Editing over ethernet using FCP 7?

[JimmyS]

P.S. Don't you Mac people ever wonder why everyone else can edit and save to all different kinds of video formats and codecs, but you only have ONE? Think about it. Does that sound like a robust system? I wish you guys would wake up and revolt, finally. It would do us ALL much good.

The Final Cut Pro Suite was aimed at the video professional. They don't need to have access to every codec under the sun. FCP X is aimed at the pro-sumer market and format support has increased significantly as shown in the Supported Formats and I/O section on this page.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/specs/

Output from the Compressor 4 app. is also quite complete.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/compressor/specs/

[budwzr]

Hahahaha, what a hoot! Looks like Corel Video "Pro". You guys crack me up. Whew, thanks for the laughs.


[Attachment 9902 - Click to enlarge]

[JimmyS]

Hahahaha, what a hoot! Looks like Corel Video "Pro". You guys crack me up. Whew, thanks for the laughs.


[Attachment 9902 - Click to enlarge]

Readers must be advised that the writer of the quoted reply is a self professed Apple hater. He has seldom if ever provided an objective or useful reply regarding anything relating to Apple or their products and at times even resorting to homophobic innuendo towards some who might use their products.

A while back, a poster to this forum replied in thread he had started, to which he was getting numerous flames. "I thought name of this forum is VideoHelp".

[budwzr]

You guys have a protected area in the Mac forum. Out here in the real world, you're with the big dogs.

Homophobic? Moi? Hahaha

[Cornucopia]

My slightly more than $0.02...

Budwzr had a few good things to say, but he missed the boat on standard workflow, I think.

After ingest, most NLE's DO NOT alter those originally-ingested files, as they are a reference to the originally captured media (whether tape- or file-based). That's kind of the whole point of non-destructive digital editing.

That means that what really changes are:
A. Temp/Intermediate files (rendered dissolve/xfade or title elements, etc)
B. Temp/WIP/test renders
C. Final Renders
D. The sequence/timeline/EDL itself

The first 2 are still best served by local storage, and many NLE apps include separate settings for temp storage location (like AVID).

The next 1 can EASILY be set to a local device during rendertime, with a final copy to a shared net drive WITH MANUAL, AGREED-UPON VERSIONING NOMENCLATURE.

The final one is trickier, but also not as much of a problem...
EDL filesizes are miniscule in comparison to media size - usually just on the order of 50kB-20MB (depending on complexity).

Plus, EDLs in a production environment are often just sections of a final SUPER-edl. So there is often no real overlap.

Thus, EDL's can easily be sent back to the shared server with project+user+timestamp versioning to keep things clear.

Note that these are rarely cooperatively-interactive. They are mostly multiple private elements. And effort actually has to be made to re-incorporate versioned edls into the super-edl, or they remain just those little private fiefdoms with other users still unaware of foreign updates.


With this in mind, the bit that was said about stratified user-level privileges makes a lot of sense. The original ingest files can be Read-only (except to Mgrs & re-ingest assistant engineers). The Final render section can be Drop-in/FileReadWrite-only (no edit, no delete) except for Mgrs, and the EDLs can be in a section that is readable to all but writable to only the creator-user (and mgrs).

As long as the long-term minimum throughput/bandwidth can be maintained (and this mainly depends on # of users), distributed storage like Xsan is certainly doable.

However, it may not even be necessary. If the # of users are just a few (say 2-6), local RAID setups make more sense.

Then, the ingest files get copied ONCE to local storage and then since all of the type A&B files are already meant for local storage (as mentioned earlier), it's only the final render copies and edl copies that are saved to network storage. All users start with the same list of files, and it's fairly easy to use local proxies of the network originals, particularly if the relative paths are identical.

