Tony West
Forum Replies Created
-
[greg janza] “I use Frame.io every day and I can concur with Oliver that the frame.io extension just isn’t ready for prime time.
“What problems do you have with the extension other than what I pointed out? Just curious.
Btw, you also agree with me. I’m trying to improve the extension. That’s the point of my post.
-
[Oliver Peters] “No, based on my experience with it. “
I understand, but what’s more relevant than “your” experience is that of Frame’s tech support who I spoke with and disagree with you. From you comments it doesn’t sound like you have a lot of experience with it.
You thought it left the original untouched before you learned from me that it didn’t.
[Oliver Peters] “I would think Frame leaves the original untouched”
Hey, there’s no shame in learning but it’s OK to acknowledge it.
They are very clear in how they want you to use their platform and here is “Their” video to prove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYliqZYWkmINo where in that video are they saying only use our app for review or go around it for “serious” stuff.
[Oliver Peters] “Using your method, you never end up with a master file that lives on your drive outside of the FCPX sequence inside of FCPX. Seems pretty dangerous. “
I hear your concern but you are assuming I want that master in all cases. Many things will hit air once, never to be seen again because the event is on a certain day that has passed. Remember that I still have the Library on one drive and X set to backup on a separate drive. That’s two places I could get it from plus it would be on frame and then the client would also have it after download. That’s “4” places for this one time thing. My way is fine for this.
[Oliver Peters] “You have a method that doesn’t seem to work for you. I’m suggesting a method that I know will work. Take your pick.”
Well,
A. You offered a workaround that I already knew about (as I mentioned I spoke with their tech support) and you did it in a way that suggested that it wasn’t a workaround, but rather “their” intended way to use it to begin with. Which is not true at all. I do appreciate your help but wanted to clear up that bit of “misinformation”.
B. Your way doesn’t work anyway, because even if you skip the app and take a video with mics on separate tracks directly into Frame, you will not be able to monitor both those mics. So if you can’t HEAR the mics how are they supposed to review it? Like I said, if you had more experience with the platform you would have known that and not spent all this time guessing at a faulty workaround that doesn’t work (when it comes to review). No shame in it.
I’m trying to help them make their platform better as a person that actually uses it a lot.
[Oliver Peters] “it’s a work in progress”
Finally, something that we can agree on : )
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Oliver Peters] “The extension is too simplistic for any sort of real workflows. It should only be used for review and approval on the very simplest of jobs.”
Sorry Oliver that’s your opinion and I don’t agree.
[Oliver Peters] “Export a master file from the FCPX Share menu set as a multitrack Quicktime. Open a web browser and log into Frame. Find your project and upload. Share that from Frame as a Presentation with download enabled. Works like a charm. That’s how Frame was intended to work. “
Actually it’s not intended to work that way at all. It CAN work that way and I have used it that way but that’s an extra step that shouldn’t be needed. If you go to their website they are not showing someone doing what you just described. They show them going right from the timeline to the project in Frame IO using the app (that you don’t like). Which you can do, you just can’t do multiple audio tracks that way, which is the whole point of my post : )
-
[Oliver Peters] “Try it direct instead. The FrameIO extension is pretty mediocre at best. Sounds like a bug in that.
“The extension is the most direct way isn’t it? I know I can send it as a zip file as they suggested through them but that’s not what I want. They didn’t say it was a bug, they said it wasn’t set up to send it that way at this time.
I prefer not to work around the app. I prefer them to fix the app so that it works more efficiently.
-
I came straight out of the timeline in FCP X to Frame.io from the Share menu.
Two mics with two different tracks went up.
One track of audio on the download.
-
[Oliver Peters] ” I would think Frame leaves the original untouched”
I thought that also, but not true. It takes multiple audio tracks down to just one track.
[Oliver Peters] “I think that’s more marketing than anything else. Depends on whether you mean for workflow or simply review & approval and/or delivery.”
I don’t know if it’s marketing are not. I haven’t seen any hard numbers on who is using it and for what.
They didn’t argue with me about it to their credit, and said multiple editors have raised the same concern. They said it was “on their radar” so we will see what happens.
[Oliver Peters] “Personally I wish they’d simply clean up all of their UI and platform inconsistencies.
“I made some suggestions to them about their UI and they made the changes I suggested, so if they agree with you it might happen. At least they did it for me.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Why H.264 and not ProRes? Seems like this type of file is a split-track submaster of an edited project. Wouldn’t you want the highest quality possible since it’s going through further post. What am I missing?”
They might not necessarily do farther post on it. They might not touch it at all, but I want them to have the option down the line if they ever want to drop a music track out or turn a mic off or whatever.
Since FCP X has that feature I want to take advantage of it.
H.264 isn’t really the point. Frame IO can’t split tracks in ProRes either. They should be able to do either.
I was surprised that it couldn’t do it since the platform is used by so many “high end” projects producers.
-
One of the disappointing things I have found about Frame IO is that you can’t take full advantage of the FCP X h.264 multitrack share function.
One of the cool feature that X has is the ability to send multi audio tracks in a h.264 file so that another editor can have control over those tracks. Many people want that h.264 file for the ease of import and it looks darn good anyway.
Currently Frame iO mixes those tracks together and takes away that cool advantage that X has.
I contacted them about it and they are aware of it.
Hopefully Cioni can make that happen.
-
[Oliver Peters] “BTW – here’s a look at the new Sony FX9. Very nice color science in these test clips.
https://philipbloom.net/blog/fx9/
https://www.cinema5d.com/sony-fx9-announced-full-frame-fast-hybrid-autofocu...”
Thanks for posting. It looks very impressive so far. It’s what I have been wanting SONY to do for a while. Put out a little more camera with what most of us need and I’ll pay a little more for it.
I have to give it to SONY, they are pretty good at listing to complaints and addressing them.
I never thought I’d see Gen in and out on another new camera.
The images from Bloom look great.
-
That’s cool Oliver. Thanks for the pic