Film Workflow

Can I ask one of the resident experts to give me a brief primer on working with film in FCP? Questions:
* What types of variables are there in getting the film transferred to digi-beta?
* How do I digitize the resultant digi-beta footage? (are there particular settings I should be looking at?)
* Do I edit as normal once the footage is in?
* Is there anything special I need to know about the process of exporting an EDL?
* Is it as simple as providing the EDL to the post-house that will transfer back to video?
* What questions am I not asking that I need to be aware of?
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR ANY ASSISTANCE, IT IS GREATLY APPRECIATED!

Can I ask one of the resident experts to give me a brief primer on working with film in FCP? Questions:< </div>
Only ONE of us? No. You post, the post is free for the taking.
* What types of variables are there in getting the film transferred to digi-beta? < </div>
This question has no answer except YES. What ISO/size/frame rate/positive/negative/Kodak/Fuji of film and how much will you be spending on the competency transfer? What is your release media? Film or digital?
* How do I digitize the resultant digi-beta footage? (are there particular settings I should be looking at?)< </div>
You need a capture mechanism of some kind: card or encoder that suits your production format. How much rez do you need? How big a Mac you workin' worth? You don't need the DigiB footage online unless you need to release back to the DB. You can use DV or any other less intensive video format for your offline.
* Do I edit as normal once the footage is in?< </div>
Lord, "normal" is totally subjective. Do you mean like you'd cut film or how you'd cut video? Yes and no. No and yes.
* Is there anything special I need to know about the process of exporting an EDL?< </div>
Yes. The FCP manual has extensive coverage of EDL formats and compatibility. There are as many answers as there are post production workflows. It's tricky and fraught with gotchas but it's easy if you have all fo the tools in place for your specific needs and have time to practice.
* Is it as simple as providing the EDL to the post-house that will transfer back to video? <</div>
Not at all. Nothing about working on film in video and then going to film or to an third party for online is easy.
* What questions am I not asking that I need to be aware of?
<
That's funny. Run to the NAB or American Cinematographer stores and start buying books. Hit a million indie film production Web sites.
lafcpu.org has alots of film producers on it but, listen, do not go around posting this same list of silly questions everywhere. Do some research and search those forums first. You are NOT the first person to have these thoughts.
Get thick skin because there's so much you obviously do not know that some of us will insist on having some fun with you. It's not personal, you 've simply provided the incentive or the excuse.
bogiesan

Similar Messages

24 fps Film Workflow in FCP

Hello all,
I'm planning out a film workflow for a feature-length motion picture I plan to edit with my Final Cut Pro setup.
The equipment is as follow:
Mac Pro Quad 2.66 GHz
5 GBs RAM
6 TB Cal Digit RAID
Kona LHe capture card
The stock will originate on 35mm and there is a chance that this will go back to film to have the negative reconformed (pending purchase by a studio and/or distributor). However, the initial plan is to master to HDCAM SR and do a Digital Intermediate.
Ideally, I'd like to stay in 24p (23.98) for offline.
One plan for offline includes getting all dailies transferred via telecine at one-light to DVCAM, then digitize and doing the reverse telecine in Cinema Tools, then correcting for the timecode variance, then doing offline in SD in a 23.98 project.
Would it time-saving (I know not cost-effective) to get all the dailies telecined at one-light to DVCPRO HD tapes at 24p, then digitizing into the system at 24p, and eliminating the whole "reverse telecine" process.
Is this the only way to ensure that offline and online media originates on 24p and stays that way? I want to stay away from conversion as much as possible.
Thanks in advance!
Mac Pro Quad 2.66 GHz / 5.0 Gigs RAM / GeForce 7300 GT / 2.0 TBs internal SATA