Then when finishing is needed to be done (and this is usually only done by one or 2 workstations), the original network ingest files are re-referenced, along with the various interim or sectional renders.

budwzr was doing a little mac-bashing, and some of it was justified (the mac-centric not-invented-here FUD and some of the one-size-fits-all mentality or the sometimes form-over-function mentality), but I like and use macs as much as the next guy and, heck, they do have a slick and fairly stable user interface!

So the bit about FCP being not-pro is total BS (although the judgement's still out AFA FCP-X! ).

Scott

edit: here's an interesting pdf about this very thing...http://meta.math.spbu.ru/publication/SYRCoDIS_Proskurnin.pdf

[JimmyS]

... Out here in the real world, you're with the big dogs.

big dogs???

An excerpt from:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10465202-37.html

"Of course, Final Cut Pro isn't the only product available for filmmakers, but it is the most popular now. According to market research firm SCRI International, Final Cut Pro has almost 50 percent market share in the nonlinear editor space, outperforming competitors like Avid."

[edDV]

... Out here in the real world, you're with the big dogs.

big dogs???

An excerpt from:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10465202-37.html

"Of course, Final Cut Pro isn't the only product available for filmmakers, but it is the most popular now. According to market research firm SCRI International, Final Cut Pro has almost 50 percent market share in the nonlinear editor space, outperforming competitors like Avid."

Those are documentaries. 90% of TV series and most movies are off-line editied on AVID products.

That doesn't mean FCP or AVID Media Composer are right for this audience. One uses the right tool for the job.

Both FCP and AVID are niche products and not very versatile.

[budwzr]

The reasons for FCP's popularity have nothing to do with how "good" it is.

It has more to do with the general disdain for Avid that started a few years back, and somebody at Apple paying Walter Murch to endorse FCP.

I'm not an Apple hater, per se, I love my iPad and Touch, although I'm not too crazy about iTunes. What I do hate is the arrogance and "hoity-ness" of most of the Apple users.

PC users, in general, would welcome a heated debate over the merits of one method over the other, and would want to gather ALL input and insight before embarking on a project.

As evidenced here, Apple users don't want to "over complicate" things, and like to shout slogans like "It just works".

But I think the most ingenious / insidious aspect of Apple is that it cons the users into thinking they're in an elite group, and then they act that out in the real world.

[bhilgenkamp]

P.S. Don't you Mac people ever wonder why everyone else can edit and save to all different kinds of video formats and codecs, but you only have ONE?

Lol... You've lost any and all credibility in one simple remark. Very impressive. Learn the facts.

Why the Mac hating? I have Premiere running on my Mac too. I use whatever tool is best for the job. I often use FCP though because our entire workflow includes FCS apps. One huge drawback to Premier though is when I want to encode the video. Adobe forces me to use one computer at a time. I have a cluster here running Qmaster, so when I'm done in FCP I just set my encoding presets in Compressor, send to the cluster, and my computer is completely freed up so I can encode (very quickly) in the background on other machines. Still wanna bash Macs while you're sitting at your computer staring at a progress bar wishing it would hurry up so you can have your computer back? That assumes though that you actually have work.

It's obvious you're biased against Macs for some reason. Just FYI - not only do I edit but I am also the IT guy here. I manage OS X, Linux and Windows servers, as well as OS X and Windows clients. I know my way around the IT and the editing/workflow side of things. To keep trying to say things just won't work is completely false. Shared storage in an editing environment is what I do every day. We don't have any of the issues you are talking about. You can say all you want and use your hypothetical issues that can come up, but in reality with a properly planned system guess what, It just works.

[bhilgenkamp]

Out here in the real world, you're with the big dogs.

One more thing: The shared storage I manage totals ~95 TB. That's not including the Windows systems. Still wanna talk about the big dogs?

[budwzr]

Out here in the real world, you're with the big dogs.

One more thing: The shared storage I manage totals ~95 TB. That's not including the Windows systems. Still wanna talk about the big dogs?

Hey, that's cool. You're the first Mac person I've run across that seems to have a clue, so my comments don't apply to you.

