Jump to content

Sharing metadata on set: which way will it go?


Recommended Posts

I just got the email for Trew's seminar etc w/ Ambient re their metadata sharing system.  This kind of thing hasn't really touched my work yet, but I could see it happening.  It seems like there are a few different visions and techniques for doing this..  Ambient, MovieSlate, TC Buddy/Denecke etc….what's the best?  Will the standard will be somewhat generic and not locked into a specific maker's equipment and apps, or is that just not how things are going to work anymore?

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend just built his own network for  a low budget feature using tc buddy, movieslate, and sennheiser g2s interlocking his metacorder cart, ipad, 2 Alexas.

the DIT and editors were involved in planning and testing and everyone went away happy..  they even quit slating the b-camera, as it was getting a continuous feed of TC from a master clock on the cart.

 

I think we soon will see a built in wifi tc receiver in the cameras, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a mistake to quit slating any camera, because there's always the risk that something will go wrong. The slate will give you at least some vague kind of backup. It's also good for the editorial team to have a slate so they know what the scene name and take number are, or the name of the interview subject or whatever the project is.

 

I agree with the general concept that it would be nice for camera, slate, sound department, DIT, script supervisor, and all on-set monitors to have the same metadata and timecode. If the camera files could be named in an orderly way with the sound files, that'd be even better. I tend to doubt that's going to happen, but even if the scene & take metadata fields were automatically populated, that'd be a huge positive step. The biggest problem I see is getting the camera manufacturers to be part of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I see the current versions of this as too fussy and sui generis for use on normal day-hire shoots, where there isn't much prep or communication ahead of time and everyone is sort of counting on things going by some sort of standard.  You can rig up any sort of system you can make work for a whole feature or series or ad campaign or tour etc, but I'm wondering what will end up trickling down to the least common denominator shoots.  Maybe by that time all those shoots will be a shooter in one-man-band mode so it won't matter…!

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the metadata workflow for us is going to be divided into two directions, ACN and TCB. Zaxcom may be a wildcard in this as well considering the direction they've been heading.

 

As of now, both really haven't come into fruition yet as there are so many details that have been left out. There's only so much you can see on a 2 minute NAB preview. We haven't seen what the TCB :wave or the new MovieSlate 8 app will be capable of. I'd imagine the new version of MovieSlate will be a game changer this time around with Arri Alexa and Sound Devices connectivity.

 

I think we'll have a better idea of the metadata workflow situation by the end of the year as people start to make the transition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMEN!

Yeah great..

 

  All this to make someones life easier, and ours a larger pain in the ass...  adding workflow items, hardware, expense etc...

 

For what...  So the editor has an easier time, so the Script super has an easier time...  and we adapt our workflow gear and expenses to arrive at this?

 

Hope I don't have to buy even MORE gear...   F that....  LOL...   If it can be addressed in updates IF we want to use it... OK...Maybe...

 

I think Phillip hit it on the nose...  For a larger show going on for a while, with an organized pre planned workflow, the system may be worth while...But, for daily shoots, Commercials and such.... It's a large pain in the ass for no REAL gain...  It's difficult enough these days getting them audio and a sync box...LOL  (just kidding)... 

 

If it works, don't fix it I say..  not to stop progress, but progress has it's NEEDS... These are game changing fixes to problems that don't really exist...  The people selling the "Stuff" benefit... us???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few considerations here...

-Most Cam depts I work with would not take kindly to a Sound Dept being able to mess with ANYTHING on the camera... Especially Naming a file...That would kill them.

-In our side of the world we don't have a standard naming convention between machines.. SD, Zax,Aaton,Tascam.... All different naming

-Distance, many times I'm far enough from set that any WiFi connection would not work and having to have some kind of bridge or booster is one more thing to deal with.

-Who's responsible to troubleshoot when something goes wrong?? One more thing to fall on us?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah great..

 

  All this to make someones life easier, and ours a larger pain in the ass...  adding workflow items, hardware, expense etc...

 

For what...  So the editor has an easier time, so the Script super has an easier time...  and we adapt our workflow gear and expenses to arrive at this?

 

Hope I don't have to buy even MORE gear...   F that....  LOL...   If it can be addressed in updates IF we want to use it... OK...Maybe...

 

I think Phillip hit it on the nose...  For a larger show going on for a while, with an organized pre planned workflow, the system may be worth while...But, for daily shoots, Commercials and such.... It's a large pain in the ass for no REAL gain...  It's difficult enough these days getting them audio and a sync box...LOL  (just kidding)... 