Of course Keycodes...I planned on this from the beginning. However, for your recommended method, I don't see why we'd have to have our 1-light transfers to HDCAM SR 4:4:4...wouldn't it make more sense to transfer directly to DVCPRO HD tapes, dig them into the FCP station (we'll rent a deck and tri-sync) and cut, then pull our selects from keycodes for an HDCAM SR 4:4:4 master for the final format.
Ok, you really don't need to transfer as 1-Light, have the colorist make a full color correction. The only reason why I mentioned 1-Light was for reducing the time in the transfer suite. You still be have to do Tape-to-Tape Color Correction and they can do some pretty amazing stuff that you won't be able to do in the dailies and vice-versa (Go with a DaVinci System or EQ or Pablo).
The only reason why I don't recomend the whole transfer to DVCPro and the re-transfer to HDCam SR is because you can get the DVCPro quality from the 4:4:4 Master (Just digitize straight from the HDCam SR master with a DVCPro codec). You save the 2nd Re-Transfer time, the Dubs to DVCPro, the DVCPro Tapes and you same TIME. Remeber that they still have to re-clean the film, spend time loading to the telecine, and problems that are going to arise due to a re-transfer like possible scratches, lab dirt, chemical spots, film tears, etc. And these DO happen).
*Also, if you're also editing your way, and matching back to you keykode for selects, you won't be able to do it in Final Cut. I checked today and this option is only available for Avids. *
Since it's a 1-light transfer, is it really taking advantage of the HDCAM SR's 4:4:4 color space bandwidth? Why not go directly to DVCPRO HD if it's only going to be 1-light...
Again, don't do a one light. If you can afford it have the colorist do their best. Yes, if you are going 4:4:4 might as well go all the way. Regarding the DVCPro, see above.
I'm not sure our budget will allow for an HDCAM SR 4:4:4 transfer of our dailies. Is there typically a price difference between transfering on different HD tapes formats? HDCAM SR seems like it'd be more expensive than DVCPRO HD. If there is no price difference than I can see your point...but how good would it look at only 1-light (albeit w/ video color-correction).
HDCam SR 4:4:4 is expensive. Next best thing would be HDCam SR 4:2:2, followed by HDCam and finally DVCPro HD. Lately, DVCPro and HDCam are going about the same rate for transfers. If you have a good Post Supervisor he/she can probably sweet talk the post house for a HDCam SR deal. DVCPro HD has a compression of about 15:1, HDCam is 7:1, HDcam SR is 3:1 and SR 4:4:4 is 1:1. (It varies from source to source, these are only approximates) If you're doing a Film-Out, the higher quality, the better the Film-Out.
Oh, and one more thing... a friend of mine, after choosing his selects from the final format of his feature, had the HDCAM select reel made with a 3-light transfer, BUT, also had a downconvert made with Keycode and Timecode burn-in to help with the reconform...if the keycode stuff failed to match...it seems to help him a lot. Any merit to this method?
This is how you re-conform your offline. The whole DVCam dub thing is a given, is part of the method. You have DVcam dubs made (with keykode and timecode burns), you digitize this new material with its respective list and then you match the keykode from the dailies, to the keykode from the selects and bring in your new timecode from the new "selects" masters so that your sequence/EDL (and therefore online) will have matching timecode (the timecode from the original dailies will be useless). (*This system is only available on AVID as far as I know*). Again, this is where keeping track of keykode is super important and you will encounter problems.
In my humble opinion, most of this stuff is for the Post Supervisor to figure out with the Editor and the Post-House. I have talked to post supers that have gone this method and you would not believe how confident they were the 1st week and totally lost it after the 4th week. I have seen shows that have gone through 4 or 5 assistant editors and had to hire a 2nd editor to help with the problems that came up. I have worked on this kind of shows many times and that's why I HIGHLY discourage it.
If you (or someone else) wants to know more, feel free to contact me and I can go into details and help you figure out a workflow that will save you TIME and a lot of headaches and a tiny bit of money. My email is in my profile and feel free to contact me, I won't bite! At first...

