P2 Is Bad News

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I edit off the card. i jsut made a Video art piece last night, right off the cardf. shot and edited in 4 hours.

Right but that is for a video art piece where maybe the shooting ratio is low.

Until there's a 40GB card or so, that's not really practical for most projects. And even then you need to make a backup copy.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Raylight hater. I just haven't been sold that I have a "dire problem" that I need a critical solution for.

Timur where is this new piece, can I see it?

 

[Barry_Green]

32GB cards are coming in a couple of months or so.

And yes many people edit directly off the cards.

And the FCP import window is bugged, always has been bugged, probably 75% of the complaints (and I'm being generous here, I believe the real number is closer to 95% of the complaints) we see about people not successfully being able to work with the footage is always due to FCP bugs.

Raylight eliminates all that. It makes the system just work, the way it was intended.

(cue the hundreds of FCP users who will now show up and say "I've never ever had a problem..." Yeah, we know. Now go look at the dozens and hundreds of threads here and on the Cow about FCP import bugs, okay?)

So while people say that they don't "need" raylight, I respond by saying "well, okay, but you really don't know what you're missing."

I just haven't been sold that I have a "dire problem" that I need a critical solution for.

That is the prevailing attitude among those who don't see the need for it, yes. And I'm sure that was the prevailing attitude among typewriter users, who certainly didn't see the need for the word processor. And I'm certain it was the prevailing attitude among tape-to-tape editors, who thought NLE's were a gross waste of money etc.

(okay, so what you're missing out on is instant editing, cross-platform compatibility, and all metadata. If you don't see any point in any of those things, and don't mind or don't encounter the FCP import bugs, then I guess Raylight would bring nothing to your particular workflow. But if instead you get sick of import bugs, would rather actually use and keep the metadata, want to be able to work cross-platform, and don't want to wait a half an hour while the card imports, then Raylight would be the way for an FCP user to access the rest of the P2 workflow that FCP currently doesn't let them embrace.)

 

[Jason Ramsey]

@ Jack. I do transfer my p2 card to a HDD... The difference is I still can start editing immediately. Don't have to wait for the card to transfer before I have access to my footage. I can be scrubbing it, editing it, whatever while the transfer from card to drive is taking place in the background... Of course, different NLE entirely..

I think the point is... not that there is some dire problem or anything, but just that there is so much more benefit to the p2 workflow that most people don't even ever experience with an NLE that doesn't support p2 the 'way it was meant to be handled'. But, once you have tried it... it's beautiful...

I've been working with p2 footy for about 9 months now and (with my workflow) its just so painless. I forget sometimes where people are coming from when they are intimidated by the workflow. And, I'm a beginner (which could be part of the benefit).

Anyways... there are benefits to the workflow that most people don't ever take advantage of...

Just my little ole' 2 cents though... I haven't finished anything that I would consider even approaching a decent amount of substance yet, so I'm not much to talk...

EDIT: I Kinda' missed Barry's "Don't know what you are missing" part of his comment.... oops

Jason

 

[TimurCivan]

yea what they said.....

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

32GB cards are coming in a couple of months or so.

And yes many people edit directly off the cards.

I can see double checking a couple of shots in the field to make sure they'll cut like you expect them to or to see if an effect will work ... but ...

I've never ever shot anything that fits on 1 P2 card and even if I did, I would never edit an entire project off it.
I mean we are not going to edit our feature off P2 cards are we? :grin:

Seems useful in a a few small applications, bet never so far to me and not in the forseable future. I make a copy to a hard drive and I work for that. And there is basically a way to instant edit with only a 10 second lag per clip via the Log and TRANSFER window in FCP anyway.

And the FCP import window is bugged, always has been bugged, probably 75% of the complaints (and I'm being generous here, I believe the real number is closer to 95% of the complaints) we see about people not successfully being able to work with the footage is always due to FCP bugs.

Raylight eliminates all that. It makes the system just work, the way it was intended.

(cue the hundreds of FCP users who will now show up and say "I've never ever had a problem..." Yeah, we know. Now go look at the dozens and hundreds of threads here and on the Cow about FCP import bugs, okay?)