 

If it works, don't fix it I say..  not to stop progress, but progress has it's NEEDS... These are game changing fixes to problems that don't really exist...  The people selling the "Stuff" benefit... us???

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure i see the point. There are times when I'd appreciate it if MovieSlate communicated with my 788s so I didn't have to enter in the scene and take on three different screens. But I've had times when we do a take and either I accidentally cut or one of the two cameras accidentally cuts. Now one of us has 2 files to cover 1 take. I'll end up renaming the second file in a way that hopefully shows that it is the second part of the same take, but I think little bits of human error would make keeping a large synchronous system too burdensome for it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have invested in a recorder that I can enter scene, take, track names, incremental file numbers and any random note I want to type in. I have also invested in Denecke slates and timecode boxes that I program and jam so todays half-assed cameras can actually sync to my code. Somewhere in there I get to mix.....

If they want it to get more fancy and complicated, they need to think about a metadata manager position so I can concentrate on what I was initially hired to do with the kit they pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it crazy to think that whatever this ends up being won't be entirely a sound dept function?  All the TC stuff on shoots, and the nitty-gritty boring type metadata (scene/take/comment etc, but not esoteric cam data like on 3D shoots) has fallen or been taken up by soundies since the advent of CTTC on Nagras.  (Do we thank Mike D for this?)  I think that a generic metadata distro and update system that really works universally is going to have to be more of an interdepartmental effort.  Maybe one of the studios will come up with something that trickles down, but whatever it is has to be based on some technology as broadly accepted as TC so that no one is locked out of the system due to proprietary technology.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After working on a project where the production company lives with plural eyes and doesn't want to be educated on the ways of slating with timecode, I don't know how you push this idea when the production company sees the work flow as a waste of time. I myself don't believe in this idea, but I have learned to go with their flow.

 

Scott......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief history of timecode and other advances that were resisted:

 

Nay-saying and skepticism have always accompanied advances in our craft. When timecode tried to make its way onto the set and into the workflow, some still pushed to stay with the old system that required transferring to perforated mag stock (which proves that we can get used to anything, even multiple generations of tape hiss). Thankfully, everyone eventually saw the light. Recording to hard drive was seen in the beginning as too weird by a majority, favoring the familiar sight of turning wheels (now a scary thought!). I resisted the idea of being responsible for metadata (scene, take, notes, and track names) until I used the system in 2003 (Jersey Girl), when I realized it was actually easy and greatly enhanced handwritten reports. Thankfully, everyone is now aware of the many advantages of metadata, though, at this time, it's primarily initiated by the Sound Mixer. It was also around 2003 that the sensible tracking protocol of "Mix on 1, prefader iso on remaining tracks" was begun, which met the same resistance as the other advances. Thankfully nearly everyone has seen the advantages and has adopted this method, too. When Movie Slate came out it received the same unwelcome of the previous advances, yet this type of logging is commonly accepted now as much better than handwritten sound reports, though some stragglers still remain. And, finally, if the skeptics determined our online forums, we'd all be trying to keep up with this conversation on r.a.m.p.s instead of JWSound.

 

This is not to say that there aren't valid reasons for exceptions and variations of standards, which, of course, there are many. The point of this history lesson is to make us question if our resistance and skepticism is based on the discomfort of change, and to encourage forward-thinking, an open mind, and willingness to advancing our craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most everyone is willing to advance (or not be left behind anyhow), I'm just wondering what shape this all will end up taking in its mature form?  What I see in use now by cart-based mixers on long-form jobs doesn't work for me.  I don't really want to be the one to try and evangelize scripties, ACs, editors, DITs etc into one of the current systems or a hybrid for what might well be a 1-day job.  But some of the systems have promise, I think, if they can become more automatic and are viewed as reliable.  Will post drive this, as they kind of did with TC?

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will post drive this, as they kind of did with TC?

