Avid and FCP offline workflow...

Hello everyone!

I have a studio where we work in very large projects. We do commercials, corporate, tv shows, short movies, documentaries... All sort of shows.

Our main format is Dv. Right now, we have 4 Terabytes of storage; Lacie Quadra drives and iOmega drives.

Because of this, specially when we do documentaries (hundreds of tapes), I´d love to work at offline resolutions. It may seem exagerated to work at lower resolutions if the source material is Dv, but the thing is I find myself buying more and more hard-drives to avoid the off-line to on-line workflow.

Of course you can do this with FCP, you have Offline Rt. Let me tell you why I don´t like to use it. I´m doing a comparision with Avid Media Composer, because I love both systems, and I want both of them to improve. Really!!!

1) The quality is really ugly. It´s not usable at all. I´ve done some tests with a short movie I´m about to edit, and there´s too much pixelation. Sometimes you can´t see the eyes or the faces of the actors.

2) You can change the quality of the capture in the capture presets(It´s set to 35%), but it´s not a good idea to tweak those settings. You need to asign the same quality to all sequecences you work with. Not any good. When you do this, you have playback of clips in the viewer or in a second monitor using Cinema Desktop, but not in both at the same time. The viewer only shows a freeze frame when using Cinema Desktop. Again, not usable. I´ve seen this happening since FCP 5.0. Not a good idea to change the quality of the jpeg codec to increase quality.

3) No 16/9 in Digital Cinema Desktop. When working in Offline RT, clips captured in 16/9 won´t show their correct aspect ratio in Digital Cinema Desktop. You can even read about this in the manual. So if I´m working with 16/9 material, I need to adjust the settings of muy secondary monitor to display the correct aspect ratio, but not all computer monitors have these options.

4) Nightmare off-line to on-line workflow. You already know. No nest, no speed changes, etc., if you don´t want problems. You need to create another project to make an off-kine of your sequence. Speed changes must be removed. You have to re-do the effect. Tought I don´t think FCP Media Manager is as bad as they say (you just need know its limitations and adapt), this is just another reason to consider not using Offline Rt.

5) Open Format Timeline. Whatever... Imagine you worked with Offline Rt and you just on-lined your sequence to the Dv resolution. Now the director wants to add something, so you go to the Offline Rt clips and edit some of them into your Dv squence. Guys, have you tried this? When you mix Dv clips and Offline Rt clips in the same sequence, the Offline Rt clips look terrible, even worst than the originals... Unless you render... This has been discussed in this forums.

Well, all these points make me never work off-line and buying more hard-drives.

Now, Avid:

1) and 2)

You can capture to multiple off-line resolutions: 20:1, 15:1, 15:1s and others. Each will give you different qualities. The 20:1 resolution will duplicate your Hd space, while keeping a very good image quality. You won´t see pixelation.

You can even start with a higher off-line, like 20:1, and then use 15:1 when you´re running out of storage. All those different off-line resolutions will happyly combine between them and with any other codec in the timeline.

3) 16/9 clips will show their correct aspect ratio using Full Screen Playback, no matter what resolution the are. You actually choose 16/9 monitors in the Composer Window, not as an atribute of the clip.

4) Bullet Proof off-line to on-line workflow. Really. Decompose your sequence and batch digite at the desired resolutions. All your effects, speed changes, everything you did, will be there. No need to recreate anyghing.

5) When mixing dv resolutions and any of the off-line resolutions, playback will be perfect and realtime.

I´m telling you about my spefific workflow: lots of dv tapes.

I love FCP, really, and I use it because it´s cheap. But then it´s not that cheap for certain workflows, like mine...

I could use Avid and spend more money on it, but, for me, for my workflow, it´s actually cheaper than FCP and lots of hard-drives.

So guys, don´t get defensive, I´m one of you... I want FCP to be my way, but it´s complicated... Of course Avid has its problems...

I´m talking about Hd, where FCP clearly wins for the moment.

What can Apple do to improve in this basic funcionality?

Don´t be bad...

Flavio.

I'm not sure why you're freaked about the size so much. Even 200 one hour tapes at full DV resolution is only about 2.4 TB. I could just about do that on my home machine without breaking a sweat.

But here's the deal. If you want to use Avid, go right ahead. There's no reason to do something you don't want to do.

Ok, that´s the usual answer...

It´s not about if I want to use Avid or not.

I´m talking about the differences between the two systems for my workflow.

My point is that some of these things, like not showing the 16/9 aspect ratio when working with Offline Rt, are just very silly and anoying.

