Fcp 6

[Barry_Green]

Didn't it take Raylight to push MXF into Premiere and Vegas in the first place?

Not exactly, because your statement is implying that Vegas and Premiere actually listened(!) No, Raylight does it FOR them. They don't do it natively. But the point is, with Raylight (a $195 plug-in) you can get those two editors to do it, and with EDIUS and Avid they already do it, and even Pinnacle's Liquid offers MXF support for up to DVCPRO50. So if I was using any editor BUT FCP, I could edit native MXF (either by itself or with a little plug-in).

So maybe some Mac-based genius could do a similar-to-Raylight-style plug-in? It'd be a hundred times easier for the Mac, because Marcus at DVFilm had to write his own DVCPRO-HD codec too(!) but on the Mac that part's already done! So if FCP doesn't bring it, maybe we'll find someone to step up to the plate and make a Mac version of a Raylight-style plug-in?

 

[Shane Ross]

I'm with Noah...if this is a deal breaker than looking somewhere else is a fine option. I know from previous posts Barry that you don't use FCP because it doesn't do this. Odd reasoning to me. Because, again as Noah stated, no quality is being lost in the QT conversion. It is simply copying the footage from one drive to another and adding a QT wrapper to it. Copying is something you'd do anyway right? I myself cannot imagine working with the original files..because if you lose that media drive...they are gone. And drive deaths aren't uncommon.

But, I'll agree that we disagree. You like working a certain way and I don't. Fine. I just don't see it as a MUST HAVE update.

 

[mvb]

Not exactly, because your statement is implying that Vegas and Premiere actually listened(!) No, Raylight does it FOR them. They don't do it natively. But the point is, with Raylight (a $195 plug-in) you can get those two editors to do it, and with EDIUS and Avid they already do it, and even Pinnacle's Liquid offers MXF support for up to DVCPRO50. So if I was using any editor BUT FCP, I could edit native MXF (either by itself or with a little plug-in).

So maybe some Mac-based genius could do a similar-to-Raylight-style plug-in? It'd be a hundred times easier for the Mac, because Marcus at DVFilm had to write his own DVCPRO-HD codec too(!) but on the Mac that part's already done! So if FCP doesn't bring it, maybe we'll find someone to step up to the plate and make a Mac version of a Raylight-style plug-in?

The Raylight plugins were made from plugin toolkits provided by Sony and Adobe each. Couldn't have been done so quickly without those. So is there a plugin toolkit for FCP? That allows any file format to be imported directly into FCP?

 

[Barry_Green]

I know from previous posts Barry that you don't use FCP because it doesn't do this.

No, that's just one of many reasons. The Apple P2 tools aren't anywhere near as robust as the Windows tools, and through the whole collection of reasons, I just stay on the PC until things are equal. If I could move to the Mac without giving anything up I'd probably do it.

Because, again as Noah stated, no quality is being lost in the QT conversion.

No video quality is lost, that's true. But time, drive space, and metadata are all lost.

Copying is something you'd do anyway right?

No, copying is an inconvenience thrust upon us because of small card sizes. As soon as card capacities increase to an adequate level, copying to a hard drive will begin to look like an outmoded waste of time. For archiving, sure, but for working with? P2 blows hard drives into the weeds. A single P2 card can support six streams of HD from it; you can't even get that from a five-disk SATA G-Raid.

The cards are an ideal edit medium. Panasonic always intended for the system to be edited from the cards; that's why the slot readers are five-slot and six-slot, not one-slot.

I've personally worked with EDIUS, Vegas/Raylight, Avid, and FCP, and seen a demo of Premiere/Axio. When you look at Axio, EDIUS, and Raylight, you glimpse the future. Working with the FCP unwrap/copy/rewrap is an outdated patch; it's not the way it should be done. It works, yes, but it's a workaround; it's a way to "patch" P2 into the existing FCP workflow.

Shoot to the card, edit from the card: genius. Shoot to the card, copy to a hard disk, unwrap the files from the hard disk and copy to another hard disk and rewrap back into Quicktime? That's barely a step above working with tape, as far as I'm concerned.

Your mileage may vary, and there's nothing wrong with that. But don't knock it 'til you've tried it, and especially when you put into context the order of magnitude of ease that comes into play when we start working with 32, 64, and 128-gb cards. That whole copy-to-a-hard-disk-and-unwrap-and-rewrap-process is going to start to look awfully tedious, when you could just shoot, edit, and finish your product; and then archive your footage off when you're done. (or any time, actually, doesn't matter when you archive it, I just don't want it getting in the way or slowing me down or whatever).

I myself cannot imagine working with the original files..because if you lose that media drive...they are gone. And drive deaths aren't uncommon.

I'm talking about when we DON'T copy to hard drives AT ALL. Copying to a hard disk is familiar, but it's by no means the "best way". It's just familiar. There are better ways coming down the turnpike. When you've got two 128gb cards? That's 11 hours of footage in-camera. You could have every take of every shot you ever shot for an entire 90-minute feature film, at a 5:1 ratio, in-camera! On cards! Why bother copying to a hard disk and editing from hard disk? I mean, sure, back it up on a hard disk if you want, but having every clip active at once, in-camera, instant review, instant edit, instant playback... I'll take that over a hard disk any day.

I just don't see it as a MUST HAVE update.

I didn't either, when I first bought the Mac. But after working with EDIUS simultaneously, I became addicted to it. To me, now, it *is* a must-have. Some people are satisfied with a tape-based workflow and don't really see any advantage to tapeless. Fine for them, but I think that's short-sighted. I think the fully-implemented tapeless workflow is the only way to go; and for that, this intermediary baby-step of copying-to-a-hard-disk is unsatisfactory. Better than tape, but only a baby step towards what it should be, and eventually will be.