My roots are in building relational models that analyze raw data, and I'm used to picking things apart looking for disparities or anomalies, even remotely possible ones.

So don't take me too seriously.

[budwzr]

So to recap, can we can say that Xsan is a client/server schema that manages single drives in a parallel processing array that optimizes bandwidth by creating virtual mini-servers on each drive. And that's a physical drive, not a volume share.

Whereas a regular NAS has a top-down management "serial style".

So I think a cheaper solution is to install a local esata drive on every machine, each to hold a copy of the master, and send the editing output to the central NAS, and like Scott said, set up an agreed nomenclature and workflow to handle versioning.

That would be a VERY interesting project for a geek like me, but not so much for an "FCP Editor".

[budwzr]

here's an interesting pdf about this very thing...http://meta.math.spbu.ru/publication/SYRCoDIS_Proskurnin.pdf

YES, that's VERY interesting:



I'm reading this paper with the eagerness of a dusty trail cowboy gulping a beer. Nice find Scott!

[budwzr]

OK, that's an old paper, but apparently the AAF format contains metadata similar to database tuples that allow for versioning. Very good.

Actually, Sony Vegas uses this same concept to manage the timeline. It makes little metadata files with GUID's. That's why it's so fast. And the beauty of Vegas is that it can create these metadata files for any format, not just AAF.

Vegas V9 introduced network rendering, similar to Apple's Compressor, but they dropped it in V10, and we don't know why. Maybe some bugs, or lack of interest.

So it looks like there IS a way to represent a video in relational terms that allows for versioning, and for Apple, that's the AAF format?

[bhilgenkamp]

What exactly are you trying to prove here? You talk a lot but it seems like it's more for your own entertainment than for assisting the OP.

[budwzr]

But the idea here is to keep the drobo updated in real time,

The OP isn't clear about what he wants. The devil's in the details.

[bhilgenkamp]

Then maybe instead of running your mouth you can wait until he tells us. You seem to still be stuck on an idea that multiple people are going to be editing the same project file at a time. That's not a typical workflow, and I don't know why someone would want to do that even if it were possible.

[bhilgenkamp]

The OP isn't clear about what he wants. The devil's in the details.

Actually when in context it is quite clear:

The files will all be pro res 422. Worst case scenario we'll be copying to local machines and editing, then copying back to the Drobo. But the idea here is to keep the drobo updated in real time, so that's not really the preferred method, not as efficient.

The source footage is on the Drobo. If he can't serve the video from the Drobo then he is wondering if he can copy the footage from the Drobo, to an internal drive, then back to the Drobo if anything changed. You need to think like an editor, not a DBA.

[budwzr]

how are going to keep 2 people from working a file at the same time? all edits by one will be overwritten by the second save. i'm not sure fcp can lock a file from a file server. unless the mini has some file management software running the show.

I'm not the only one that thought the OP wanted versioning.

And no, I'm not familiar with the workflow of a post house. I've always wondered how they section everything off to colorists, compositors, VFX, etc.

What exactly is "Pro Res 422?". Is that AVC Intra?

[bhilgenkamp]

And no, I'm not familiar with the workflow of a post house. I've always wondered how they section everything off to colorists, compositors, VFX, etc.

Depending on the job we may have one editor go from the beginning to the end of a project, doing all the steps himself. For other jobs, in a nutshell, it may start with graphics > editor > colorist > authoring.

What exactly is "Pro Res 422?". Is that AVC Intra?

It's not AVC, but it is an intra-frame codec developed by Apple. It's more easily decoded than AVC so there is no transcoding needed to edit it, and the file sizes are pretty small as well.

ProRes 422 is one of 5 ProRes profiles available. More info can be found here.

[edDV]

What exactly is "Pro Res 422?". Is that AVC Intra?