The offline to online workflow should be improved.

And as for why I´m scared about sizes. Well, we have more than 400 dv tapes captured, and more are coming.

I mean, why FCP has the posibility of doing an offline? If it does, then it should deliver properly.

Flavio.

I'd be freaked out if I had that much work on my plate and I was depending on LaCie drives...YIKES!

I do DV offlines and uprez to Uncompressed 10-Bit SD all the time in FCP. With the sizes of RAID Arrays these days, who cares about 14:1 offline OMFs when we have 2 TB's at our fingertips? No need for Avid in my workflow anymore and FCP is taking over our studio. Just a matter of time before the last 5 Avid rooms go over. One thing, though...if you START on an Avid...you should FINISH on an Avid. If you START on FCP...you should FINISH on FCP. Keep the workflow smooth & trouble-free that way.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I'm confused. Since when did offline RT quality get ugly? Pixelation? Cant see actors eyes? Something is wrong. Your sequence settings are screwy or something.

And really, I doint care if you have 1000 tapes, DV vs Offline RT will save you a few hard drives and that's about it. Why complicate things with offline RT from DV. I can see DVCPRO HD to DV but not this.

Know its the usual answer but offline RT is not ugly in my experience. Course that was back in FCP 3 or something. Maybe Quicktime is messing with it now.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Yeah, usual answer again...

So, there´s something wrong with my sequence settings or my quicktime version... I´m afraid not...

It just pixelates in the viewer, it´s just a bad compresion.

Now... Really, really, really...

Is anyone going to admit that, when you mix different codecs in the so-called Open Format Timeline, you get really bad playback quality in those that are different from the sequence codec, unless you render?

Come on... There are plenty of posts about this on the web...

Come on, tell me FCP does bad something... I need to hear it, please...

Flavio.

Oh jeez. I didn't read about the Lacies. Get some nice 750GB Seagate internal SATA2s. Like I say, you can easily get 3TB just internally. Much cheaper and safer than external firewire drives.

Personally I think you're just overcomplicating. No need for any of it. But it's your choice.

>>Is anyone going to admit that, when you mix different codecs in the so-called Open Format Timeline, you get really bad playback quality in those that are different from the sequence codec, unless you render? <<

Nope. Not here.

Well mixing formats in this Open Format Timeline is not a miracle by any means and quite frankly Vegas does it better, but can't see the actors eyes? I'm not sure as I doint have any use for mixing offline RT and DV. I'd think it would look OK, but guess it doesnt. And if its not usable, don't do it.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Really? Looks fine here - maybe my content isn't too different from eachother to cause a problem.

In any case, I'm about to call troll on this.

Yeah, Vega does it better, and Avid does it better.

But my question is: when and how is this going to improve?

Jude,

sorry if it´s my English but, are you just being rude?

Doubt it ever well if you want the real answer. I mean how many people care to use this offline RT/DV workflow?

Michael Horton
-------------------

Not many, but: how many people care about any offline to online workflow?

Lots...

Then that is where we differ and not seeing what you are seeing I have to disagree. I dont recall seeing offline RT pixelating or not usable to the extent of not being able to see the actors eyes. If others do see this I'd like to hear it.

Michael Horton
-------------------

I would happyly send you a still of what I´m talking about, but I´m at home now.

In the Avid, with a similar size, you get less artifacts and a better image. Their offline codec is better. Really. That´s what I´m saying.

Nope...don't see that here.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I believe you. So, then use Avid. We can't solve this problem.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Quote

In the Avid, with a similar size, you get less artifacts and a better image. Their offline codec is better. Really. That´s what I´m saying.

You seem to have answered your own question = Avid it is, then. Good luck.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Mark Raudonis and the folks at Bunim/Murray do the offline/online thing all day long, and into the night. Five shows running at the same time, bays constantly busy. And they don't have anything but minor slippage. One trick is to know the limitations of the machine and work with them, not try to force it to do something it can't. So the offline/online workflow is not only possible, but plausible.

I have edited offline RT and it doesn't look as bad as you make it out. No, it isn't as clean as 20:1 or 15:1...Avid has had a LOOOOONG time to develop offline codecs. In fact, it was DESIGNED around being an offline machine...ONLY. Later they made it online capable, but still, the main design was for it to be an offline machine for shows that were to be onlined on film (negative cut), tape to tape bays...and later on Symphony's and DS.

FCP was designed with another workflow in mind. Capture and edit at full quality. Offline RT was an afterthought...and introduced in, what, FCP 3? The offline/online workflow isn't it's strong suit...but it is still capable of doing it.

