Jump to content

How SOUND REPORT WRITER jives with poly tracks in edit programs


afewmoreyears

Recommended Posts

From : CURRENT thread... since this is an edit question... I posted here too..

 

 

 

 

Quick question for those with edit experience... 

 

 I know different Edit programs probably open up tracks from a Poly file differently... Adobe premier pops them open from what I know in order of PRESENT tracks... If 3 is not used for example they all open up 1-12 lets say into the next open slot.. 4 becomes 3 if there is NO 3 recorded on a take... it bumps up and fills the empty slot...  At least this is what I am told...

 

  When we use this app (Sound Report writer)  for putting together our reports, we have the option of listing tracks as 1-12 for example....  and simply marking Left or Right... But what track is it actually in the real world... I found out with Premier it is Left-1 if used, RIGHT 2, and THEN your ISOS...

 

If we are using a LEFT mix track and say 7 ISOS,  No Right armed....Can we configure as:

1-LEFT

2-Boom ISO

3-Frank ISO

4-Betty ISO

5-Bill ISO

6-Peggy ISO

 

If we list like this... When opened as tracks in edit... Are we good to go....  Will NO RIGHT TRACK present wreak havoc ?   Will it make sense?

 

Or.. Should it be

 

1-Left

2-Right-Not armed/nothing

3-Boom ISO

4-Frank ISO

5-Betty ISO

6-Bill ISO

 

The trouble is... It's one Sound report program and 10 ways to have our audio data pop up on different edit programs that we normally don't know what will be what...

 

 I would like the digital Sound Report APP to line up and match the tracks during their edit more accurately, more often.

 

Thoughts.... Tyler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't fully understand your concern.

 

The editing software doesn't bump channels. When a recorder creates a polyphonic BWAV file it generally orders them in the way you see it in the record menu. For a Nomad 12, it always starts at card track 1 and moves up to 12. If you do not record-enable a card track, it skips it altogether. For example, if I record-enable card tracks 1, 3, and 6, I'll get a polyphonic BWAV file with three channels of audio. The file will show:

 

channel 1 = card track 1

channel 2 = card track 3

channel 3 = card track 6

 

There is no actual relationship between any numbers Nomad may give these channels and the file itself other than informative metadata saying, "this track is first, this track is second...". There are no reserved slots for non-record-enabled card tracks. The BWAV file is completely unaware of any track that is not recorded. The editing software is therefore also unaware of any tracks that weren't recorded. It is simply working with what it is given.

 

I would discourage you from trying to create consistent channel counts for the sake of having audio sources always appearing on the same channel. This would necessitate recording empty tracks which creates unnecessarily large files, confusion for posties who find no audio on included channels, and is generally impractical to maintain such consistency throughout a project.

 

If you provide well labeled files with plenty of notes, sound reports, and metadata information post will figure it out.

 

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Thanks for your response.

 

It has NEVER been a problem for me, nor have I EVER heard one complaint in post concerning the subject....  until the last show...   "Show" ?

   They had a hard time understanding what tracks lined up with my report...  They were on Adobe Premier for the edit.

  I am on a 788T.... 

 

  Apparently  (key word apparently) when they load data, unless you record an empty track as you say, it does NOT list it as say 1-2-4-7.....    They load top to bottom 1-2-3-4.... It places tracks with data as listed top to bottom.. (I HAVE BEEN TOLD)   If my report is 1-2-4-7 (my armed tracks)  it is out of sequence from the report...

 

"For a Nomad 12, it always starts at card track 1 and moves up to 12. If you do not record-enable a card track, it skips it altogether."Skips it yes, but it looks like the Nomad still lists the track as it was recorded....  number wise..

 

Not sure the 788 does this, but in Wave Agent they load perfect..... No problem there... but Wave agent is a SD product...

 

I think the problem lies in that the editor either does not know where to look for the actual track number, or in Adobe it does not show one on the active track.... it just bumps them in order from top to bottom... and the editor calls them 1-2-3-4 since there is no other reference...

 

This has got me wondering about sticking to my normal way of doing things, or modifying my report to reflect that the first track in the lineup is

1-Left

2-Right

3-Boom ISO

4-Frank and so on...  seems more FOOL PROOF... 

 

I mean, 788T has Left Ch. on top, then the Right Ch. below it... on the machine....    THEN all the tracks, either 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8  or A

B C D E F....  You would think the #1 track would be track  #1 on some software...  but it's actually #3... Left is #1 and Right #2.

 

The SOUND REPORT WRITER APP does not assign a number to the Left and Right track... it just NOTES what will be ON the left and right track... Big difference...  YOU have to place LEFT on track 1 and RIGHT on track 2 on the report if that's how you want it to read..

 

Hence my question for the editors here in the room...

 

Worst comes to worst I will go back to my normal way of doing things... 