Well since I don't have those problems and never have that doesn't apply to me. All I am ever saying is FOR ME, I don't see a need. Does not mean others don't have a need. It's somewhat silly that everytime someone says Raylight is the second coming and I say that I don't see whyt I need it, everyone tells me I'm wrong.

As for the bugs issue two things:

1. you know there is a whole new Log and TRANSFER interface as opposed to the old Log and CAPTURE interface. The new interface allows you to review / playback (even in the field) MXF files from the card and change their in and out points, and bring a clip into FCP very quickly.
2. I've never scene this come up for FCP6 (not saying it hasn't but I haven't been looking), but every time I've seen the bug issue come up for FCP 5 it is because someone hasn't updated to the latest version of the software. I even sat around for a month after reinstalling FCP 5 wondering why I couldn't import MXF files to QT movs until I remembered that I had updated FCP 5 forever ago.

What's more likely - slightly different versions of FCP in different boxes, some of which don't work with MXF, or some people don't update because they don't know any better or have bootleg copies? Again, I've never seen it come up where someone didn't say "update" and the original poster didn't either disappear or say "thanks that fixed it"

But all of that is moot. I said I don't need it because I don't have these issues.

So while people say that they don't "need" raylight, I respond by saying "well, okay, but you really don't know what you're missing."


That is the prevailing attitude among those who don't see the need for it, yes. And I'm sure that was the prevailing attitude among typewriter users, who certainly didn't see the need for the word processor. And I'm certain it was the prevailing attitude among tape-to-tape editors, who thought NLE's were a gross waste of money etc.

You seem to reject the possibility that some people have a pretty good idea of what they are missing and don' care. Lots of people know what a word processor does and still write longhand.

(okay, so what you're missing out on is instant editing,

As stated, I don't feel a need for this to justify buying raylight - even at it's very reasonable price.

I would much rather put that money towards stock footage or sound FX or another tota light. Especially since working with FCP and MXF files is WAY easier and faster than working from DVtape, and yet somehow people still manage to make and complete movies shot on tape where they have to capture everything in real time.

When I had FCP 5 I would've snapped raylight up, but now that I can review the MXF files I would not.

On set I can instantly edit by looking on the P2 card in the log and Transfer window, and import the clip I'm viewing and edit it right away. On my laptop a 2 minute clip takes less than 10 seconds to import. In the Log and Transfer window, the P2 card is just like a bin in the browser where i would pull a clip from to drag down to the sequence. The only difference is a 10 second delay for any clip that I want to edit instantly. Again, to me, not worth the money that I could put elsewhere.

cross-platform compatibility,

Huh? It won't let you open my FCP project file in Vegas. What do you mean by this? Just because I import the MXF file and change it into a QT doesn't mean I delete the original MXF file. So I could still send you that for "cross compatibility". If you are actually saying I can send you my FCP project file and you can open it in Vegas then you are talking. But otherwise ... due to the necessity for backup, I still have the original MXF file to send to people.

and all metadata.

Obviously there is probably a use for this in someone's workflow. But never needed it in mine and wouldn't begin to know how to use it.

If you don't see any point in any of those things, and don't mind or don't encounter the FCP import bugs, then I guess Raylight would bring nothing to your particular workflow.

Well I guess that's my answer. I don't in fact need it.

But just because I don't feel I NEED something does not mean that I think others don't and certainly doesn't mean I don't see the point in feature X,Y, or Z.

But if instead you get sick of import bugs, would rather actually use and keep the metadata, want to be able to work cross-platform,

If you could clarify this cross platform idea please ... again don't see how raylight will make my FCP project anymore cross platform than it already isn't ...

and don't want to wait a half an hour while the card imports,

In my experience it's only slightly longer than making a backup copy, which the act of importing does for me. If I worked in a news van I would care about a half hour, which in my experience, it isn't. If I had money to burn, then sure, I could get instant gratification. But I do not NEED Raylight more than I need another tota, a better light case, to have my K6 module repaired, etc.

then Raylight would be the way for an FCP user to access the rest of the P2 workflow that FCP currently doesn't let them embrace.)

@ Jack. I do transfer my p2 card to a HDD... The difference is I still can start editing immediately. Don't have to wait for the card to transfer before I have access to my footage.