Film workflow advice

Hello,
I need some workflow advice for a feature film and I would really appreciate some input and technical expertise. I am working with telecined footage from 16mm film and I need to perform reverse telecine with Cinematools so that I can edit the footage in Final cut. My end format will be a 35mm blow up from my original 16mm negative, so I need Cinematools to track my footage correctly so that I can later export a cut list for the negative cutter.
My digital footage is SD and is on DV cam tapes. The lab used a telecine speed of 23.98 when they transferred the footage. The lab provided flex files which I used to create a cinema tools database and to batch capture all of the footage.
First, I need to confirm that the footage was captured correctly.
To capture I used the FCP preset: DV NTSC 48 kHz (29.97 fps DV-NTSC Best Quality 720x480)
I did not use the FCP capture preset "DV NTSC 48 kHz Advanced (2:3:3:2) Pulldown Removal" because my understanding is that this preset is designed to remove pulldown during capture when used with external hardware designed to remove pulldown during capture, correct? In this case I will be removing the pulldown with Cinema Tools instead.
I also am assuming that setting the capture fps to 23.98 would have been wrong because my footage is coming from DV Cam tapes, which can only be 29.97, right? So even though the telecine speed was 23.98, the footage needs to be captured at 29.97 and then processed with Cinematools to make it 23.98 or 24 fps, correct?
Second, I need to know if my goal should be to make my footage 23.98 or 24 fps with Cinematools. If my end goal is to export an EDL for a negative cutter to go back to my 16mm footage to cut from, should I edit at 24 fps? I think the answer is yes, but then I am worried that my telecine was done at a speed of 23.98. My audio was recorded at 30 fps - though my understanding is that the fps of the audio doesn't matter since audio is recorded in time and not frames. However, I did read in the Cinematools manual that if the footage is 23.98 as opposed to 24 fps, then it means that my footage is going to playback at a slightly slower rate, thereby affecting audio sync. If that is true, will I have to slow my audio slightly to maintain sync? This doesn't seem ideal.
Third, I am having trouble when I do a reverse telecine test with Cinematools on my footage. I am looking at burned-in key code and film frame numbers in my footage and observing that when I advance through my footage frame by frame in FCP, the film frame numbers of every frame are perfectly clear and legible (they advance thus: A2, B2, C1, D1, D3). However, when I view a clip in Cinematools (pre-reverse telecine), the frame numbers are blurred and have interframe flicker (the interlacing field pattern). The same is true after I perform reverse telecine on the clip. The cinemtools manual mentions this as something to be avoided in a clip that has been reverse telecined (in "Checking you Reverse Telecine Results on page 132) - however I see this problem in clips that I have not yet reverse telecined.
I am worried because another person worked with this footage before me and I fear that they performed reverse telecine on the footage already (and incorrectly) and directed Cinematools to overwrite the original file instead of creating a new one. If this is true then I would have to start over and recapture everything. On the other hand, it seems like if that were the case I would see the problem in FCP as well. Is there a way that I can tell for sure?
Thank you so much in advance for any advice you can give me! I really appreciate it.

Thanks Jim. The project is sort of like an "extended music video".
So it is a record, 45 minutes long and then using that as a guide,
we shot the footage. Its not gonna be just lipsyncing all the time, but
there will be other things inserted there as well.
It is just the workflow that bothers me and mainly:
1 Should I convert HDV material after capturing with prores 422 or stay in native
2 When should I convert from PAL to NTSC?
3 Should I s t a r t, by importing the 5.1 surround mixes to FCP6 and then work
with that as a guide?
I´ve done some music videos before, but this is more like a music movie and
will be sold as a sales DVD.
I would appreciate any help you guys can give.
Thank you, timo

Film Workflow w/ FCP & Cinema Tools

I am cutting a feature shot on film for the first time and have a workflow question. Apologies if this post has been done to death and feel free to send a link to another post or site.
The film is being shot in 2 perf 35mm. It is going to the post house to be transferred to HDSR for effects. We are being given DVCAM tapes with burnt in timecode at 29.97 for offline editing. We will then give them an EDL at the end for online.
So what's next?
If I capture the DVCam tapes at 29.97, I then have to conform in CinemaTools right? This is where I'm unsure, as I am not familiar with the program.
Any info on the steps would be VERY much appreciated. Cheers in advance!