 

[adkimery]

No, copying is an inconvenience thrust upon us because of small card sizes. As soon as card capacities increase to an adequate level, copying to a hard drive will begin to look like an outmoded waste of time. For archiving, sure, but for working with? P2 blows hard drives into the weeds. A single P2 card can support six streams of HD from it; you can't even get that from a five-disk SATA G-Raid.

For smaller projects working off a P2 card may be the way to go (ideal for news cutting I would imagine), but for longer form projects (and/or projects w/multiple editors) the footage is going to have to get dumped to a large, central location. And unless you have a fast turn around time (again, like in news) it's going to get expensive to keep buying P2 cards to cover the weeks/months (even years) it takes to finish the project. I thought part of the idea for the P2 workflow is that you only buy 2-3 relatively expensive cards and keep re-using them while you dump the footage to relatively inexpensive HDDs?

Whether or not this missing feature in FCP is a "must have" or a "meh" I think depends totally on your workflow.


-A

 

[Barry_Green]

I thought part of the idea for the P2 workflow is that you only buy 2-3 relatively expensive cards and keep re-using them while you dump the footage to relatively inexpensive HDDs?

That's the workflow for today, yes. But when the cards are large enough, why bother shuffling them off to a hard disk? Again, two 32GB cards will give you three hours of footage in-camera. Do you need to shuffle those off to a hard disk? I could do just about any commercial or small corporate/industrial film on that. Two 128GB cards would give you enough storage to do a 90-minute film at an almost 5:1 ratio. Shoot all day, give the cards to the editor at night, and instead of the editor wasting all day copying footage and unwrapping/rewrapping just so we can view "dailies," I'll come in the next morning and view finished scenes. Not "dailies" but actually cut/finished scenes, even with a preliminary color grade. Night and day difference in efficiency on the set. The only thing that would need to be stored on the hard disk would be the project file. (I'd obviously archive to drives as we go, because why not, but that's just out of paranoia, not any actual requirement to do so).

What people mean when they say "The P2 Workflow" is usually the roundabout workaround process we currently have to stumble through. When I talk about the P2 Workflow I'm talking about shoot and edit. No hoops to jump through, no files to convert, no extra drives to buy or anything. Shoot your footage, then edit your footage, then deliver your master, then archive (and archive anywhere else along the way whenever you feel like it, but it doesn't have to impede your progress).

All I'm saying is: shuttling contents over to a hard disk is akin to taking it from a superior edit medium and copying to an inferior medium. You can do it if you want, I'd prefer not to. For some projects you won't have to (unless, of course, you're using FCP which will require you to do so). But for other projects you would want to. It's all up to how you want to work.

I'd like the flexibility to work either way. Every other editor lets you. FCP doesn't. That's why I'd like them to add that option. It's just an option, nobody's forcing anyone to use it, but I bet that a lot of people will find it extremely addictive!

 

[krestofre]

Great posts Barry. I work with Avid and FCP depending on the needs of the project. As someone who has seen both sides I've got to admit until reading those posts I liked the way FCP handled things because it was similar to my past workflows. I never, ever thought about using P2 the way you describe. Now I've got to go shoot something and rethink how I do things.

 

[NoahK]

Barry-

Editing directly from the cards would be definitely faster and simple- but at the risk of your only copy of your footage? :shocked: There's too much on the line for that, at least in my own experience. Especially when back up copies are easy enough to make. But other than that and the metadata- what are we missing out on without MXF direct access?

Noah

 

[Mr24p]

I'd love to see better color correction tools. And as mentioned I'd like better audio editing tools too. I know there are other programs to use for that but a few more options would just be helpful.

Speaking of color correction, which is something I REALLY want, didn't Apple aquire a color correction program recently? Is that what was mentioned earlier that might be added into Motion or Shake?

 

[OldCorpse]

Sure there's Pro Tools. That's not the point. The point is that the market demands an all-around solution at an affordable price. If you start dividing everything so that audio is hadled by Pro Tools etc., then the costs rise dramatically as you need to pay for all the other software. At which point, why not stay with Avid. Let's face it, FCP would hardly get any traction if it weren't for the price point. So no, you can't say "get Pro Tools for audio". You need to include a good audio solution so that there's no need for Pro Tools when using FCP.

I have a strange feeling that FCP is at a turning point. Either Apple makes a serious run for dominance, or they'll see their lead taken away from them. As it is now, FCP has some very serious weaknesses and many bugs that have not been addressed since forever. FCP needs to step up to the plate. And yes, media management is a disgrace in FCP as is the audio and many other things mentioned by posters here. If Apple delivers, they'll eat Avid's lunch. The older generation of editors is retiring - gradually. The new generation has been raised more often than not on FCP. With digital media and HD coming down the pike, Apple is in an excellent position - but they must provide a real solution. Actually, I think Vegas is an extremely serious competitor to FCP (on the merits of the software), but Sony has been just abysmal when it comes to marketing. Look at almost all their products in the past 5 years. One failure after another. I don't know what happened to Sony, but boy, are they in trouble. Poor Vegas. If Sony had their cr@p together, they could make Vegas and FCP a real horserace. As is, Sony is cedeing the field to Apple. Of course, Apple may well stumble... they've done it before, after all. And competition is good for the consumer. I'd love a real race between Avid, FCP, Vegas, Premier etc.