Melissa

Yeah, I see. I thought I would make the project smaller by linking instead of copying, but it would make workflow simpler by having an external folder with the audio files, so at least PT could maybe look for those instead of creating another instance of the entire OMF. Will never choose to link again.

Thank you for the suggestion! Just tried saving two copies of new sessions where I imported the OMF again, one linking and another one copying and it is how you say. Good to know!

It came from Cubase. The original AAF in the session, from Premiere, never gave me trouble, actually. Now, I would just copy the OMF´s audio files with new names to actually create new files unrelated to the OMF. However, it´s very screwed up workflow and I could not find any information on this.

My PT session for a short film has several audio tracks, and at some point I imported an OMF from the foley department. I worked directly from this OMF (maybe the problem started here?) with editing, processing, etc. Now that I was saving a copy of the session to another location, I was surprised to see that it required around 250 GB, where the Audio Files folder only was 16 GB. Not knowing where the issue was, I still made the copy. Later on, checking the Audio Files folder of the copied session, I had over 400 instances of the OMF, all with the same creation date and most of them with the complete size. It seems that it´s an instance for every clip that was not processed. Trying it out, I moved all OMF files, except one, to another folder and tried to open my session. ProTools still needed to locate the OMF´s or else the audio clips associated with it, would be stated as missing files. I restored the OMF´s to the Audio Files folder, but ProTools is still not finding them. Why is ProTools doing this and could I have avoided it by duplicated the OMF tracks and work from the copied audio clips? I have ProTools 10. Thanks!

It just came down to deliver good sound, and that was all. Rarely there is more than one person talking, and if it is two, usually lavs do the work. So, no strict rules, just what is best in the circumstance. We also used the XDACA Extension Unit when we can be a little more creative. Although there is an expectation to use the lavs all the time, they trust my choices. Sometimes using boom or lav also depends on how the photographer is working and what is best for us both to move without accidents. Usually no access to a separate recorder. Also the sound post-production schedule is extremely short, so there is a wish for narrowing down the choices.

I am about to work on a tv program where there is sometimes more than two interveners with dialogue (like an organised group of people). Although I have a SD 442, we are recording straight to the camera, a Sony FS7, so only 2 audio inputs. Coming from film production, my approach would be, in general, to wire the two interveners and boom, but being the first time on a TV program, I am unsure what are the usual approaches. Is it common to mix for example 2 lavs into one channel and the boom on the other? Or simply give priority to booming (which sounds more logic to me)? Thanks in advance!