BTW - That "read the cinema tools" response was both unhelpful and trite.
Your question deals with workflow, however, something confuses me.
If the feature was shot on 35mm, Telecine to HD-CAM SR and then downconverted to SD DV-CAM, I really doubt it is 29.97 w/ burned timecode.
Usually people shoot 24 when shooting film.
If that is the case then:
1) Your HD-CAM SR is 23.98
2) Your DVCAM is 29.97 with 23.98 Timecode burn in.
If you need to deliver an EDL for offline then your EDL will be worthless if your cutting in 29.97. The timecodes won't match.
So, the easiest thing (if an option) is to get the HD-CAM SR and get a Pro-Res file of that at 23.98. That could be converted down to whatever format you need for editing and wouldn't require removing pulldown. It will also give you a perfect EDL because it was taken from the master.
The second way, is to go the route you already have in mind.
1) Capture DVCAM at 29.97 and
2) remove 3:2 pulldown before you start editing.
There are many pitfalls with this method but atleast you have the burn-in to use as reference if you stray off course (meaning, you remove pulldown incorrectly).
Here are some methods:
A) track down After Effects. It has a function called Inerpret Footage. This will guess your pulldown and create new native media. This is my preferred method.
B) Use Cinema Tools. You should export a small segment of your footage and test removing the pulldown. Most don't get it right without determining the I-Frame.
C) Use Compressor's frame controls to remove your pulldown. This method (in my mind) is the sloppies of the bunch. It provides errors around cadence breaks... some people will disagree.
Either way, you'll need to treat that DVCAM footage before you start editing. Otherwise, you'll have to hand write your EDL if you cut in NTSC (29.97).
Hope this helps.

Mixed digital / film workflow

Hi,
Can anybody tell me how useful Aperture is for managing non-digital capture files ? About half my work is still on film, and so is a lot of my archive. I understand that Aperture supports TIFFs as master files, but the question is, how does it deal with big files ? Some of my 16-bit scans are over 300Mb, and I'm not sure how well Aperture could cope with this. Anybody else doing this ?
Thanks
David

David,
I am using a hybrid film-scan and digicam workflow with Aperture. It works fine.
In January I shot 4300 frames of B+W film. I had them all scanned on a Fuji Frontier for editing purposes and low-res scans. I have since had about 150 selects drum-scanned or scanned on my Imacon. I put the hi-res scans into Stacks with the lo-res Frontier scans. There was a problem in v1.1 with scans over 500MB. That seems to be fixed in v1.1.1.
There are some problems. The open in External Editor command converts everything to Adobe 1998 RGB. You have to work around this by using the Export Master command. I made two Automator workflows to help with that when I export fom Aperture into an "open in Photoshop" folder the files are automatically opened in Photoshop and then moved to the trash.
When I hit save in Photoshop it won't do it (since the file is now in the trash) so it automatically does a "Save As" and I save to an "Import to Aperture" folder that automatically imiports the image back into Aperture.
It sounds worse than it is in practice--which is very easy. I put up a posting a week ago describing the process.

Film workflow with 24p footage: nightmare

Hoping someone can give advice on a disaster i'm experience as I cut a film I'm working on, the sequel to this-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpuEMSH6zB4
I shot the film in straight-up 24p. When capturing the footage at 24p, we experience a quality loss. At 29.97, there is no quality loss. This makes no sense.
Also, when I get my 24p footage, captured at 29.97, into a 29.97 timeline, and then resder it out at 29.97, there is a quality loss.
Also, my ability to have moving video not only in the FCP viewer window, but also through the camera out to a TV, comes and goes. It will freeze or unfreeze depending on some thing having to do i think with the framerate of either the clip or the sequence.
It's blowing my mind. I did not experience this problem on the last flick, and I shot it the same way. Is my FCP damaged? Is there a tutorial out there to guide through this problem, or have any of you experienced it?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.

24P runs at 29.97. 24PA is what you shoot if you want to work at 23.98. If you shot 24P, then you work at 29.97.
You capture as normal 29.97 DV footage, edit at 29.97, output at 29.97. You use no pulldown.
Shane

35mm feature / FCP workflow... Urgent

Hey guys,
Sorry if there are threads about this topic already, I don't have too much time to research the entire topic list. Here is my question:
What are the Tried and True Film workflows. I have included the current workflow and what the project is.
Shot:35mm
Telecined: 29.97 DVcam as well as Dbeta protection copies.
Reverese Telecined: Cinema tools 29.97 to 23.98
Cutting: DVntsc 23.98
(that is 23.98 not 24, incase you were going to ask)
System: Quad G5, FCP 5.1, Kona 3
Everything is going fine except for the fact we can not get a frame accurate output back to DVcam or Betasp. Our sound house and Negative cutting house both need a frame accurate locked picture as chase tapes in 29.97.
I thought KONA removed the pulldown, I also thought that I could do this no problem. Finding out now that this is a headache. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?? I need to deliver sound dubs tomorrow.
Can I output my 23.98 project out as a self contained QT and render it in a 29.97 timeline for output?? Will that work??
Thanks
Todd

