Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'metadata'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Board
    • Current
    • The Daily Journal
    • General Discussion
    • Equipment
    • Cameras... love them, hate them
    • Recording Direct to Computer
    • Workflow
    • The Post Place
    • Images of Interest
    • Macs... and the other computer
    • All Things Apple
    • Technical Reference
    • Do It Yourself
    • Manufacturers & Dealers
    • Work Available - Available for Work
    • Post to the Host
  • JWSOUND RESOURCE
    • Donate to Support JWSOUNDGROUP

Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


About

Found 5 results

  1. for some reason, the editor says the track names weren't on the files from my S633. I imported them to PT10HD and see the names. Is it a setting in MC or perhaps a setting that needs to be done when importing?
  2. Um… this might go on a bit, anyways. I'd like to share the new AVID whitepaper on Digital Cinema Aquistition for discussion. It arrived yesterday and got me thinking about a few questions to put to the experts on the front line. My experience has been setting up workflow for films through Pre-Prod into Production and then completing Post Sound to delivery. A unique sound position, interfacing with Directors wants vs Producers needs, and all the R&D in between to streamline Camera Dept and Picture Editorial to Post Sound and Mix. This work has afforded me a huge respect for the Production Sound dept and I've been lucky to work with some of the best. The entire pdf is attached below but (to shortcut all the other BS) the paragraph I'm curious to hear any comments on is this... Audio Workflow Considerations Regardless of camera type, the decision between using a single or double-system audio workflow is based on a variety of factors, including crew size and budget. Single-system workflows can be considered more convenient, with picture and sound already in sync as part of the recording, but this method does come with some drawbacks. One particular challenge is that the camera operator will need to pay attention not only to composition, focus and movement, but audio levels as well. A double-system workflow solves this issue since there is a separate recording device and a person dedicated to monitoring the audio. Double-system recording also offers the advantage of being able to capture more than the 4 audio tracks typically found on digital cameras. Third party applications are often used as part of the dailies process and can provide the ability to sync picture to double-system sound. While many of these free applications are useful for creating “review” dailies not intended for actual editorial, they don’t usually parse or retain enough of the audio metadata, making audio conform rather problematic in post. My thoughts are... With the transition from film to digital acquisition it has always been a good idea to have embedded audio (even just the mix track) in the picture media. This has obvious advantages for dailies, etc, but more importantly as a safety check for Editorial against what the Sound Mixer is recording versus the Camera Dept. Having pretty much dealt with every combination of TC/fps/pull up/down/sample rate cluster freaks over the last 20 years this is hugely helpful when "fixing it in post". Usually the problem has been created in post by clever editorial software or inexperience when sound and picture come together. Sometimes from a problem in Production. Either way, too late to fix, make it work. There are a range of great products for returning the audio and TC to the camera, and some have hugely helpful metadata embedded which can be wrapped up in XML or MXF data to help out in post. For example linking camera audio to original Sound Mixer Media (TC and Userbits or Roll #) or as a safety check for TC slates to show what slate/take the mixer has used versus camera on actuation. Questions. Is technology at a level where we can reliably provide an AES return of up to 4 channels (preferably wireless with TC & metadata) to camera on the shoot day, so that the suggestion of the camera operator having to be concerned with levels is not an issue? If not then can the Sound Mixer be sending an AES feed to devices like the new range of Video Devices or similar for picture and sound capture, to avoid syncing dailies? With metadata to automatically relink to wider Poly Files. Is anyone doing this already and if so how is it working out? Some may be already be supplying this to video village. Sound rolls/splits would still be delivered later with sound reports, but as a secondary delivery for the wider discreet channels. Does this make your job easier or is it complicating things unnecessarily from your POV? I know how time consuming post sync of sound and picture can be with editorial trying to turn around the volume of media created with digital cameras. I also know how militant some Editorial Depts can be the first time a software link of TC and Metadata fails in post, and fair enough. How close are we to a workflow where camera audio is a reliable digital copy of the mix track (with TC/metadata) so that the camera guy can shoot, picture dept can edit, and soundpost can link to your discreet tracks with confidence in post? Thanks for making it this far, please chime in so I can give AVID some feedback. We assume too much in post. Also, thanks for this site Mr JW. It is a great resource/legacy for now and the future. digital_camera_workflow_whitepaper.pdf
  3. TIMECODE - TCBuddy vs Ambien Lockit

    So I have been following very closely the development of that miracle 'all together' metadata protocol from various companies, and after the release of the new products from Ambient, TimecodeBuddy and Denecke, i believe a discussion is in order, hopefully even with a bit of input from the manufacturers themselves. So firstly we have a the TimecodeBuddy system. Some of you already using it, and apparently quite robust (900mhz and 2.4g transmission). Now they partnered with MovieSlate and Denecke. I love the fact that you can send metadata to the slate and other MovieSlate apps, but I don't see any integration with any recorder yet. I have been playing with MovieSlate recently, and although more complete than the CL-wifi or WaveAgent in terms of sound report creation, it lacks control of the unit and/or inputing of metadata directly into the files. I don't know how important that is for you or editors, but i like the fact that when inputing metadata on any of the Sound Devices apps, it adds this metadata directly to the files, not just the sound report. It means that if the sound report disappears, you can still create it back from the files. Also, it means entering scene and take only on one unit (we know sometimes we barely even have time for that!) And then in Ambient. Obviously their lockit boxes have been around for a while and we can agree they do their job exceptionally well. And now they have integrated ACN into all of their products. Again this means sharing of metadata over wifi, from the app, to the slate and to the receivers. But (just on paper for now) they are talking about an app that can not only input metadata and notes into the network while creating a sound report, it will also be able to control the sound devices 788t and input metadata directly. Also they have teamed up with Arri and are claiming compatibility with other cameras too. I guess there is no real question here, more of a 'what do you think of each' 'which one would you go for'? It's a bit of a shame again we have a war of formats, rather than a collaboration to achieve integration, but then again it is an industry and not a charity. Any comments on the systems, corrections or speculations are welcome and so is any 'extra' info the manufacturers want to add to convince us Hope all of you have a big post-NAB hangover... as I couldn't get one Best Diego Sanchez
  4. I don't do it very often, but sometimes I convert BWAV files to mp3 for transcription. I have yet to find mp3 conversion software that will carry over timecode information from BWAV files into the mp3 tags. I know from experience that recording directly to mp3 from a Sound Devices recorder will spread all kinds of useful metadata-like information into mp3 tag fields. Timecode, track names, etc... But doing this after the fact via conversion software would be handy. Now that I've gone Nomad I'm curious to see how the mp3 recording option will handle metadata. It is yet-to-be-implemented currently. Actually, I'm going to HAT! Mark
  5. Final Cut Pro 7.x shows Scene, Take, Timecode Start and other metadata information from BWAV files, but not the track names. Is there a way to get it to do this? I've had editors ask me about this and I can't see track name information anywhere in the software. Mark
×