I can conclude from these earlier posts that EVERYTHING is a nightmare in POST!
There's no doubt that certain combinations of codec, CPU, and workflow may not be optimal, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss XDcam.
Here's why I LOVE the XDCAMHD format, both disc based and chip based (EX-1 or EX-3).
#!. Archiving: For the Disc based formats (XDCAMHD), you're creating an instant archviable media. Chip based media can be transferred/copied to these same discs and still retain the file structure.
#2. Ingesting: Via either disc or chip, you can ingest the raw clips at MANY times real time. We will typically run two PDW-U1's per computer to achieve fast ingest times. Same can be done with multiple chip readers.
We're currently building a "digital sponge" that sucks up media at an astounding rate to keep up with the mountains of media generated by our multicamera shoots.
#3. Proxy files: The XDCAMHD disc based media automatically creates proxies that can be used for logging, shot selection, whatever.
#4. Speed of transcoding media. See #2 above. We can ingest, transcode to another format for off-line editing, and STILL be slightly faster than realtime ingest.
#5 Selectable bit rates: 35Mbs, 50mbs, etc. Depending on your needs, these settings can
really stretch the capacity of your recording medium.
Sure, there can be issues with any new codec, but big picture, this format (XDCAM) hits a sweet spot for us: economical, versatile, and high enough quality to get the job done.
As I mentioned in #4 above, we work in an "off-line RT" codec. This enables us to bypass many of the issues of bandwidth, CPU power, etc. that others have mentioned. One of the keys to this workflow is a little known program that Sony has created that enables you to
UPREZ disc based, files as a "portion" of the file, not the entire clip. So, we've been able to
completely change our "uprez" process from "playing in" a clip to just "pulling in" a clip off of the original disc. This speeds up the process tremendously. The EX media can already to this, no problem.
So, for the above reasons, and for our situation (long form reality TV), XDCAM is our hero.
Mark Raudonis
--- In FinalCutPro-L@yahoogroups.com, "Dom Q. Silverio" <domqsilverio@...> wrote:
>
> ProRes for us is also a nightmare for long form edits. This is offline
> editing - meaning hundreds of hours of footage in shared storage. DVC
> Pro HD was the only workable format but would still hiccup once in a
> while when handling large photos. It is just hitting the 2.5GB memory
> limit way too fast.
>
> Of course for online where you only have 1 or 2 hours of footage
> XDCAM, ProRes and DVC Pro HD is not a problem.
>
> Dom Q. Silverio
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Shane Ross <comeback@...> wrote:
> > Yup...same issue here. But ours was a NIGHTMARE where XDCAM EX was
> > just one part. We had 9 other formats. But as soon as I changed the
> > sequence settings away from native XDCAM to ProRes (yes, you have to
> > render EVERYTHING when you are done), the crashes all but stopped.
> >
> > Log GOP MPEG on long form is nasty.
> >
> > IN the end it turned out fine. Went from 4 crashes a day (bringing
> > back awful flashbacks of Adrenaline days) to 1 every 3 days. We
> > didn't transcode XDCAM to ProRes...that would take WAY too long. Just
> > used that sequence setting.
> >
> > So I am biased towards DVCPRO HD as it is do darn easy to edit...even
> > on a G4 Powerbook! G5 Tower! That no matter how good XDCAM looks...
> > dealing with it in post (where I hang my hat) is NOT fun. So when I
> > am asked what formats/cameras I recommend... DVCPRO HD,
> > AVCIntra...P2...is always on the top of the list.
> >
> > -shane
> >
> > On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Dom Q. Silverio wrote:
> >
> >> That too is my experience with EX footage with long form editing in
> >> FCP 6 or 7. Tremendous amount of crashes and longer processing time
> >> (renders, exports, etc) compared to DVC Pro HD. It requires too much
> >> memory to process.
> >>
> >> Dom Q. Silverio
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM, r_salsbury
> >> <synchro@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I was gonna just let this go by, but since it's turned to a bigger
> >> discussion, I'll mention that I've worked at 2 separate facilities
> >> where XDCAM EX (1080/23.98) footage was a real hassle to work with
> >> in FCP. Technically, it's just supposed to work as a native editing
> >> format, but it drove folks a little crazy at both places. FCP 7 is
> >> much better with it than 6, but for the shows I've been cutting,
> >> it's not seamless. That translates to half hour or hour long shows.
> >> >
> >> > We were seeing lots of green frames, weird sync stuff, crashes way
> >> more often than normal, and exports both self contained and
> >> reference took forever. Like, 20 mins for a 30 minute sequence, with
> >> a huge fibrechannel SAN as the backbone. Drives were not the
> >> bottleneck.
> >> >
> >> > The current series I'm cutting for is shooting with these cameras
> >> (I think the cheaper one), and after mighty amounts of
> >> troubleshooting, we decided to transcode EVERYTHING that had been
> >> shot thus far over to ProRes LT. Things have gotten so much better -
> >> those self contained exports are down to about 3 or 4 minutes, and
> >> no crashes.
> >> >
> >> > I like the way the footage looks, and would encourage folks to
> >> check the cameras out, but not without trying to road test a project
> >> the same size you'll really be working with.
> >> >
> >> > I'll also add that the assistants are impressed with how quick we
> >> can load and integrate new material, even with the step of
> >> transcoding from XD to ProRes, so there are speed advantages to the
> >> format apparently.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, my 2 cents.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -Robert
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- In FinalCutPro-L@yahoogroups.com, David Dodson
> >> <davidadodson@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Now we're finally getting to the nut of what I was trying to
> >> unearth.
> >> >>
> >> >> So when shooting with the EX1R's long GOP MPEG2s you have to copy
> >> the card contents to a drive and THEN transcode/rewrap the material
> >> to (ProRes?) for cutting?
> >> >>
> >> >> And more critically, is this a real-time or longer-than-real time
> >> process? And if not, how long?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> David
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > To learn more about the FinalCutPro-L group, please visit
> >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-LYahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > To learn more about the FinalCutPro-L group, please visit
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-LYahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
To learn more about the FinalCutPro-L group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-LYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-L/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-L/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
FinalCutPro-L-digest@yahoogroups.com
FinalCutPro-L-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FinalCutPro-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Posts