Todd
might be a stretch but if you could get your hands on a HDcam or XDcam deck in vancouver you could print your 23.98 timeline upconverting through Kona. (I would think any convert to 29.97 is going to do pulldown on the final edit as a single piece). Could they not use a 23.98Psf as a chase?
I haven't done a filmout yet from any of our projects. there is on in the pipeline but it's originating in HD. the HD conforms I've done that originate on Sony get a dual window burn in with ORG (original)TC and PDT (pulldown)TC burned in the letterbox portion of the DV TC dub. if there are any problems conforming the edl from 29.97 to 23.98 there is a visual cue as to what TC was on the original tape. Also I've noticed when the audio is posted at 29.97 I need to clip a frame on the 23.98 conform depending on the frequency of cuts, due to transitions rendered with pulldown at 29.97 on the DV edit.
Were I to do a film originated piece with a neg cut I'd get the keycode and TC burned in on the 29.97 dub, load the flex files into cinema tools and conform the EDL to 24fps at the end. If I had to I could then do a handwritten cut list of the keycode if all else went goofy.

Setting up Super 16mm Film project

Maybe someone can direct me a little. What are the basic settings for a Super 16mm project ?
We are shooting 16mm which is transfered to DVcam format for Dailies.
I imported Flex files information into Cinematools.
But I cannot import them as they are into FCP 6.01
And what will be my settings for capturing and the sequence?

I guess I will not be able to see Keycode # in FCP, is that correct,
Correct. FCP does not have the film interface that Avid does. But Avid was designed around a film workflow...then moved to TV. So it will have more options. BUT...if this telecine was done properly, you should have BURN IN numbers on the tapes. Keycode, tape TC, audio TC...the usual.
We are not going to have a negative cut but a 2K scan . The lab made some HD Masters.
SO these are dubs of the HD masters? OK, what is the frame rate on the HD masters? 23.98? If so, then yes, AFTER YOU CAPTURE, remove the pulldown with either FCP or Cinema Tools to get you to 23.98, and check EVERY CLIP so that you make sure that the TC matches at the head, middle, and end of them. Yes, this is tedious...but it has to be done. Typically this is the Assistants job.
Shane

Can Aperture really search thousands of images fast?

I have iViewMediaPro (now Expression Media) on my machine. It is painfully slow to do anything despite it's boast. At the moment I use Photo Mechanic to import, browse and sort and RAW Developer to process, then Photoshop for fine tuning. Can Aperture do all this and still be a fast searching, quick sorting database? If so I'll buy it. At the moment I have Aperture version 1.5 but on opening it really is different to my current workflow. It looks scary! For instance can I batch process? Any unbiaised opinions from pro photogs greatly appreciated.

The short answer is yes, Aperture can search thousands of images fast on strong appropriately configured Mac hardware. Actually the search functions will often run fast even on weak hardware; it is mostly edits that choke slower boxes.
Your G5 configuration was not fully specified. Most G5s will not run Aperture well (e.g. stock G5 graphics cards provide unacceptable Aperture performance), so before moving forward you should post your complete hardware spec here.
I strongly recommend that every DSLR photog with adequate computer hardware first spend $33 and work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 (Apple Pro Training) by Orlando Luna and Ben Long (Paperback - Oct 18, 2006). Have the CD and a MacIntel (or G5 tower with advanced graphics card) with 2 GB or preferably more of RAM prior to ordering the Aperture trial so you don't waste time of the 30 day trial. Note that the value is in the tutorial, not in using the book as a manual.
IMO a cursory examination of Aperture usually turns out to be mostly a waste of time, or leads to bad workflow habits or folks simply do not get it. Carefully working the tutorial is by far the best way to learn this new killer app category.
Good luck!
-Allen Wicks
Edit: Aperture version 2.0.1 is now out, and a new version of the Luna/Long tutorial is available for preorder: Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 2 (Apple Pro Training Series) by Ben Long, Richard Harrington, and Orlando Luna (Paperback - May 8, 2008). I have not reviewed the v2 tutorial.
IMO iViewMP was a good app for film workflows but did not keep up with DSLR's demands. Then MS buying it was its death knell as far as I am concerned.
Message was edited by: SierraDragon

