Conformed original BWAVs are out of sync by up to a frame compared to the AAF

[Constantin]

The analogy is not at all the same, sound problems are an objective fact, not a manufacturer's decision.

Really? Have you ever heard an HMI do its thing? There's a manufacturer behind it who decided not to care about passive cooling and other sound-friendly mechanisms (i admit that it would be difficult)

Anyway. Maybe the analogy is not great, it doesn't matter.

The point is, for me, that both sides should attempt to fix it. That means recorder manufacturers as well as nle's. But in the end, I find it difficult to assess how big a problem this really is for post. And how much of a problem this would be if post simply didn't fix it.

By the way, apart from moving files along the timeline, Avid also adds to the files at the end. Does this create a problem for post?

[pindrop]

" this catastrophic situation is rectified "

OMG...

I've been watching movies with sound that is not frame edge accurate...

More like OMG the producer won't use my $x,000 recorder, because post is saying it's going to cost a lot more money if we do......

[John Blankenship]

More like OMG the producer won't use my $x,000 recorder, because post is saying it's going to cost a lot more money if we do......

 

Funny, I've never run into that.  How many producers have said that to you?

 

I think "run for your lives, the sky is falling!" is a bit premature since some of the aforementioned recorders have been in successful use over the course of several years and been the primary recorder on movies that have garnered returns in the many, many billions of dollars.

[pindrop]

No producers have said that to me, but read the post on DUC linked to in the original post of this thread -

http://duc.avid.com/...d.php?p=2094420

 

Where the issue and it's cause are out and likely to gain momentum.

 

I've finally found the time to trace an issue we've encountered for years now but that we always manually "fixed".

.......

I thing this should be addressed as it's causing labour intense hand-syncing on a clip-by-clip basis like in the days of tape -based conforms.

 

In the ultra competitive world of post houses quoting for work do you think it'll be long before they might say 'well we can do it for that price but only if files delivered don't cause 'labour intense hand-syncing on a clip-by-clip basis'

 

As the owner of a Nomad and a Fusion I am concerned that it could happen, in addition to which I'm not all that happy delivering files where I know it's an issue anyway. (I wasn't aware of it before)

As I understand it, it is a lot of work for Zaxcom to change to frame starts and stops and they don't see why they should anyway and Howy is pretty stretched at present, and Avid is probably not the least bit concerned, unlikely to do anything about it and it's not an easy fix for Avid either.

So it's been interesting to see ideas for trying to get something done about it or not, and I'm looking up getting ready to run ........

[John Blankenship]

No producers have said that to me, but read the post on DUC linked to in the original post of this thread -

http://duc.avid.com/...d.php?p=2094420

 

Where the issue and it's cause are out and likely to gain momentum.

 

I've finally found the time to trace an issue we've encountered for years now but that we always manually "fixed".

.......

I thing this should be addressed as it's causing labour intense hand-syncing on a clip-by-clip basis like in the days of tape -based conforms.

 

In the ultra competitive world of post houses quoting for work do you think it'll be long before they might say 'well we can do it for that price but only if files delivered don't cause 'labour intense hand-syncing on a clip-by-clip basis'

 

As the owner of a Nomad and a Fusion I am concerned that it could happen, in addition to which I'm not all that happy delivering files where I know it's an issue anyway. (I wasn't aware of it before)

As I understand it, it is a lot of work for Zaxcom to change to frame starts and stops and they don't see why they should anyway and Howy is pretty stretched at present, and Avid is probably not the least bit concerned, unlikely to do anything about it and it's not an easy fix for Avid either.

So it's been interesting to see ideas for trying to get something done about it or not, and I'm looking up getting ready to run ........

 

Here's a bit of lesson in Zen.

 

You've stated that you don't expect either Zaxcom or Avid to fix the (supposed) issue.  If that's actually the case, it leaves you two choices:

 

1) Get stressed out and panic over something that won't change.

2) Accept it, ignore it, and move on with your life as you enjoy the journey.