 

If you provide well labeled files with plenty of notes, sound reports, and metadata information post will figure it out.

This has always been my approach, but the folks I just dealt with were so (looking for a word here) ..Out of it,  even that was a reach... It was the simplest shit ever.....  a Left hero mix, Right working mix of improv bkrnd. and some ISOs... I mean, come on now...

 

Weaker and weaker editors are being used, sadly, that is my thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, the Nomad does know what track number you are using and records that into the metadata as a track number.  My normal tracks are:

 

1: Mix

2: Boom

3: Boom

4: Boom

5: Lav

6: Lav

ETC...

 

When using one boom I leave tracks 3 & 4 disarmed.  When I pull them up into PT, the correct track numbers show, i.e.
 

A1: Mix

A2: Boom

A5: Lav

A6: Lav

etc...

 

Zaxcom has also updated their transmitters and ZFR recorders to assign the channel number to be the same as the transmitter ID number.

 

AFM, Premier and FCP ignore those track numbers, and stack all the tracks starting at 1 through however many tracks you have.

If the aformentioned editor can't figure out a blank track on the sound report doesn't exist and that the next listed track will show up next, he needs to go back to being an assistant editor for a few more years.  Unfortunately it seems like more and more productions are hiring inexperienced editors (along with everyone else) and hacking their way through.  Inexperienced labor is cheap on the outset.

 

You are sort of in a no win situation.  If you list all the tracks on your SRW and then arm and disarm them as used, they will correspond properly to the track numbers in PT (and any other software that reads all the metadata) but will not correspond to the newly assigned track numbers in premier and fcp.  This is how I did it when I use to use SRW.

If you rename and shuffle your tracks around in SRW, they will correspond to what the editor sees in premier and fcp, but will no longer correspond to the track numbers stored in the metadata.  This is a lot more work for you imo, and I don't see the benefit.  It's easy for the editor to note a track on your sound report is blank and skip it, and your sound report will still be accurate once a reconform is done later.  Also, these new track assignments are discarded when the sequence is outputted as an OMF, which IMO makes doing a sound report this way less useful for other people besides the picture editor.

 

When I used SRW, I listed my mix track (LEFT) in your case above, as track one, and didn't use the L/R assignments because they didn't make sense to me when running dual system.  They do make sense when doing a 2 channel mix to camera in addition to ISOs.  This is just my way, we all have our own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An editor might have a lot of experience in one workflow and not in another, and like all of us has to be willing to bend their methods to the job at hand.  I think the important thing is to be consistent in the file naming and let the posties figure it out (esp on short jobs where you have no chance to settle into a routine).   Adding more secretarial work to the tasks of production mixers working on a multitrack show is not a good idea--I try to diplomatically explain that my first priority is getting the sound recorded, and the secretarial stuff has to come 2nd.  We'll do what we can for post, but they have to understand where our priorities are.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going through a similar process of hand holding post production on a current gig. This is a reality project so lots of tracks across 3 different kinds of recorder depending on the location. I've found out they like mono wavs. One handy thing is the 664 can now do mono wavs and puts it's own channel number at the end of the filename as an identifier. Then that is a hard cross reference to the sound report. It is all of course in the metadata as well but on the last project I found out that the flavour of Avid they were using apparently still doesn't show trackname metadata on the timeline. The information is there but has to be dug out by opening the file through a certain menu from the bin. Unbelievable! So the AEs are manually renaming files with the tracknames they find in the metadata just to get it to show up on the timeline. Bravo Avid. Top of the pile industry standard functionality there! Or are the editors just rubbish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Apparently  (key word apparently) when they load data, unless you record an empty track as you say, it does NOT list it as say 1-2-4-7.....    They load top to bottom 1-2-3-4.... It places tracks with data as listed top to bottom.. (I HAVE BEEN TOLD)   If my report is 1-2-4-7 (my armed tracks)  it is out of sequence from the report...

Are you saying that the editing software arbitrarily assigns an order to the tracks? They should come into the timeline in the same top to bottom order they were recorded in. In your example:

 

Audio recorder order = Editing software order

1 = 1

2 = 2

4 = 3

7 = 4

 

It is highly unfortunate that most (all?) picture editing software don't put the track names on the timeline. Imagine how much clearer things would be if they did.

 

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Yes Mark,    In a perfect world, the recorders should list what tracks were used to record a track in the meta data, then when post pulls up tracks on the edit software, they should read that data and notate the track number.....  whether they put them top to bottom or left to right..... if you did not roll tracks 3-4-5 then the tracks 1-2-6-7 should appear in any sequence, but they should be numbered correctly.

 

  I am sure there is a reason, and a good one why this does not happen like this... but this seems to be the way it is...

 

I mean we could hot swap channels on the boards....  just move everything quickly to the left... fill all the holes... (no comments please) instead of disarming the tracks, but what a pain in the ass...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...