AVC Intra is a pro camcoder format that encodes AVC inside the frame* but does not apply interframe GOP based compression. Each frame is recorded separately. AVC Intera typically uses 50 Mb/s for interlace/medium quality and 100 Mbps for progressive/high quality. The goal of an acquisition format is small files for efficient use of tape/flash media.

* AVC Intra compared with other intraframe pro acquisition formats

MJPEG (JPEG compression) user specified resolution and bit rate
DigiBeta SD (DCT compression) 90 Mb/s
HDCAM HD (DCT compression) 144 Mb/s
HDCAM SR (DCT compression) 440/880 Mb/s (used for 24p 2kx1k)
DV/DV50/DVC Pro HD (DCT compression) 25/50/100 Mb/s
AVC Intra (AVC compression) 50 or 100 Mb/s

ProRes 422/444 is a digital intermefiate format optimized for editing performance. It is similar to Cineform. Apple also has AIC which is more closely matched to HDV/AVCHD formats with 8 bit 4:2:0 colorspace. Digital intermediates also store as frames but unlike AVC, the intraframe codec is optimized for low processor overhead and multi-generation (re-encode) performance.

[budwzr]

Aha, so AIC is for consumers, ProRes is for pros.

What do we have, as far as Vegas goes? MXF?

[bhilgenkamp]

For the most part AIC has been replaced by ProRes. Also, AIC is only 4:2:0, so ProRes will keep more color information than AIC.

[edDV]

For the most part AIC has been replaced by ProRes. Also, AIC is only 4:2:0, so ProRes will keep more color information than AIC.

But if the source is 4:2:0 like HDV, AVCHD, DVD, Blu-Ray, AIC avoids colorspace conversion if you are mostly cutting and adding transitions. This makes AIC appropriate for normal home video editing.

Apple docs recommend AIC for 4:2:0 source unless you need to kick it up to 4:2:2 for adding to a 4:2:2 project. There is chroma loss/artifacting going from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 and back to 4:2:0. For the latter chroma space is converted (interpolated) twice.

Further...

Prores422 is intended for 4:2:2 source (e.g. DVCPro50, DVCProHD, AVC Intra, IMX and XDCAM (4:2:2 mode) not 4:2:0 source. Prores444 is intended for film or fully sampled HD video cinema.

[budwzr]

That explains why FCPX is so cheap. They want to push Premiere out of their consumer editing space.

[bhilgenkamp]

That explains why FCPX is so cheap. They want to push Premiere out of their consumer editing space.

Unfortunately in doing so they're pushing FCP out of the professional editing space. Apple has basically left us with nothing but iMovie Pro. Ironically more and more FCP editors are moving to Premiere or Avid.

[budwzr]

That explains why FCPX is so cheap. They want to push Premiere out of their consumer editing space.

Unfortunately in doing so they're pushing FCP out of the professional editing space. Apple has basically left us with nothing but iMovie Pro. Ironically more and more FCP editors are moving to Premiere or Avid.

Why is that?

Because the big dogs don't like to use something associated with the little dogs?

[edDV]

That explains why FCPX is so cheap. They want to push Premiere out of their consumer editing space.

Unfortunately in doing so they're pushing FCP out of the professional editing space. Apple has basically left us with nothing but iMovie Pro. Ironically more and more FCP editors are moving to Premiere or Avid.

I just don't get the FCP X thing. Yes the pros will go, but who are the intended?

My perspective is as an AAPL owner but also as a FCP/FCE/iMovie user.

[bhilgenkamp]

Why is that?

Because the big dogs don't like to use something associated with the little dogs?

Which dogs are which. I don't know what you're referring to.

I just don't get the FCP X thing. Yes the pros will go, but who are the intended?

That is a very good question.

[budwzr]

FOR THE MONEY!!!!!!

Video editing is the hottest thing going, with no end in sight. It's a great hobby, fairly cheap, you can really broadcast yourself on YT, it's engaging, social, fun, it's got it all going on.

There's big money in consumer video. I've got my eye on the new GoPro 2 with 120fps.