Right, but again, you have to pick the clip you want to use at some point. Raylight can't do that for you. So you can view the clip in the Log and Transfer window, import that clip, which will take seconds, and edit away.

I can be scrubbing it, editing it, whatever while the transfer from card to drive is taking place in the background... Of course, different NLE entirely..

Well if you need an different NLE to do that then you could use do that with the work flow I described above.

I think the point is... not that there is some dire problem or anything, but just that there is so much more benefit to the p2 workflow that most people don't even ever experience with an NLE that doesn't support p2 the 'way it was meant to be handled'. But, once you have tried it... it's beautiful...

I guess so. But not in the capture and instant editing argument. Not saying it's not faster and better, but not enough to make me feel screwed. I have never felt frustrated with my workflow, maybe because it is still sooooo much easier, quicker, and accessible than tape.

Now when Barry explains this cross platform thing, or how using meta data can be very useful then maybe I will think I need it. I doubt the metad data will be a seller for me even though I am sure it is perfectly useful, just that I don't need it. The cross platform thing could likely have me coming around though.

I've been working with p2 footy for about 9 months now and (with my workflow) its just so painless. I forget sometimes where people are coming from when they are intimidated by the workflow. And, I'm a beginner (which could be part of the benefit).

I'm not intemidated by the work flow. It's just that I would describe my workflow just as you do. Ten thousand percent painless.

If someone events toilet paper that climbs off the role and wipes my butt for me, well that would be fancy indeed, but that doesn't mean my current manual implementation of Charmin is painful.

Anyways... there are benefits to the workflow that most people don't ever take advantage of...

Just my little ole' 2 cents though... I haven't finished anything that I would consider even approaching a decent amount of substance yet, so I'm not much to talk...

EDIT: Kinda' missed Barry's "Don't know what you are missing" part of his comment....

Jason

The thing is people talk MOSTLY about the CAPTURE and IMPORT issues and those are just unequivocally, absolutely not problems or issues for me.

So just forget on selling me on those.

I can't use meta data in my workflow, but I don't understand what it can do for me exactly. If I mark a clip on the HVX, import it as an MXF with raylight into FCP, then convert the MXF to prores422, will it retain the metadata? If not then the meta data thing is a non issue. I want to work in prores422.

As for cross compatibility, I don't think anyone is saying raylight will make my FCP project openable in Vegas or other NLE's ... so what's with that? If that is the case, then I will buy raylight the next time I am collaborating on something with someone using Vegas. Otherwise I can output almost any format from FCP and certainly one that will be compatible to my collaborator.

 

[DBoz699]

Everyone's got their own way for certain workflows.


I like everything to be quick with no lagging or waiting which is why Raylight saves me...drag and drop from explorer into timeline with no unwrapping or format changes needed....and I can edit on my old computer sitting in my room if I ever needed to which is like 10 years old..being able to edit HD footage on an old computer like that is definitely a big plus which means I dont have to spend $8,000 on a top of the line Mac to edit my footage. I can go to college rest assure with a decent laptop and still bring the top quality product.

plus...I'm only on PC, so I don't have much access to the FCP workflow..only when I'm in school and we just work on DV.

But then again..someone like JDS who doesn't mind the little extra time to make into QT files works good too.

I guess it just depends on the person.

 

[Nic Aragon]

Considering everyone is always making sure to be safe about footage, editing from a card and not having it copied somewhere seems dangerous to me, and I too dont see a hassle in taking the quick few seconds to capture some clips from the p2 card, and copy the P2 card somewhere and work from that when it comes time to edit, have backups and all that fun other jazz.

Doesnt take an 8000 dollar mac to edit P2 btw. :/

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Again I am not a Raylight hater.

I just see my instant editing capabilities and import work flow glass as half full when compared to tape work flow which would be an empty glass.

And people always attempt to convince me that I need Raylight for those two main reasons. So I am interested in hearing more about the "cross platform" capabilities and uses of Metadata.

 

[Mike Naylor]

I started this topic about the lack of hardware designed for the tapeless workflow, but maybe it was because I enjoy a good rant. In fact, I thought I was particularly good at ranting, but reading Barry and Jack having a go at each other transcends all expectation (no offence intended). So, here's my two penneth... (translates to 2 cents).