 

I much prefer option 2.  Anyone else?

[Jeff Wexler]

"I thing this should be addressed as it's causing labour intense hand-syncing on a clip-by-clip basis like in the days of tape -based conforms."

 

"In the ultra competitive world of post houses quoting for work do you think it'll be long before they might say 'well we can do it for that price but only if files delivered don't cause 'labour intense hand-syncing on a clip-by-clip basis' "

 

I think in the "competitive world of post houses" they are going to take the work, if they can get it, no matter how "labour intensive" it turns out to be. The post houses are not in a position to dictate how things are to be shot. I have been on movies where slating (the camera dept.) has been very spotty which certainly causes far greater "labour intensive hand-syncing" than this (non) issue of starting a file on the 00 frame. The post houses rarely complain (they may curse a lot amongst themselves) but would not risk losing the work by dictating what camera they should be using or lecturing the camera department on the importance of slates.

 

This topic has wandered around this "issue" and I would really like to hear from others in post who have actually had to deal with this. My suspicion is that it is really a non-issue. If it is a real issue, I still believe that its presence will never manifest itself by post dictating that only certain recorders be used in production or else "it's going to cost you a lot more".

 

This does remind me, in a way, of the "discussions" I had to have with post when I was the first to deliver DAT tapes to transfer. Twentieth Century Fox was adamant that I NOT use DAT (and they were actually not familiar at all with the format since they had never been given a DAT tape from a Production Sound Mixer) and they wanted to go Production and tell them that it was going to cost a lot more (because it was "digital" and something they had never done before) to convince the production to not allow my use of DAT. I had to explain and convince the transfer department that lots of people were going to start using DAT, they better get used to it and anyways, they will actually be able to do the transfers more easily and make money on the deal even if priced out as standard transfers. The point is, more movies have been done using the recorders that do NOT start the file on the 00 frame than movies done on the one recorder that does, I really don't see this as something the recorder manufacturers have to deal with. Whether it would be easy for Zaxcom or Aaton or Fostex or Tascam or Boomrecorder or Sonosax or not so easy to implement this, the point is the primary responsibility does not rest with the recorder manufacturers in my opinion.

[Jeff Wexler]

"As the owner of a Nomad and a Fusion I am concerned that it could happen, in addition to which I'm not all that happy delivering files where I know it's an issue anyway. (I wasn't aware of it before)"

 

Why are you so concerned and I'm not? Could it be that I have done 21 movies with the Deva, 2 Academy Award nominations, winning a BAFTA for "Almost Famous" and have only been praised for my work (and the gear that I have used) from everyone in post on the movies I have done. There, I've said it (and I don't usually blow my own horn, sorry) and I would suggest that you really don't have anything to worry about owning a Nomad and a Fusion. Be concerned about the quality of YOUR work and not worry about some assistant editor or telecine operator thinking that they are being over-worked because you didn't use a Sound Devices recorder.

 

I will add that there are a LOT of other sound mixers with even more credentials, awards, accomplishments and credibility than me that have been working steadily using one of the other recorders that does this bad thing we're talking about.

[John Blankenship]

In this fiscal climate which has seen many facilities go out of business, any post house that complains that someone is bringing them extra work, should look forward to joining the ranks of the unemployed.

 

Put another way, is anyone here going to demand that production rent an Alexa rather than a Red because it will make their job a little bit easier?  I get the impression that there are a lot of people who don't actually understand this business and therefore respond with a knee jerk reaction to any internet whining they encounter. 

 

This may be something worthy of discussion as it might help us understand "what's under the hood" better, however, it is not worthy of anything even remotely approaching panic.

[pindrop]

Here's a bit of lesson in Zen.

 

You've stated that you don't expect either Zaxcom or Avid to fix the issue.  If that's actually the case, it leaves you two choices:

 

1) Get stressed out and panic over something that won't change.

2) Accept it, ignore it, and move on with your life as you enjoy the journey.