Premiere Pro Metadata & iXML/BEXT for Broadcast WAV files

Hi.
For feature film workflows, we depend greatly on the iXML and BEXT chunk in broadcast wave files.
As far as I can see, the XMP metadata "engine" (don't know of a better word) doesn't "see" the iXML and BEXT chunk in broadcast wave files.
Is there a particular workflow/workaround where the iXML and BEXT metadata show up in the "Metadata" tab in Premiere Pro.
Thanks!

mrmr450 wrote:
I see, thanks for the response.
I know there is a plug-in that allows FLAC files to be played in iTunes, so I'm wondering if there is some kind of 3rd party app that could solve this WAV metadata issue?
I have never heard of such a plug-in, and kind of doubt there is one, but perhaps a search would turn something up.
By the way, iTunes does not "lose" the tag data, it just fails to display or do anything with it. The tag data is still there if you use that same WAV file in another program.
Or am I just running into a brick wall here?
Maybe.
The more typical way to use WAV files is to embed the relevant information into the filename, which is always available. In iTunes, for any file which it thinks has no tags, the exact filename is displayed in the Name field.

Compressor 3.5 and Importing Image Sequences

Hi,
The marketing says,
++++++++++++++++++++
Image sequence support
Graphics compositing applications and film workflows often use an image sequence format for cross-platform compatibility as well as to keep quality high. Image sequences treat each video or film source frame as a still image.
Compressor 3.5 imports image sequences in standard formats including TIFF, Targa, DPX, and OpenEXR. You can specify an audio file to incorporate with the image sequence as you import it — for example, the original field-recorded audio for a clip that was converted to a sequence.
++++++++++++++++++++
But exactly how is this done with Compressor 3.5? Don't see it in the wizard or Add File dialogue boxes.
thanks!

Oops, just found it.
Job > New Job With Image Sequence...
However, I can import a SGI file on it's own, but not with the above menu selection - the files are gray'd out.

BWF Import, not quite there yet...

Hi there,
I just downloaded the 5.1.2 update and was quite excited by the new (at last) BWF import feature. So the first thing I tried was to import some BWF files to see how it works. The files I have at hand are BWF, Polyphonic files, with 24fps Timecode. They were originated with an Aaton Cantar and polyphoniced' using Majax.
I have to say that I'm not impressed:
- The resulting Clip in the browser has a 25fps TimeCode. It cant' be changed.
- The sc/take info, as well as the info typed in by the sound recordist don't appear in any of the columns.
Am I doing anything wrong?
Pierre

