Why use P2 technology - how do you log?

Question

Can anyone explain to me why they use P2 technology? When we shoot our DVCAM footage, we log in FCP on a Powerbook, we mark all the good takes, then digitize based on what we've already seen. We don't need to re-log everything in the edit suite, we just start cutting with known good footage. Scene numbers, take numbers are already entered, and we're ready to go.
With P2, you record your footage, wait 8-10 minutes to copy the files to your laptop, then import the clips, with no markings; you don't know what the good takes are, you don't have any scene or take references, or useful in or out points. These all need to be added in FCP or P2 Log. You have to review all of the footage you've shot again, decide if the take is good or not (which can be fun if you've had 7 or 8 takes and it turns out take 5 was the 'good' one). This strikes me as an incredible waste of time, something we don't have the luxury of with ever shrinking budgets. I expect you have to keep some kind of paper log, (welcome to the 1980's) with an unpredictable file naming system, so that you know what you have when you're ready to post.
So is this really a good solution? Yes, you don't have to digitize. But you do have to log everything, which is very simple as you shoot in FCP, but you can't merge the P2 footage with a log kept in P2 Log or in FCP. Which brings me to my question: Can you create a log for P2 footage as you shoot, that can be brought into FCP without having to review the footage again or do a lot of post production typing?
To me, this is the Achilles heel of P2 production. Anyone have any thoughts? We don't shoot a frame without a scene number and tape number, we shoot 50 good shots a day from about 150 takes per day, and at about 60 days a year, we need to keep track of what we shoot as we go. I estimate at least a 1/2 day of logging for every day of shooting with the P2, and frankly, I don't have 30 working days in my year to create logs that I can easily make while we shoot.
P2, on the surface, looks great. But P2 and any direct to disk technology, to me, looks like a big step backwards in terms of workflow.
Fire away, folks.
MacBook Pro   Mac OS X (10.4.8)   Non-linear since 1994

Answer 1

As the editor of the productions I work on, I am never on set. And I and the producer prefer it that way. This way I come in with an objective point of view, does the shot work or not. I am not clouded by how much time and effort went into getting the shot, I just look at it afterwards and judge it by its value. So we never log on the set. We simply back up.
When we shoot our DVCAM footage, we log in FCP on a Powerbook, we mark all the good takes, then digitize based on what we've already seen. We don't need to re-log everything in the edit suite, we just start cutting with known good footage. Scene numbers, take numbers are already entered, and we're ready to go.
You do all this work on the set. We don't, we do it in post, so there isn't twice the amount of work...it is just done later. This is true of every production I have worked on...documentary, narrative TV, short film. We aren't in the field logging and capturing...that is done later. But it is still done. We also slate our footage, and if someone is on the set to do so, they act as Script Supervisor and mark the good and bad takes. So when I look at the footage in the P2 import window on FCP 5.1.2, I can take the good but not the bad. But...I am always in favor of getting everything, because even though a take might be bad, it might contain something good that I can use.
With P2, you record your footage, wait 8-10 minutes to copy the files to your laptop, then import the clips, with no markings; you don't know what the good takes are, you don't have any scene or take references, or useful in or out points. These all need to be added in FCP or P2 Log. You have to review all of the footage you've shot again,
Again, we slate in the field. Yes, the clips come in with odd names, but when you capture a tape there is no INSTANT name associated with that. You have to give it a name...as you import. You can do the same with FCP and P2, as you import give it a name, scene, take...mark it good. And again, we aren't reviewing the footage AGAIN...it is done for the first time in post. They may review it in the field with the P2 viewer to ensure it looks good, just like on any film production with a DVCAM deck recording thru the camera viewfinder or rewinding the camera tapes.
So is this really a good solution?
Works rather well for me. No problems whatsoever...except when I first started doing this and put ALL the imported P2 clips into one bin. 2000 clips. I'll never make that mistake again. I separate footage by card much like I make Dailies bins with tapes.
http://lfhd.blogspot.com/2007/01/organizing-my-p2-media.html
But you do have to log everything, which is very simple as you shoot in FCP,
You said that you log everything...in the field. I am logging everything in post. Still have to log. And, how do you "shoot in FCP?" That is a non-linear edit, not a camera. What do you mean by this? I guess I don't get how you are logging in the field without having to log. You are still taking the time to log and name the footage...so you lost me here.
Can you create a log for P2 footage as you shoot, that can be brought into FCP without having to review the footage again or do a lot of post production typing?
Not that I know of. Achilles heel? I suppose if you look at it from the point of view of your current workflow. But you have to realize that it ISN'T your typical tape workflow. Stop trying to make it work like a tape workflow. Square peg in circular hole. Same thing happened when people switched from Film to Tape...the workflows they were accustomed to didn't work...they had to devise new ones.
You are going to have to figure out a new way of doing things...or just not shoot with the HVX. It is a very different way of doing things, but production can be pretty slick if you work out a system. I have a system and it works great. If you don't like it, don't use it. Grab an HDV camera and struggle with THAT format.
P2, on the surface, looks great. But P2 and any direct to disk technology, to me, looks like a big step backwards in terms of workflow.
Tell that to David Fincher's crew on ZODIAK. Not one tape or scrap of film in that production...all digital.
If the tapeless workflow doesn't work for you...don't use it. Easy decision.
Click on Underdog for my experiences with the format. Start from the beginning and see how I progressed if you'd like.
Shane