 

I much prefer option 2.  Anyone else?

Option 3) Discuss it with colleagues.

As it happens I'm neither stressed nor panicked about it, just interested in discussing it and hearing different opinions.

I originally joined in as sdog made some points under the heading

Philosophical Opinion on Responsibility

which I thought were pretty good and in a musing kind of way made the provocative extension that it could be argued that SD had not helped, which was followed by three posts of indignation, but now we seem to have headed in a rather patronizing direction.

 

It is an issue, that I'd prefer not to have, but perhaps as you say not one that will lead to producers specifying machines they will and won't accept.

[pindrop]

In this fiscal climate which has seen many facilities go out of business, any post house that complains that someone is bringing them extra work, should look forward to joining the ranks of the unemployed.

 

Put another way, is anyone here going to demand that production rent an Alexa rather than a Red because it will make their job a little bit easier?  I get the impression that there are a lot of people who don't actually understand this business and therefore respond with a knee jerk reaction to any internet whining they encounter. 

 

This may be something worthy of discussion as it might help us understand "what's under the hood" better, however, it is not worthy of anything even remotely approaching panic.

That's a somewhat specious argument because producers will definitely weigh up the cost of using particular cameras, whether it delivers what they want, and that will include post production costs, and listening to what post tells them about costs down the line.

[John Blankenship]

Option 3) Discuss it with colleagues.

As it happens I'm neither stressed nor panicked about it, just interested in discussing it and hearing different opinions.

I originally joined in as sdog made some points under the heading

Philosophical Opinion on Responsibility

which I thought were pretty good and in a musing kind of way made the provocative extension that it could be argued that SD had not helped, which was followed by three posts of indignation, but now we seem to have headed in a rather patronizing direction.

 

It is an issue, that I'd prefer not to have, but perhaps as you say not one that will lead to producers specifying machines they will and won't accept.

 

No intention to be patronizing.  RE: the Zen comment, I'm simply saying things that I remind myself of when the need arises. 

 

As far as panic, while it may be a strong word, I'm responding to the fact that you keep insisting that you're concerned that producers won't hire you because of the brand of recorders you own.  

[John Blankenship]

That's a somewhat specious argument because producers will definitely weigh up the cost of using particular cameras, whether it delivers what they want, and that will include post production costs, and listening to what post tells them about costs down the line.

 

Yes, you're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong

 

(NOW, I'm being patronizing.) 

 

I'm invoking the Zen clause -- I recommend likewise.  Enjoy your Sunday.

[Philip Perkins]

I think both sides are correct here.  There is a real issue with the Zax files re manual resyncing, and the work/time involved is not going to bubble up as an issue in negotiations between the post house and a prospective client (producer).  Argueing over an issue that will seem very minor and something that the post house should have together without bothering the producer with it is prob not something the posties will do--they have bigger fish to fry.  Here's another angle:  as the work goes forward in a big project the sync of individual clips to picture floats around for many reasons, only one of which is being discussed here.  Pic changes, new VFX shots, recuts, frankensteining dialog from various takes, rebalancing reels (if they are into that still) on and on--things get nudged and the ethos of post is to just keep on dragging everything back into eye sync as the process goes along, with the dubstage as the final checkpoint for sync.  This kind of messing with sync is part of the deal in post, is my point, it's going to happen no matter what recorder is used with what TC zero-frame methodology.

 

philp

[patrickveigel]

 the work/time involved is not going to bubble up as an issue in negotiations between the post house and a prospective client 

 

True, but if there are several sound mixers on a project and say two use Sound Devices recorders and one uses a Zaxcom and the SD are always dead on in sync and the Zaxcom is never, guess whose sound mixer's equipment is going to be questioned.

 

And there have been complaints over Zaxcom and TC for years here on this board, threads with up to a hundred posts how sound mixers have been forced to use Sound Devices recorders instead of Zaxcom by production as well as by their own standards and now that the reason and proof is finally found, that the Avid is moving bwavs that are not starting on a frame boundary out of sync, to say now that this is not a big deal and there is nothing that should be done, is simply ignorant.