Yes, I know you have heard this answer over and over...but you have to play to the strengths of your edit system. If you demand a certain workflow, either get the system that best accomodates that workflow, or know the weakness of that system in managing that workflow, and do your best to avoid them.

WHEN will it be fixed? How the heck would we know? We are editors, not Apple Engineers. And they are so tight lipped about everything that you'll know the day it is announced it is available on the system.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Nothing wrong with Avid, but a few FCP observations:

1) 35% PhotoJPEG sucks!! It looked beautiful on Powerbooks and iBooks at default window sizes. Enlarge it even 10% and it begins to fall apart. Increase the percentage for highest quality and you might as well be capturing in an uncompressed codec considering the resulting data size. This was a codec with a limited lifespan for a PowerPC engine, largely a relic. I don't know a soul today who uses it to save on storage. DV is the new offline codec and it's extremely versatile.

2) You say can't see detail. Assuming you're not enlarging the image or Canvas, you should check your Sequence settings to see that they match your P-JPEG footage in every detail, you may be forcing RealTime performance-- which can result in *very* chunkstyle playback, depending on your engine, and which requires a render with Playback Settings on High-- *not* Dynamic-- to see best quality.

3) What everyone says-- hard disks for a few TB of storage in *DV* format are very affordable. And connected properly to an UPS with nice clean voltage, and maintained with DiskWarrior every so often, I have nothing but good times with LaCie drives and my DV and DVCAM work. Abuse them, overfill them, plug 'em into a raw wall socket, daisychain too many, one will likely go south. I have scads of seat time with LaCie's, they are all I use, on large and small doc and dramatic work, and all I can say is, they and the Western Digitals inside behave for me and they look great outside.

4) BUT if you have an Intel Mac Pro, fill those slide-in SATA bays! Install groups of three (leave your first alone-- it's your system drive) for an easy 1.5 TB or more of live DV -- and stripe each group for more demanding bandwidth. When each striped volume approaches 90% full, slip 'em out, label 'em 1-2-3, store carefully, and capture to another three striped drives. A cheap modular high-bandwidth solution, no eSATA.

HTH

- Loren
Today's FCP keytip:
Find Next/Previous timeline gaps instantly with Shift-G / Option-G !

Final Cut Studio 2 KeyGuide? Power Pack.
Now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com

Well, since you mentioned my name... here's my thoughts.

You have to have a VERY good reason to want to use Off-line RT. Ours can be summed up with two words: Bandwidth and storage.

Because we have so many systems networked together, we simply don't have the bandwidth available to push around 500 streams of uncompressed SD or even DVCPRO HD throughout the building. (75 seats with an average of 6 streams each)

Storage for us is a major issue. We currently have around 50 terrabytes of shared storage and that still simply isn't enough for the number of shows that we do.

Do I like off-line RT? Not really. As many have mentioned, the picture quality looks like dog poo, and the reduced frame size (320 X 240) wrecks havoc on GRFX placement and size. Having said that, for us, there really is no choice on many of the shows that we do. We accept the limitations of this codec because we need the benefits of low bandwidth and storage.

Every chance that I can, I abandon off-line RT and digitize at full resolution. Unfortunately, that isn't all that often.

If you need the benefits of off-line, use it. If not, don't.

But... if you do choose the classic "off-line to on-line" workflow, be sure to budget enough time and resources to make the transition accurately. We have an assistant editor check EVERY single shot against the original to confirm accuracy. We know where the process breaks down (Speed ramps, stills, and multicams) and have workarounds for all of these areas.

Good luck.

Mark

Well,

thanks everyone for your feedback. Points well taken.

My reason for using Offline Rt is storage. Really, I can´t just buy more and more Hd´s, internal o erternal.

Offlining is always going to be here. Look at the Red workflow, that´s and offline to online workflow.

Mark, question for you: have you tried to increase the quality of the offline codec tweaking the settings? Does this work for you?

Thanks a lot...

Flavio.

No, we haven't tried that.

Increasing the quality increases the size of the files... kinda defeats the purpose.

With off-line, you know it's gonna look like crap, so we just deal with it.

Mark

Mark

Can you tell me its so bad you cant see the actors eys? I dont remember it being that bad.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Quote
Flavio
Offlining is always going to be here.

No it isn't. Just because it's here now, doesn't mean it always will. That's like saying, "We'll always cut films on a flatbed. I mean, how ELSE can you cut film?"

Quote
Flavio
Come on, tell me FCP does bad something... I need to hear it, please...