Like everyone else, I'm new to tapeless working and still find the idea of erasing a P2 card pretty scary. Just once, whilst filming a theatrical production, I panicked and erased the card BEFORE copying it. I was trying to operate the camera and the P2 Store at the same time in a very dark theatre. The resulting loss of 30 minutes of a one-off performance was extremely embarrassing and I had to ask the entire cast to come back the following weekend. No brownie points for me, but I'll never make that mistake again.

My workflow is HVX200 with 2 8G P2 cards, rotating them to a P2 Store on location. This means I can shoot up to 9 cards per day (over 2 hours of 720pN25). I have the camera record FREE-RUN timecode with it preset to time-of-day. Back home, I copy all the media to hard disc using P2Genie, which automatically renames the "reels" from NONAME to something useful. If the project is very important, I make a second copy to another disc (Blu-ray would be nice, but I don't have one yet). In FCP6, I Log & Transfer everything, because I like to have access to all the crap just incase it might be useful. I haven't figured out when would be the best time to convert this to ProRes, so that's why I'm hoping Apple releases a plug-in a.s.a.p.

The system works, but no metadata gets through. However, the HVX lacks any practical way of setting Scene/Slate/Take numbers - I really wish it did. I'm lazy and impatience and don't normally bother to type in logging info during the Log & Transfer - I wish I did. I dive in at the deep end and begin to edit - then wish I had.

The time taken to copy, backup, and transfer pails into insignificance when compared to the time it takes to edit the final and sort out the sound. In fact, I find having to wait rather a good thing as it allows my brain to change gear and reflect - time to consider how I may approach the editing and be creative.

I have looked into P2 Log Pro and Raylight and the new Panasonic P2CMS, but conclude that none of these provide any substantial benefit for me at present. They all have a history of bugs, so I feel resigned to wait for Apple to catch up. There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple, rather than trying to use every gizmo on offer.

Keeping things simple reminds of the original topic of this thread. I think it was to do with longing for a simple piece of hardware that would provide HDMI video and 5.1 monitoring - at a price I'm prepared to pay.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

... In fact, I thought I was particularly good at ranting, but reading Barry and Jack having a go at each other transcends all expectation (no offence intended) ...

Heheh, well glad we could entertain.

Don't know if we are really "having a go" per se.

We're just comfortable after almost a year of script development

Though as THE Barry Green he still wears the pants.
(he's like the Beatles in Singapore, no joke)

I'm just the Roper to his Ebert ... except I'm the fat one ... er ...

 

[Barry_Green]

Okay, too much to intersperse quotes, so let me just summarize:

It seems like few FCP users think they need anything else. Which is fine. But it still doesn't invalidate the point that they don't know what they're missing. So let me put it this way:

I confidently, fervently, and thoroughly predict that the day FCP finally gets their head out of the sand and allows for direct MXF editing on the timeline, is the LAST day you will ever use the FCP Log 'n' Transfer window. You simply will not want to work that way ever again.

We went through this on the PC -- the first version of Raylight worked in a vaguely similar fashion, remember. It had to convert the files to .AVI files to work with the various nonlinear editors. And we could comfort ourselves with the idea that yeah, we're making a copy, yeah it's backing up, yeah it doesn't take THAT long, etc... but dude, seriously, and without any fear of contradiction, I can say that the day Raylight added MXF importing to the timeline was the single greatest day in Raylight history, and the single greatest day for HVX shooters who use Vegas or Premiere. I have not converted one single file from MXF to AVI since that day. Not one. Nor do I expect that I'll ever have to again (unless I need to go to an MXF-unaware app like After Effects).

So I confidently predict that when FCP allows this, FCP editors will see what they've been missing and that whole Log & Transfer is going to look dramatically less appealing.

Now, back onto "editing off the cards" -- I think part of the resistance here is that people are factoring in the 4GB and 8GB card sizes. Even though there are some 16s out there, the vast majority of us are probably still limping along on 4GB and 8GB cards. With the advent of 32GB cards you're going to have 85 minutes of footage on a single card. Is that enough to shoot an entire project on? Heck yeah. Not a feature film, maybe, but any commercial, short film, corporate, industrial, PSA, etc. Is it practical to edit that off the card? Sure. Will you? That's up to you. But at least the option exists, whereas a non-Raylight FCP prevents the option from even occurring.

