Bug: B7-Storm's XML Misses StartTC And Audio Tracks

[Hans von Sonntag]

Hi,

Storm is developing a lot. The new Beta7 seems to be almost production ready. Thanks for that!

This is my request:

I finish all my projects in Smoke on Mac, often do a rough cut in FCP and then conform the XML in Smoke.

Now, Storm's XML is readable in Smoke, which is huge because Adobe Premier Pro's XML is not, I have to roundtrip via FCP to generate a usable XML, this is tedious and includes many things done by hand.

While conforming in FCP works, it's not in Smoke but very close, I think.

For conforming in Smoke the XML needs these additional data: start TC (usually 00:00:00:00) and missing Audio information which is: 4 channels, 16 bit, 48000 Hz. I cannot alter the XML in Smoke but maybe in a text editor. I let you know my results in this regard.

Storm could be THE preparing/syncing/offline/selecting takes/rough edit tool for Smoke.

Thanks for listening and bringing Storm to life.

Hans

EDIT: Storm is not yet production ready, at least for me. See the http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54239

[Mark L. Pederson]

Storm could be THE preparing/syncing/offline/selecting takes/rough edit tool for Smoke.

Thanks for listening and bringing Storm to life.

Hans

Hans - what tools do you use in SMOKE specifically that if you had them in STORM - you would just skip going to SMOKE??

[Gunleik Groven]

That is an interesting idea with a rather long answer, I would guess...

[Mark L. Pederson]

That is an interesting idea with a rather long answer, I would guess...

I don't mean to hijack the thread - but I'm not a SMOKE user - so - curious to hear from those that are - what would be needed inside STORM to not need/want to go to SMOKE?

[Hans von Sonntag]

Mark, this is a short question that leads to a long, long answer. But I try to keep it short.

To be on par with Smoke Storm lacks this:

1. Full NLE Interface, think AVID.

2. 3D compositor, think AE.

3. World class Keyer, think Nuke's abilities but IMHO faster.

4. Text tool, think AE

5. Paint tool, think Nuke

6. Colour manipulation, while not RT think Scratch, SpeedGrade, etc...

7. Conforming, think Scratch.

8. Archiving, think second to none.

And if you know Flame, think Flame without Batch (node based compositing like Nuke) but with an in-build Avid.

Storm has a long way to go to come even close to Smoke. No wonder. Smoke has always been one of the premium tools in the industry and quite long around.

BUT, there are some things inside Storm which Smoke cannot do, such as batch render single shots off a timeline plus - and this huge to me - a short, flat learning curve.

Storm is a great tool that allows directors and producers to select shots, sync sound (could be even easier) and perform a rough edit without the knowledge of an editor. Then conform the rough timeline into Smoke and let the artists to their magic.

IMHO, Storm in the moment seems to be target towards DITs/Red techs but in the near future (think, Scarlet) there will be thousands of filmmakers who won't have the budget to book a Red tech. With some colour presets, automatic sound synching and great XML export (almost there) Storm will be THE companion for Red.

Thinking about this, an up gradable modular approach to keep Storm as easy and budget-concious on the one hand and one the other hand for the advanced user a power horse with extra modules (think Scratach) would make sense. Any thoughts?



Hans

[Hans von Sonntag]

For conforming in Smoke the XML needs these additional data: start TC (usually 00:00:00:00) and Audio information which is: 4 channels, 16 bit, 48000 Hz. I cannot alter in XML in Smoke maybe in a text editor, I let you know my results in this regard.

Manually altering Storm's XML takes longer than conforming in FCP and from there exporting a new XML for finally conforming the whole lot in Smoke.

But if you compare Storm's XML with an FCP XML of the same timeline you see that only a few things have to be added (see above) to make a straight conform to Smoke happen. I also belief that other online tools that may already swallow FCP XMLs would benefit from a preferably identical XML to FCP's original as well. IMHO, the FCP XML will displace in the near future more and more the EDL.

Hans

[Jim Geduldick]

Hans

I have to agree with your list
Smokes Color warper,tracker and editing features are why its used heavily in commercials,broadcast and film (besides Flame)

I am using a similar workflow with Smoke for finish from FCP and Nuke/AE for comps.

Alot of us on the alpha team have been giving tons of feedback from those of use using Smoke,Nuke and other apps for having Storm be well rounded.

Once we get it where we have support for alot more RAW workflows and camerasa solid media mang backbone and vfx tools found in Nuke it will be a force to be reckon with.

[Tai Wah Lim]

Hi,

Storm could be THE preparing/syncing/offline/selecting takes/rough edit tool for Smoke.

Hans

Second Hans request. We are using Storm to prepare for finishing in Smoke. Have been resisting Smoke and trying to round trip with different applications. Just too tedious for managing people with different skill sets for fast turnaround TVC jobs. Lim

[Palmer Woodrow]

IMHO, the FCP XML will displace in the near future more and more the EDL.

Good heavens, let's hope something better than that becomes the standard. FCP's XML is a mess if you look at it. There's no proper relationship between clips and timeline events (in fact, Apple does not seem to understand the difference). Bins are described differently in different situations, or sometimes don't even exist. There's no central list of clips (footage) used in the project. The description of transitions is wonky, with nonsensical In and Out points. The "master clip ID" sometimes refers to a "master clip", and sometimes indicates that something IS a master clip. There are file references stored inside timeline events, which must be propagated around if you split the event and then delete the one that contains the file reference... lots of design problems here.

There are standards out there, designed by professionals with editing experience. I remember looking at AAF a long time ago and thinking that they had the basic relationships right. I would think there's an XML editing standard out there besides FCP, and if I were more motivated I'd look for it...

[Gunleik Groven]

Good heavens, let's hope something better than that becomes the standard. FCP's XML is a mess if you look at it. There's no proper relationship between clips and timeline events (in fact, Apple does not seem to understand the difference). Bins are described differently in different situations, or sometimes don't even exist. There's no central list of clips (footage) used in the project. The description of transitions is wonky, with nonsensical In and Out points. The "master clip ID" sometimes refers to a "master clip", and sometimes indicates that something IS a master clip. There are file references stored inside timeline events, which must be propagated around if you split the event and then delete the one that contains the file reference... lots of design problems here.

There are standards out there, designed by professionals with editing experience. I remember looking at AAF a long time ago and thinking that they had the basic relationships right. I would think there's an XML editing standard out there besides FCP, and if I were more motivated I'd look for it...

LOL!!!

Even though I am not an XML hacker, I can recognize on behaviour every single of your points.

Which has had me think for a while, that this is probably where the big upgrade of the next FCP will be.

Maybe they'll fix quicktime, too, but this is even more significant...