Hi Pierre,
I think unfortunately the BWF support announcement makes it sound a little better than it actually is. Its a good step, but there is by no means full BWF support in 5.1.2. For a really detailed intro to what's going on here is a post from Andreas Kiel (who develops BWF2XML):
Hi all,
One of the new features in Final Cut Pro 5.1.2 will be enhanced QT metadata support and
support for the Broadcast Wave Format. (More informations about BWF can be found at the
EBU Website.)
As I did one of the (living) applications to integrate BWF into a FCP workflow I got a lot of
questions from users and potential user about the "BWF compatibility" feature in FCP 5.1.2
and how BWF2XML compares to the options in FCP.
Some additional information about uncompressed/HD/film workflow and audio can be
found at:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L328398A-
USL328398A_HD_Workflow_FilmTV_FCPwp.pdf#search=%22L328398A-
USL328398A_HD_Workflow_FilmTV_FCPwp.pdf%22
Introduction:
Beside all the other improvements with this new version of Final Cut Pro, one of the big
improvements is that this new version makes extensive use of all the new QuickTime
structures, allowing QuickTime metadata access and tc64 timecode (which is audio
timecode). This last feature has been tested with a lot of different files, and nearly all files
with tc64 information showed up correctly.
The QuickTime metadata access will allow third parties to create QuickTime components
with metadata - like the DPX/Cineon component from Bob Monaghan at GlueTools, the
first of it's kind. This will also allow other companies to create a QuickTime components
for MXF, IMX etc., and you'll be able to drag a MXF (or something like that) to the timeline
with all the metadata included. So stay tuned for future announcements from third parties.
tc64 audio timecode is something new in QuickTime:
QuickTime is interpreting the BWAV header entry for the samples after midnight - most of
you (at least those who are interested) can already check that: just open a BWF file in
QuickTime Player Pro (7.1.3), press cmd-J and enable the TC track. You'll see the samples
after midnight (don't save when closing the file).
Final Cut Pro now makes use of this this QuickTime feature, and creates a timecode based
on the tc64 samples after midnight and the sampling rate. This will result in seconds after
midnight. The seconds can be converted to timecode by extracting hours, minutes,
seconds and partial seconds, where partial seconds will be converted to frames based on
the timecode base.
The timecode base is complicated to figure out, since mostly it's not written to the header
of the BWF file. And even if it is, QuickTime won't interpret it, since it is nearly impossible
to automatically interpret all the ways the header is set up. There maybe other information
in the header like reel, scene, take, note etc. However, this currently won't be interpreted
by QuickTime as well. As opposed to a QuickTime timecode track, reel information is not
kept in a tc64 track. So if QuickTime doesn't interpret it, Final Cut Pro can't either, and for
the timecode, it will probably take the current timecode base of the project, which might
differ from the original sound recording.
With audio, there are also things like 29.97 NDF (which is not available in Final Cut Pro
right now), and the samples after midnight also may be based on either real world seconds
or NTSC seconds. Plus, there may be playback instructions in coding history. All of this is
quite a complicated thing, and it will be left to the user to think about the setup in
advance.
File formating and appearance:
BWF can show up in either polyphonic or multi-mono format. Both of these formats do
have advantages and disadvantages.
Polyphonic files are easy to handle. As all tracks are included in one file, they are faster on
transfer from the audio harddisk recorder than mono files. Polyphonic files are also easy
to import with the new Final Cut Pro feature. They have the disadvantage that removing
unused tracks is difficult when it comes to exchange with other audio workstations or
when using XML and reconnect, since they are interleaved.
Mono files take longer when transfer from the audio harddisk recorder since the de-
interleave has to be done prior to transfer. They also have the disadvantage that they can
only be imported as discrete files, and need to be connected "channel by channel" within
Final Cut Pro, which makes the process much more tedious. The big advantage of using
mono files though is, that you can remove (or even add) channels and will have no
problems when doing an interchange with DAWs, via XML, or with content management
systems. The channel files can be handled by Media Manager up to a certain extent when
left untouched, or fully when converted to a .mov format.
More detail about the two kinds of timecode tracks:
The QuickTime timecode tracks we are used to working with behave, let's say, just like
another "movie" track, so you can step thru frames.
tc64 reads the timestamp of an BWF audio file - this happens only once, so it behaves like
a long frame, which can't be stepped thru by samples, frames, seconds etc. It's just one
frame when activated - even though it shows the samples during playback.
The QuickTime timecode track forces a file into a specified playback behavior, which is
user-defined, and even can be changed within Final Cut Pro (within certain limits). It can
also be used as AUX TC in synched clips.
tc64, when used in QuickTime/Final Cut Pro, just gives a reference which relies on the
sample rate to get the time. To change the playback behavior, you need to change the
sample rate "virtually". This means that the file's samples are not changed but the "this file
is sampled at" description will be changed. This can be done with a third party application
outside of FCP (this is our current info about changing playback, and it might be wrong).
As said above, with QuickTime timecode there is timecode timebase and reel info, with
tc64 there can't be timecode timebase and reel info.
What about bringing BWF2XML and the new QuickTime/Final Cut Pro features together?
This should work cool, since Final Cut Pro 5.1.2 will accept the tc64 for first time ever, and
BWF2XML can supply you or Final Cut Pro with the additional metadata without converting
to QuickTime timecode (though there are still a lot of advantages doing that).
But it needs some additional steps done with BWF2XML, like changing playback settings to
apply pull-up or pull-down. If that's done, BWF support in Final Cut Pro will be exceptional
compared to other NLEs, and conversion will be lightning fast - even if there is no direct
import plug-in for this "combined" import. With the new XML version 3, things may
become easier and BWF2XML may work as a pseudo importer plug-in.
Conclusion:
So why do I write all these mostly "negative" things (about FCP)?
Pretty simple, since working with these relatively new formats and devices isn't that simple
for most video and postpro people.
Apple made another big step into the tapeless future, as well as some of you who made
this step using "new" devices and formats. With new devices there is always the problem to
establish something like a "common sense" for set up and workflow, which doesn't exist
right now.
So if a BWF import into Final Cut Pro would give you an erroneous result, don't blame
Apple and don't start threads about blaming Apple, they made the above step, and they
too will probably run into similar problems as any of the other companies - like me - who
are dealing with BWF, machine setup, file setup and naming as well as user setups.
Other companies just restrict, maybe by the amount of channels, maybe by the titles/
names of metadata entries, maybe by kicking out metadata entries - and still the other
companies look to be a little bit ahead.
Regards
Andreas
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools
Hope that helps,
Mark

