This may have been answered but i still need help

[Nick Nick]

i have an hvx200
a mac pro running final cut pro
and a couple p2 cards

what is the best way to import or log and transfer my stuff.
like the way i have done is connect the camera and enter log and transfer and select my files from the list and hit the button. but is that the highest quality way or am i
converting to a lesser quality apple standard?

i generally shoot 720 at 24pn.

thank you.

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

Yes this has been discussed a lot but who cares. You can import that way if you want. You don't lose quality. Or you could download P2CMS from the panny website and offload that way.

check out this link.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=118672

 

[Andy Olson]

Since FCP only works with quicktime files, log and transfer makes it's own quicktimes from the mxfs you have. You don't lose quality. As filthrich suggested, P2CMS from Panasonic aides in capture and it also allows you to input metadata and information to help organize your clips if you need to.

Another option is to use a software like DVFilm Raylight for Mac that makes small quicktime reference movies that you can immediately import into FCP. You don't lose quality, and it's quicker then log and transfer.

Best,
Andy

 

[Nick Nick]

thank you guys i really appreciate the responses.

 

[Shane Ross]

I'll debate the "it's quicker than Log and Transfer" statement. Is it? yes. BUT, that means that you are now working off of the original P2 backups. And you don't want to do that. What if you lose the drive? It happens. THen you are screwed.

No, what you would do...SHOULD DO...is copy the P2 contents to your media drive, THEN use Raylight to import. But is this now QUICKER than Log and Transfer? No...because you had to copy the footage and wait for that copy to complete. Log and Transfer does the same thing...copies the footage from the P2 card dumps and puts them in a quicktime wrapper. Transfer time is the same.

And L&T allows you to mark IN an OUT and import only portions of your footage. Name your footage...and batch capture if you lose your footage.

 

[mvb]

No, what you would do...SHOULD DO...is copy the P2 contents to your media drive, THEN use Raylight to import. But is this now QUICKER than Log and Transfer? No...because you had to copy the footage and wait for that copy to complete. Log and Transfer does the same thing...copies the footage from the P2 card dumps and puts them in a quicktime wrapper. Transfer time is the same.

It's quicker for the editor, because the camera person or assistant can make the edit-copy, without tying up the editor's workstation. Also P2 edit-copies contain all the metadata, your L&T quicktimes don't.

Why force the editor to make the copies?

In the film world that would be like making the editor sit in the lab and run the work prints.

With Raylight he can start cutting as soon as the hard drive arrives.

 

[RyanBellaCine]

It's quicker for the editor, because the camera person or assistant can make the edit-copy, without tying up the editor's workstation. Also P2 edit-copies contain all the metadata, your L&T quicktimes don't.

Why force the editor to make the copies?

In the film world that would be like making the editor sit in the lab and run the work prints.

With Raylight he can start cutting as soon as the hard drive arrives.

Based on Nick's First post, he's a one man band. Not a production house. Union spec assistants are not always available for volunteer pay. The hard drive arrives the moment he downloads the footage that he shot. Using his camera. To his hard drive. Army of one. It's amazing what feats one single person can achieve.

And It's not like being able to do more then one thing is against the law or sinful. God forbid an editor learns how to copy a file and prepare it for work. Its not as complicated as processing film may be. You don't even have to get out of your chair! your editor is the Lab!

Sounds like in Nick's case the advantage with RayLight would be the metadata. If that is even an issue. But it sounds like its not. Time was not a critical factor. And it should not be compromised over the CYA principal of backing up your assets.
He was just wondering about the image quality. In this case it looks to me like Raylight is an un-needed expense.

We've been the old Log and Transfer via hard-lining camera to Mac Pro. For our workload it works just fine. And as stated, No loss of quality. So nothin in Nicks workflow strikes me as a problem. Except maybe the lack of archiving the assets. Which he might already be doing.