I mean we are not going to edit our feature off P2 cards are we? :grin:

This year, probably not. Two years from now? Maybe.

Two years from now there'll be 128GB cards available. That'll be over 11 hours of 720pN footage on just two cards; almost 24 hours off footage in one HPX500. Why would you ever need to swap/offload/juggle/etc? And someone earlier said "safety" -- er, well, frankly I trust my footage on solid state about a hundred times more than I trust it on a hard disk, right?

I guess I don't understand the fascination with wanting to move the footage off of a superior edit medium and get it onto an inferior edit medium. Just because it's familiar? Just because it's the way we've always done it? Not good enough reasons. Now, if you want to do that so you can recycle the cards and get them out there shooting again, that makes perfect sense.

But check out the workflow with leaving the cards in the camera, and editing from the cards, versus the old skool way of copying/importing:

With the old skool method, you finish a tedious 12-hour shoot, and then you sit down to start the copying process. And because you're copying to hard disk, you're paranoid about the safety of your footage. So you copy it twice. And because you're using the single most P2-limited editor in the world, you have to furthermore ingest the footage by turning it into Quicktime movies. So now you have three copies of the footage running around. Off four 128GB cards, that means about 8 hours of work. So if you've hired an on-set editor to handle this for you, that becomes a full-time job. You come in the next morning, and you can look at raw clips (i.e., you're viewing "dailies"). Still a step up from working with film where you'd be fed-ex'ing the film out and may not see the dailies for three days, but not exactly an ideal workflow.

Or, let's look at alternative 2: at the end of the shoot day you hand the camera over to the editor. They plug in and start editing. Within a couple of hours they've edited your entire day's work together. You're not looking at "dailies", you're watching finished scenes. You know exactly what you shot, what worked and what didn't, and what pickup shots you need. And the editor's done in maybe two or three hours, not 8, so they're a lot less expensive. And if you want that hard-disk backup, you drag the footage to the computer and the editor leaves; the footage copies overnight.

But in this workflow you leave the footage on the cards -- because, why delete it? You've got space, you've got every clip you ever shot instantly at your fingertips. Need to check continuity on a shot? Just flip into playback mode and bam -- it's there. Need to check framing to make sure that a shot will intercut? Bam -- it's there. With this instant access to all the footage you eliminate line-crosses, mismatched eyelines, continuity errors, everything.

So what I'm saying is -- we've copied to hard disk in the past because that's all we could do. It was the only way of working. That doesn't make it the best way. And just because it's familiar, it doesn't mean that it'll always be the preferred way.

Now, with all that said, there is one thing (and only one thing) that the FCP import window does that's nice, and that's the ability to import a portion of a clip. Okay, fine -- that would be a nice bonus. And the day FCP allows MXF file importing directly, FCP then will have an advantage, because it offers BOTH. But until then, it's a poor second.

(and as far as import bugs only affecting out-of-date versions of FCP -- it happens with every single version of FCP. 5.0.4 had bugs, 5.1 had 'em, 5.1.1 had 'em, 5.1.2 had 'em, 5.1.4 had 'em, and 6.0 had 'em, and 6.0.1 has 'em. Sometimes clips that would "import" in one version won't import in the updated version! Shane Ross went through that when he updated to 5.1.2, all of a sudden previously importable clips wouldn't import anymore! I'm frustrated with the import bugs because 95% of P2 complaints that I face every day can be answered with three words: FCP IS BUGGED. If the people use P2 Log, the problem goes away. If they use Raylight, the problem goes away. If they use EDIUS or SpeedEdit or Avid or anything else, the problem goes away. But if they use FCP, they have the problem. So if FCP would just fix their bugs, I'd have much less issues with it.)

Oh, and as far as the cross-compatibility, that's a gripe about Apple converting away from a universal interchangeable file format, and converting to a proprietory platform-exclusive format. I've seen dozens of times where people have said that they need to work on their projects on FCP and also on PC systems, but PC systems can't use the quicktimes. Why? Because FCP turns the files into Apple-only quicktimes that cannot be read by PCs, because FCP refuses to make the Windows version of Quicktime able to support DVCPRO-HD. Why? You tell me. They want to promote their file format as a standard, and then they make it incompatible with 95% of the computers on the planet. Makes no sense. Is there a solution? Of course -- if you go to (guess who?) Raylight. Raylight makes a quicktime decoder that allows Apple's proprietary DVCPRO-HD Quicktime files to be read on the Windows version of Quicktime.

