Frame rate conversion for SD!?!?

[Mike Prevette]

A edit house I'm working with is insisting on 29.97 for their ingest. Can the Avid really not do frame rate conversions or are they just being lazy?

This will be for a SD finish, and no online. I'm planning on sending stuff to them MXF 1:1 is this still a good way to go. They say they would require a larger room fee if I sent them the DNxHD, even though it would get transcoded on ingest to SD, WTF?

Any hints on a good workflow?

 

[Mike Prevette]

Is it also still true that AVID codecs will not work on Intel based Macs?

 

[Dj Joofa]

Is it also still true that AVID codecs will not work on Intel based Macs?

Is that a QT (component) codec? If the reason it does not work is that the codec is PPC based only (and not either Universal Binary or I386 Intel binary), then you can force any Universal Binary application on Intel based Mac to run in Rosetta emulation mode instead of native (Intel) mode. That is a good trick for making older PPC based plugins work on Intel Macs, that have stopped working with the same application on an Intel Mac, because they were not either Universal Binary or not Intel based I386 binary.

 

[Dj Joofa]

Is that a QT (component) codec? If the reason it does not work is that the codec is PPC based only (and not either Universal Binary or I386 Intel binary), then you can force any Universal Binary application on Intel based Mac to run in Rosetta emulation mode instead of native (Intel) mode. That is a good trick for making older PPC based plugins work on Intel Macs, that have stopped working with the same application on an Intel Mac, because they were not either Universal Binary or not Intel based I386 binary.

Found an interesting thing when I tried to determine the architecture of an Avid codec I have on my mac. You can use the Terminal command "file" for that:

file /Library/QuickTime/AvidAVDJCodec.component
/Library/QuickTime/AvidAVDJCodec.component: header for PowerPC PEF executable

That it is using the older OS9 based PEF based file format for executables. The native format for OSX for executables is Mach-O. My above comment regarding forcing Rosetta emulation is only true for Mach-O binaries. I think, Apple has dropped support for PEF binaries on Intel for Rosetta emulation, but I have to double check it.

As an example the result of "file" operation on a Universal Binary which is Native OSX:

file /Library/QuickTime/AppleHDVCodec.component/Contents/MacOS/AppleHDVCodec
/Library/QuickTime/AppleHDVCodec.component/Contents/MacOS/AppleHDVCodec: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Library/QuickTime/AppleHDVCodec.component/Contents/MacOS/AppleHDVCodec (for architecture i386): Mach-O bundle i386
/Library/QuickTime/AppleHDVCodec.component/Contents/MacOS/AppleHDVCodec (for architecture ppc): Mach-O bundle ppc

 

[Mike Prevette]

Since they are insisting on 29.976 I'm having to go

{intel mac} Redcine>prores>Aftereffects>SD prores w/3:2>{PPC Mac} compressor>QT MXF

 

[Dj Joofa]

Since they are insisting on 29.976 I'm having to go

{intel mac} Redcine>prores>Aftereffects>SD prores w/3:2>{PPC Mac} compressor>QT MXF

Wow, that is some workflow!

Also, I noted some ambiguity in my previous messages regarding forcing Rosetta emulation. I was not saying that running a PPC binary under Rosetta on Intel Mac, which is of course possible by default. I am saying in addition to that one can force a Universal Binary Application to run in PPC mode through Rosetta on an Intel Mac instead of running as Intel binary.

 

[MichaelP]

A edit house I'm working with is insisting on 29.97 for their ingest. Can the Avid really not do frame rate conversions or are they just being lazy?

What are thre sources you are trying to ingest, what frame rate, etc.?

Michael

 

[Mike Prevette]

I would love to send them 23.98 DxHD QT's. BUT they won't let me go HD without charging the agency more even though they would cut SD, so we agreed I'd go SD and give them 1:1MXF QT's. However they (say they) can't deal with the 23.98 so I have to add After effects in the middle in order to get pulldown added.

Is it true Avid can't add the pulldown on the fly or at the ingest? I think they will be on a xpress station and an Adrenaline.

MichaelP I really appreciate your help with this, as well as your excellent choice in initials!

 

[Mike Prevette]

Just had a very frustrating call with the post house. They are now refusing to do any file based ingest. It's Digibeta or DV only for them. So we are scrapping the RED and probably will shoot on DV. Once again my work is compromised because Avid and it's regulars refuse to adapt.

The editor behind this company is fantastic, and amazing cutter but refuses to try anything outside of the standard workflow.

 

[Greg Huson]

Mike-
We're offering this as a service- you bring us your R3D files, we give you a tape, along with an ALE (like a flex file) for Avid. Surprisingly, either the word's not getting out, or this service isn't as needed as we thought it would be. I was even considering adding Scratch, or at least Scratch-Cine, so we could do tape outputs real time. Obviously it's not going to solve your immediate problem now, but would you pay for this service if it was available in Seattle? www.digitalservicestation.com We could even load the Avid project for them, like a telecine house would, and deliver that on drive along with the tape.

 

[Mike Prevette]

Hey Greg,

I think your services is going to totally take off. In fact I've been thinking about setting up the same kind of service here. Tying it to a file to file color correction service as well, and possibly a small online shop. I'm just trying to get away from post a little because my ass is getting to big in this comfy seat.

The issue here is the fact that a legacy post house (primarily off line) is refusing to attempt to learn a new workflow. It would be for the benefit of everyone involved. This particular spot is a no budge PSA everyone is pretty much doing for dogtreats. So why not learn something.

I have no problem giving them a 29.97 Digibeta, but why? Why waste the money? why waste the time? Why not learn something new and make it rock solid? Why insist on tape?

Those fuckers have just brought me down.

 

[MichaelP]

Too bad. It's a basic conversion to SD into a 23.976 NTSC project. Avid will output with 2:3 insertion over FireWire, SDI, component every time you hit play. Has been doing do since 1992.

Michael

 

[Mike Prevette]

Serious mis information out there. This guy has been cutting on avid for 20 years and no one at his shop had any clue.


Also with a 23.98 ingest how hard is it to sync audio for SD export?

This shoot is MOS but it would be great to know for the future.

 

[MichaelP]

I find that a lot of people have always worked at 29,97 do not know the ways of native 23.98 editing and do not take the time to do so since "this is the way it has always been done.." kind of mentality. In the 90's. the argument sort of worked, but with the onslaught of 24 frame based video cameras. it is no longer true.

Avid products have AutoSync for audio syncing if timecodes match - or they can quickly sync using a clap. the vast majority of features you see in theaters are cut this way, and sync is done in the Avid. Television tends to sync in dailies before getting to the cutting room due to compressed schedules and amount of episodes.

Michael

 

[Dylan Reeve]

Many of the best editors are very untechnical - they are very unwilling to learn anything new. They know how to put a tape in a machine and push the buttons on the router.

To be fair, file-based just makes things about a million times more complex... There's all those options in the file import box.

I'd be inclined to do it all in Avid locally and just provide a drive with media and a bin on it. But that's maybe not an option for you.

A lot of people seem to think Avid is a lot more behind the times than it is. I've still never found a system I think is better for editing (although other applications may offer better features for other aspects of the post - FCP has more flexibility for finishing than Media Composer, for example).