You could try an Avid forum. I'm sure they have lots of bad things to say about FCP. Fact is, FCP works great for what I do on it. And Avid works great for what I do on it. Sometimes either will do, and sometimes, one is clearly more suited to the task. Avid was designed for the realm of film initially, and FCP for the realm of video initially. Those foundations are, in my opinion, their respective strengths. Avid gives high quality codecs at small file sizes, FCP gives high quality finishing tools without the need of expensive hardware acceleration.

Quote
Flavio
I love FCP, really, and I use it because it´s cheap. But then it´s not that cheap for certain workflows, like mine...

I could use Avid and spend more money on it, but, for me, for my workflow, it´s actually cheaper than FCP and lots of hard-drives.

I find that extremely hard to believe considering what an Avid Media Composer costs in hardware alone. Photo-JPEG at 35% is about equivalent to 15:1 in file size so you'd likely need nearly as many harddrives for your Avid workflow as you would for FCP.

Just how would it be cheaper?

Andy

Depends on the size of the shot!

To answer your question, it's never THAT bad. A well shot, well lit image is "good enough" to work with.

Mark

Quote

Come on, tell me FCP does bad something... I need to hear it, please...

Why? Why do you "NEED" to hear something bad? If you are LOOKING for people to say bad things about FCP, go to the Avid forums.

Quote

I love FCP, really, and I use it because it´s cheap. But then it´s not that cheap for certain workflows, like mine...I could use Avid and spend more money on it, but, for me, for my workflow, it´s actually cheaper than FCP and lots of hard-drives.

OK...nothing we say regarding FCP is helping you flavio...you OBVIOUSLY don't want to use it so why keep up with the negativity? This is bordering on trolling now. Try the Avid Community Forums site and ask THEM what you should use - Avid or FCP (and get some popcorn):

[www.avid.com]

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

>
> Is anyone going to admit that, when you mix
> different codecs in the so-called Open Format
> Timeline, you get really bad playback quality in
> those that are different from the sequence codec,
> unless you render?
>

Actually... I had a friend who was sending stuff out on the Adrenaline - low res clips, but he had pics and he wanted the pics in high res. And somehow, although he specified a 1:1 resolution it somehow 'low-rezzed' his pics to the same resolution as the rest of his video.

never actually had to online footage myself... but what are some of the problems with onlining in final cut?

grafixjoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on, tell me FCP does bad something... I need
> to hear it, please...
>
> Why? Why do you "NEED" to hear something bad? If
> you are LOOKING for people to say bad things about
> FCP, go to the Avid forums.


You obviously don´t get it was just a sarcasm and a little irony. And I said that because most people here were being so defensive.

>
> I love FCP, really, and I use it because it´s
> cheap. But then it´s not that cheap for certain
> workflows, like mine...I could use Avid and spend
> more money on it, but, for me, for my workflow,
> it´s actually cheaper than FCP and lots of
> hard-drives.
>
> OK...nothing we say regarding FCP is helping you
> flavio...you OBVIOUSLY don't want to use it so why
> keep up with the negativity? This is bordering on
> trolling now. Try the Avid Community Forums site
> and ask THEM what you should use - Avid or FCP
> (and get some popcorn):


Look, I´ve said it before and I will again: I´m an user of both platforms. I´m not bashing FCP. I´m just talking about hot it fits in my workflow.

But let me tell you something about the Avid Community Forums; there, no one is accused of trolling just because of critics to the software. There are lots of discussions about the Avid problems. You can also find lots of discussions about the Avid vs FCP thing, where FCP wins.

Look for my name in the Avid forums, you´ll find some bad words about Avid too.

I´m not here to have fun, I´m here to make a point about workflow with both platforms, and to ask people what they think about it.

You probably haven´t read all my post. I start one of them saying: Thanks everyone for your input. Points well taken... Did you read that? Who´s being negative?

Not talking about you now, but I find there is a strong lack of self criticism in the FCP community. They always get so defensive, and they feel atacked when someone pronounce the word Avid. Maybe this is because most FCP users have never worked with an Avid. Of course, you won´t admit this happens.

Really, everytime I post something about a FCP problem or make a comparision with Avid, I get the the same answer. Go back to your Avid, then...

The thing is, again, I work with bloth platforms, and like them both, and that is why I compare them very often. Sometimes Avid wins, sometimes FCP wins...

One more thing: my words in this discussion have been very kind and had good humor, so I don´t think I deserve your reaction. Really...

Take care...

Flavio.