So once again, it's Raylight coming to the rescue, fixing Apple's deficiencies. I can't for the life of me fathom why there's any resistance by Apple users to Raylight -- it just makes everything better. Better better better. And no, I don't have any business relationship with Marcus or DVFILM, I don't get a penny for saying anything about his product or anything like that. I just think it transforms FCP into a proper, stable, good P2 platform whereas out of the box FCP is the most limited of the P2 editors on the market.

May be that there are individuals who don't find it limiting, but that doesn't change the absolute fact that it is the most limited P2-aware app on the market, and by its limited design it excludes workflows that are entirely possible on other platforms. FOR NO GOOD REASON. Everyone else can do it, so why won't they?

Okay, final note, about ProRes 422: why would you want to work in that codec? I mean, I can understand wanting to use it for a color grade or something, but why would you want to double your file sizes for a normal edit? Are you going to grade all the raw footage, or only the finished edit? Why not edit in an extremely fast, full-quality native codec, and then transcode the finished product to ProRes for the final grade?

 

[Barry_Green]

Don't know if we are really "having a go" per se.

Hey, no "go" intended, of course. Jack represents the majority view of FCP users, as near as I can tell. I've talked with thousands and thousands of them, and I think I can sum it up by saying: they're quite content with things the way they are now. The vast majority of them really don't see anything lacking in the FCP implementation.

It's frustrating for me, as the guy that people with problems come to for answers, to see just how limited the FCP implementation is, and that FCP users don't seem to notice or care. I tried to start a letter-writing campaign to get Apple to at least come up to parity with basically every other editor out there, and for a while it seemed like I was the only guy who cared. And I don't even use FCP! (mainly because I can't take the step backwards that the FCP ingest workflow requires).

So, let me leave it at this: for those who are content, be content. There's nothing "wrong" with what you've got now; it works, and it works fine for what most people expect of it. For those who want more, wish for more, or demand more, there's some awesome flexibility and power available in the P2 workflow, more than you can get from FCP alone. You can get it by using a P2/MXF-native editor, or you can get 99% of it by using Raylight with FCP.

 

[Barry_Green]

(okay, one last word. After posting all this, the VERY NEXT POST I got to was this one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1024433#post1024433)

 

[Mark Harris]

yeah, but Barry, the part about that I don't get is "just hand the camera to the editor." I mean, right now, I am shooting 10-12 cards a day. The camera holds 2. And I don't own 12 cards. So...I don't exactly understand how this would work. Nevermind the fact that the editor might be someone different than the camera owner, and what camera owner wants to let the editor have his camera for the duration of the edit? This makes no sense to me whatsoever...

 

[Barry_Green]

Ah, but you said "right now". For that workflow I was talking about 128GB cards, which is what transforms the workflow entirely. With 128GB cards I'm saying that in an HVX200 you could shoot an entire feature film, at a 5:1 ratio, without *ever* swapping or offloading cards. And with an HPX500 you'd be able to do a 10:1 ratio.

And I'm talking about a workflow where the editor is there working nights during the making of the film. Not queueing up all the cards and dumping them on someone at the end of the shoot, but working in tangent with the production.

And of course one wouldn't have to hand the camera over, they could hand over the cards provided that the editor had a slot reader.

This is not largely practical today, I'm talking about how things are going to change (or may change). Those of us using 4GB cards, well, it's not really an option. Those using 32GB cards, it might be an option right away. For those with 128GB cards I think it'll become the preferred workflow.

And you say 10-12 cards a day -- are those 4GB? Or 8GB? What are you doing with the footage -- offloading to a hard disk, presumably, right? So wouldn't someone in that situation want to be able to edit from that drive? Or do you want to be forced to have to buy duplicate storage, and wait while all those edit-ready clips are imported and copied over to another drive before you can even start working with the footage?

(yes, we all know that having more backups is better than fewer, etc etc... I'm talking about having to be forced to do it, I'm talking about being prevented from even working with your footage, for NO GOOD REASON. That's the part I have a problem with!)

