’t be making any bad edits that will cause a flash frame because the editing is in a 23.98 timebase.
Another possible solution is to have the HDCam deck output as 1080i60 and use the same pulldown removal method during the online as you do in the offline.
-
I’m the one who told him this and it was a mistake. A previous version of CT had a bug where if the Quicktime format was DV, it would automatically assume it had to be 3:2:2:3 advanced pulldown and not let you do a regular inverse 3:2. They have since fixed this but with version 3.
-
[TK] “Not true. People use every day. It was designed to do this. It’s been doing this since it was Film Logic.”
Actually CT 2.2 it doesn’t work. The option to pick the A frame is greyed out. But yes I was wrong in the sense that they seemed to have fixed it with CT 3. I apologize.
[TK] ” If you look at the timecode window in FCP for the clips, they jump timecode numbers. If you plan to online in HD this can cause problems, because you can make edits in your offline that happen above frame 23 (like frame 29)”
You can use “Modify->Timecode” and change it to 23.98 TC.
-
BTW, I just remembered CT won’t let you do a reverse telecine with DV footage. For some stupid reason, it assumes that DV footage must be 3:2:2:3 advanced pulldown, not regular 3:2 pulldown. So you’d have to convert it to uncompressed or JPEG first.
Go with the Kona/Decklink solution if you can. Definitely the best workflow.
Sean
-
[35mmGuy] “I make an edit on a 3:2 pulldown frame in my offline. This can cause a flash frame that will need to be fixed by stopping the assembly.
Then there is Cinema Tools, which I have never used. Can any one give me their work flow for using Cinema Tools to offline a 24fps film show?
How did you set up the FCP project?
Did you strip off the 3-2 pull down with Cinema Tools on the source footage after you loaded it all in? You did you remove it from the final time line edit only?”
Two things:
1. If you do edit in 29.97, FCP lets you tag your clips with “Film Safe” thus preventing you from making edits in places which will later cause flash frames.
2. You can use CT to perform an inverse telecine before editing. But rather than doing that, you can actually capture the footage directly as 23.98 using a Kona or Blackmagic card. You just need to identify the A frame. That way when you do the batch re-capture from HDCam SR, it should come in flawlessly since the framerate isn’t changing.
Sean
-
[chrispy] “Hey Sean…how’s your experience with MetaSAN so far ?
In what environment are you using it (SD or HD) and how many systems are on the SAN ?”
It definitely does the job. I totally recommend it. There are a few minor annoyances, but overall it’s fantastic.
Sean
-
Sorry I took so long. Don’t regularly check this board.
Yes, it had nothing to do with MetaSAN. I wasn’t sure which is why I didn’t email you Bernard.
Basically, my direct attached SATA array had become degraded (RAID 5) and this was causing the problems. After I rebuilt it and ran Disk Warrior, the problem went away.
BTW, I wanted to ask if a future version of MetaSAN will be able to ignore direct attached drives (as oppose to just mounting it as Private). This issue I had is a perfect example of how it can be problematic. I had to uninstall MetaSAN before I could successfully run Disk Warrior on it. MetaSAN also prevents me from unmounting direct attached drives. It’d be nice if MetaSAN could ignore these disks the way it ignores the system disk. Not a huge deal.
Sean