Standard Def to HI Def

Using FCP, what is best way to up res a 29.97 SD project to HI Def while preserving the best possible image quality?
Thanks.

GOOD, FAST, CHEAP...choose any two.
You want good and fast? Get a Kona 3 card by AJA. GREAT upconvert and it is done in real time. But, not cheap.
Good and cheap? Compressor. But, as you noticed, it is not fast. Instant HD isn't much faster...well, a little, but it costs a little. Cinema Tools is NOT designed for this. It is designed for FILM workflows....managing FLEX and ALE files, and removing pulldown on clips.
You said you didn't want to spend money, or much, so that is your option, Compressor. And yes, 90 min will take a LONG time.
And yes, the bungee jump was thrilling.
Shane

XMP with Broadcast Wave iXML and BEXT chunks

Hi.
For feature film workflows, we depend greatly on the iXML and BEXT chunk in broadcast wave files.
As far as I can see, the XMP metadata "engine" (don't know of a better word) doesn't "see" the iXML and BEXT chunk in broadcast wave files.
Is XMP going to support and "pull" from iXML and BEXT chunks in the near future?

Hi,
the XMP SDK does support read/write of the BEXT chunk in WAVE files since CS6, i.e. the current version of the SDK supports this functionality.
For more details on the mapping to XMP, please see the XMP specification part III, section 2.3.2.2.
There have been requests about iXML in the past, but so far not strong enough that it made it to the top of the priority list
Regards
Jörg

Custom or Purchased Ringtones Sound Muffled in 6.0.1

Custom ringtones sound muffled when used as ringtones, yet sound perfect when used as text tone or any other alert. This was fixed in IOS 5.1 but is now back. This is easily tested by going to sounds and listening to the custom ringtone in Ringtone then go to Text Tone and listen to the same file. There is a marked difference. The Ringtone sounds muffled and narrow-no bass, not much treble, the Text Tone sounds perfect, as it should.

I like you I have not been a user of this functionality.
Another editor (who was only learning the system) showed it to me and my initial reaction was "Wow, That's what that does?"
This would have been very helpful on the last two features I cut.
I even have to ask when did this fuctionality first work in FCP?
and now that I know about it, why is this not in the contextual menus?
Apple/FCP talks lots about being in Feature Film workflows
but this is just the sort of tools that feature editors need and want.
I am happy that soundtrackpro may be upgraded and now useable
but these sorts of double sound system issues have never been FCPs strong suit. I do wish that apple would go back and upgrade the sound inside of FCP. (better sync tools, better timecode tools, and real 5.1 mixing in the time line) - Cinema Tools needs an overhaul badly for 24 fps HD matchbacks...
The other two biggies in FCP for me are:
1)
A better trim mode - (more responsive key commands - live trimming...)
But here is a tool that most everyone hates and apple should take a stab at a better version, anything would be better..
( do it right and you could sell a lots of multi-touch tablets
2)
Being able to cut from a sequence as source (without nesting the sequence).
Every editor coming from the Avid in the last two years I've spoken to, howls about it. And yes you can "select in to out, copy, paste" but they are right. Think like an editor thinks, "Take my assembly reel and use that as source"....
oh sorry
I was ranting..
I will stop now
all the best
G

Film Workflow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for