 

[Mark Harris]

I am talking about 10-12 8 gig cards.

I guess because I come from an enterprise computing background, backing up is not a huge problem, but just business as usual. It's no great issue to copy the data, and if you are working with a RAID 1, it's automatic for you.

I ALWAYS keep all of my footage too.

I mean, even with the p2 flow you describe, you still need to get that off of the cards at SOME point, right? So you can re-use them? Your scenario still ties up the cards, and again, if I am shooting something to hand off, I want my cards to go do another gig tomorrow.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes you would get them off the cards at some point.

The whole point is: do you want to have that roadblock standing between you and your deadline? You can, if you want, but you shouldn't HAVE to. If you're shooting something that needs quick turnaround, why would you prefer to have to go through a technically unnecessary import/copy step? FCP puts that roadblock inbetween you and your deadline. Every other editor allows you the flexibility to delay that roadblock until after you're done editing.

There's going to come a day, very soon, where the whole "P2 Card Shuffle" disappears. Those of us used to shooting 10 cards a day will soon find that the 32GB card means we will frequently get through an entire shoot day by offloading cards ONCE. Or even not at all.

We just finished shooting principal photography on our next training DVD. Over the course of 3 shooting days we ran up maybe four 16GB cards' worth of data. We did the entire shoot without ever even needing to offload the cards at all. Now, we did offload 'em, because we wanted to be sure to have available space, and there was no compelling reason not to offload 'em. But that was a choice, not a requirement. If David wanted to edit at the end of each shoot day, he could have been editing directly from the media rather than copying it to some other place -- and the cards are a superior edit media in that they can support six streams of HD simultaneously.

The other option is what we did, which is just to offload the footage overnight. No hassle, no field offloading, no slowdown.

All I'm saying is: the workflow can change, and for many of us I think it is going to change. It'd be nice if the tools supported what the workflow is capable of doing.

 

[Mike Naylor]

Apart from Avid (arguably the pioneers of professional NL editing), the various manufactures tend to leap frog one another. It's quite possible that Apple will muster up enough effort and leap forward as they have done before. I don't think many people would wish to jump ship every time their system appeared to lagging behind.

There are many editing packages out there now, but all the freelance editors I've come across seem to know about Avid and FCP - in that order. Avid is the industry standard and FCP is a close second. None of the others even come close. For me, it's a no brainer - FCP is cheaper.

P.S. Won't be responding for a while as the wife is dragging me off somewhere.

 

[bosindy]

I thought long and hard before making a choice in NLE's. I finally decided to go with FCP, although it meant spending an additional 3k by leaving PC and I am glad I did. In the end, you do give up something not being able to edit natively but there is something to be said for the ubiquity of FCP in the indy production space. It allows for a great network of support if and when issues arise. Also, I really am blown away by the new version.

I may grab Raylight at some point but if today everyone is making two copies to be safe, why can't one be a quicktime version? If Apple hasn't caught up by the time 64 or 128's come out, then the argument becomes stronger to change or augment. As for the bugs, I say a little prayer every time I Log and Transfer, no problems so far.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

-- and the cards are a superior edit media in that they can support six streams of HD simultaneously.

Now see, given that I don't work in a news van and have to have an edit ready in an hour or 4 hours, and think editing off the cards , AT PRESENT, is 100000000% impractical for me (because I never shoot anything that will fit on a card), this the first thing anyone has said in this thread that is actually been some kind of sell to me. It's a "superior edit media". Now we are talking. The half hour people say it takes to off load a card (and it does not take that long) is inconsequential to me. Especially because that is a half hour that I can return emails, watch Seinfeld, or pick my navel. On set it's a half hour to set up the next shot, finish an actor's makeup, rehearse part of the scene, or take a lunch break - I am usually a crew of one or two so there's always something ELSE that needs to be done during the offload time. It's not like I have to pick up each byte by hand and put it in a basket for a half hour.

But "superior edit media" actually means something to me. Or, alas, it will mean something to me one day.

That and the "cross platform" compatibility and meta data use. Which I don't think you elaborated on in your post earlier, but I only skimmed it because I had to leave. Will re-read it now.