 

philp

Almost every change in workflow has been initiated by post and this is particularly true with timecode. Except for some early concert movies (where we used timecode setup that were far from field tested and generally pretty cobbled together), timecode really only came into its own in the commercial world. I know this painfully well because I was the co-owner of Northstar Media Sound Services and over 60% of transfer work was commercials, transferring ¼" tape to mag film, syncing on the bench and then off to telecine (film and mag) to then go to editorial. Once the idea that utilizing timecode on the production sound rolls and camera shooting a visual timecode display (later to be referred to as a "smart slate"), syncing could be done in telecine to processed negative (film) and the whole transfer to mag film could be eliminated. Northstar's prime business fell off within 6 months. A few hurdles had to be overcome: one, which was quite easy to accomplish, was to mandate that the production sound mixer use a Nagra 4-STC (with the "TC" meaning timecode) --- not because we needed or wanted "Stereo" (2 tracks) but the Nagra 4-STC was the only viable way to get timecode on the tape. The other hurdle which many do not realize was also quite significant was that the Directors of Photography and in many cases even the Client, wanted to see their commercial "on the big screen" which meant sync dailies to positive film workprint (as it always had been), the very expense production companies were trying to eliminate. All the sound mixers working in commercials had to get the Nagra 4-STC (or in some cases the Harvey mod we have mentioned here) or they didn't have the job, and the DPs pretty much gave up on seeing their work "on film".

 

I will add that the significant exception to major changes always being initiated by post was the introduction of file-based production recording with the original Deva I. File-based recording had to be pushed onto post by a small handful of production sound mixers who could clearly see that the move to a totally file-based workflow from production through post was the way to go. I am so pleased to have been an important part of that transition to the method production sound recording we all take for granted today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it seem like the metadata distro thing is less of a big deal than TC, telecine and especially file based workflows (esp once HD video stopped being shot on tape)?   It seems like more of a refinement than a revolution, even though it might mean another round of "get this new sort of recorder or you don't get the job".   Maybe what will happen is that those movies not yet doing a Movieslate or Tonmeister type thing will all start doing something like that, and lesser jobs will continue as before, or using some simpler "lite" version of that workflow.  We used to say that bad info (on reports etc) was worse than no info, so if lower budg jobs aren't able to get to pretty accurate metadata then the whole thing will be ignored by post on those kinds of jobs.   So I'm looking for something scalable, that at least at first doesn't require a big change from anyone but maybe me.  

 

But I sure wish the audio manufacturers (usual suspects) would agree on a data exchange standard and build it into their machines (or better, offer it as an add-on to existing machines).

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

      The other company I work with does accept sound reports from me and the 2nd AC does detailed camera reports, but I hear that during edit they still wade thru every take to make sure they don't miss the perfect take. I'm amazed that the Red camera hasn't adopted some form of input where they could have the take names the same as what I enter into my SD recorder. But then I could see where the AC's would complain that they wouldn't be ready when a take's name would change at the last minute. The glares I get when I'm trying to change a file name can be unnerving. 

     It would be cool if one person could enter the take name somewhere and it would be update to all devices through a two way communication system. I just don't know if this person would be the DIT or maybe the script sup. Just as long as everybody doesn't have to input by themselves and all have the same meta-data so that someone doesn't get left out of the chain. That way when edit gets the files all the file are in agreement and the software would match all the files together in sync.

 

Scott.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An issue with someone else entering data is that I may want to roll on something (wild track ) etc and I need to be able to enter for that.  Many shoots I'm on these days don't have scripties to do this work anyhow, so it would be down to me and camera.  I did notice that the iPad app for controlling the Sony F55 (bluetooth?) does allow for AC's to enter file names, but as has been said this presupposes a pace of shooting and lack of impulsiveness about rolling whenever that is kind of rare in DPs now.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of an issue this really is on small scale productions. When I have one-day jobs it's usually commercials or interviews and on both they often don't have scene names anyway. Why complicate things with metadata? TC is absolutely sufficient for these kind of jobs. Once everything has auto-synced who cares about file names?

This is even truer on doco or run and gun stuff where they roll often very spontaneously and there is no time or even interest in a file name. I doubt it would speed up the post process much at all, while possibly slowing down the production. On anything scripted it's a different situation and here I think something like Ambient's way is the right direction, where the scriptie should enter the file names into their apps (they have the last say re scene name anyway) and it would transmit to other devices.

If I needed to roll on my own for whatever, it's still easy enough to change the file name afterwards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see a value of a more complex and comprehensive metadata system for a TV shows or a Film if it helps Post in concrete ways, but not commercials, corporate, or docs as they're made today. We who don't do TV & Film often times don't know and may never interact with post on any level. I doubt most in post on that level would even know what to do or how to access that kind of metadata. They are most often bogged down and overloaded with hours of media for a 30 second spot. More layers of data is not that helpful in those arenas. Less volume of media and more circled take media would make their life better as well as the end product IMO.

CrewC

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...