 

Zaxcom should really come up with a solution that makes their files start on the frame boundary. It cannot be that difficult. 

 

Avid is industry standard, this has to be accepted. At least 90 % of my films have been edited on Avid. 

 

I have been using Zaxcom recorders on all of my films since 2004 and there have been sync issues on some.

Producers and directors have been impressed by the capabilities of my Zaxcom gear and those were rewarding moments for all the tens of thousands of Euros invested. But on the other hand I have been asked occasionally by editors, producers, directors, why my files were never quite in sync while other sound mixer's were, and embarrassingly enough, the other sound mixers were charging less for their gear.  I then shrugged my shoulders and told them, that this could have all kinds of reasons.

 

Now the situation has changed and the issue is public.

 

I really pledge Zaxcom here as well as in the Zaxcom user forum to act quickly. In my opinion a fix in the mirroring stage, as has been proposed by many, would be sufficient. As simple as truncating the first and the last frame of the recording to the next frame boundary if not truncating the whole second to the next 00 frame. 

 

Patrick, a proud Zaxcom user who is far from panicking

[macrecorder]

Yes, agree very much with Patrick. It's all very well for those feature mixers here to dismiss these concerns - they have the luxury of dedicated post teams and the rest of the film infrastructure. Luckily for them, they are not competing in the multicam, dog-eat-dog scramble of series with several recordists who own different kit, and where post is overstretched and understaffed. These are exactly the situations where this issue can arise. The demands are increasing because the advances in technology are creating ever higher expectations, so the argument that it was all ok in the past is missing the point. This issue has only really been identified recently, and it is hardly surprising that mixers want to discuss it and see where they stand. It is a potential issue, despite the naysayers withering putdowns becasue it is not one for them. In the insecure world of freelancing, you don't really want to be making excuses for any sync issues which may arise, you just want confidence in the standards of the kit you operate and its compatibility with existing systems.

[Wandering Ear]

Maybe it's because this issue was found with the Deva, or because the popularity of the Deva, but this is not a recorder issue, it's a software issue. Blaming one recorder is silly, most recorders operate this way, and the recorders are operating correctly.

As other have stated, lots of things in post can shift sync, and it is common to watch for and adjust sync as necessary.

The reason i want to see this fixed is not because I'm worried about my job, or any backlash, which i think is highly unlikely, but because i like the tools we use to work for me, not against me. There is enough work to do in post, that i don't want to work against my machine in any way, even in small ways, like this subject.

[studiomprd]

" not one that will lead to producers specifying machines they will and won't accept. "

While there have certainly been posts, by idiots on CL asking for a specific recorder, or wireless, or even mic; the real, experienced producers are pretty much brand agnostic about our equipment choices, as long as it does the job, which they often have unreasonable expectations for already....

 

" threads with up to a hundred posts how sound mixers have been forced to use Sound Devices recorders instead of Zaxcom by production as well as by their own standards and now that the reason and proof is finally found, "

What have you been smoking ? I think you are going a bit overboard in your interpretation of being forced to use anything...

I could agree that reasonable specifications might mandate a need for capabilities not already in the kit, requiring that alternatives and or additions be acquired for projects... That happens all the time, and is frequently when we upgrade our kits...to meet these demands, which are, as I said, all about the tasks, not the brand names...

 

" It cannot be that difficult. "

While I don't know if it is, or is not "that difficult", I am curious how you know..?

[takev]

I've been thinking about it for a while now. Simply stated this is a bug in AVID that cannot be completely solved by an audio recorder. We can do our best to get it correct in most cases, but it is mathematically impossible to always start a recording at a frame boundary.

 

It is pretty simple for the standard 24,25,30 fps and recording at 48000Hz to start the audio file at a timestamp that is a multiple of 48000 samples. Starting the audio file at a timestamp that is a multiple of the sample rate, which would start a recording at exactly the start of a second.

 

However if you would put this 48000 Hz file on a 29.98 fps time line 'actual seconds' do not align with frames boundaries anymore.

 

The problem is that a BWF file has no notion of the frame rate of the movie.

The second problem is that the timestamp is recorded as number of samples since midnight, so it is not possible to calculate the start of a frame (or second) without knowing the frame rate of the movie.

 

In the newest versions of Boom Recorder you can already specify the sample rates and frame rates how the file is recorded on the set and how the file will be used in post production. It will be important to set those correctly (it didn't use to matter a lot, because the post-production-frame-rate is not recorded in a BWF file) for the record-on-frame-boundary feature to work. Still, for drop-frame-rates I can probably never get it to work.

 

Also because of how Boom Recorder works, I don't think I can make it that the file ends at a frame boundary.

[studiomprd]

" but it is mathematically impossible to always start a recording at a frame boundary. "

gee...

Partick Veigel says:

" It cannot be that difficult. "

[Constantin]

It seems strange to argue that achieving a solution to this issue is not possible as Sound Devices have demonstrated that it is possible.

[pindrop]

I've been thinking about it for a while now. Simply stated this is a bug in AVID that cannot be completely solved by an audio recorder. We can do our best to get it correct in most cases, but it is mathematically impossible to always start a recording at a frame boundary.

 

It is pretty simple for the standard 24,25,30 fps and recording at 48000Hz to start the audio file at a timestamp that is a multiple of 48000 samples. Starting the audio file at a timestamp that is a multiple of the sample rate, which would start a recording at exactly the start of a second.

 

However if you would put this 48000 Hz file on a 29.98 fps time line 'actual seconds' do not align with frames boundaries anymore.

 

The problem is that a BWF file has no notion of the frame rate of the movie.

The second problem is that the timestamp is recorded as number of samples since midnight, so it is not possible to calculate the start of a frame (or second) without knowing the frame rate of the movie.

 

In the newest versions of Boom Recorder you can already specify the sample rates and frame rates how the file is recorded on the set and how the file will be used in post production. It will be important to set those correctly (it didn't use to matter a lot, because the post-production-frame-rate is not recorded in a BWF file) for the record-on-frame-boundary feature to work. Still, for drop-frame-rates I can probably never get it to work.

 

Also because of how Boom Recorder works, I don't think I can make it that the file ends at a frame boundary.

Thanks Takev, does it mean that in an ideal world, Avid would top and tail clips to the nearest picture frame boundary for which sound exists without moving the sound, and clipping fragments necessarily off both picture and sound to achieve this? If you see what I mean?

[Constantin]

Thanks Takev, does it mean that in an ideal world, Avid would top and tail clips to the nearest picture frame boundary for which sound exists without moving the sound, and clipping fragments necessarily off both picture and sound to achieve this? If you see what I mean?

In an ideal world, Avid would work at sample level and we wouldn't be having this discussion

[pindrop]

In an ideal world, Avid would work at sample level and we wouldn't be having this discussion

Yes but picture frames are not in samples so doesn't there need to be a way to reconcile that with sound that is? So sound can start ahead of a picture frame boundary or after a picture frame boundary, so would Avid need to top and tail clips to the nearest picture frame boundary for which sound exists without moving the sound, and therefore clipping fragments (a frame of picture or some samples of sound whichever is the least) off both picture or sound to achieve this when placed on the timeline?

[Wandering Ear]

Thanks Takev, does it mean that in an ideal world, Avid would top and tail clips to the nearest picture frame boundary for which sound exists without moving the sound, and clipping fragments necessarily off both picture and sound to achieve this? If you see what I mean?

Or Avid starts dealing with audio at it's native resolution, samples. Avid has said this would be difficult for them to implement.

[Jeff Wexler]

Or Avid starts dealing with audio at it's native resolution, samples. Avid has said this would be difficult for them to implement.

Patrick May tell us differently... it can't be that difficult.