elliotkelly Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Hi, does anyone have experience using Automatic Duck for converting FCP7 Projects to PT Sessions? I would like to know what are the differences between it and XML Pro by Gallery, and what makes one better than the other. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Why not just go out of FCP 7 as OMF to PT? That works very well. The last time I tried it A Duck worked ok going to PT, but that was in PT 7 or 8. Automatic Duck hasn't been updated in a long time (is out of business in fact) so I would not count on it making sessions that PT 11 would understand. Gallery software is pretty expensive--have they updated to the latest PT version? philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Reineke Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 OMF from FCP-7 works fine importing to most DAW. BTW, OMF was dropped for FCP-X... and does not export AAF either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliotkelly Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 There are a couple things about Omf's in the type of workflow we have: Exporting demands time of the video editor Consumes additional disk space Audio rushes metadata is lost Video editors volume automation is lost Importing to PT demands time Many omfs have to be exported frequently due to size limit Limited handles at both sides of a clip Regions are not linked to the original material Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 There are a couple things about Omf's in the type of workflow we have: Exporting demands time of the video editor Consumes additional disk space Audio rushes metadata is lost Video editors volume automation is lost Importing to PT demands time Many omfs have to be exported frequently due to size limit Limited handles at both sides of a clip Regions are not linked to the original material --An OMF export is easy and fast if the editor has experience doing it. It's done everywhere every day. --Any export will consume additional disk space unless you plan to work with everyone on a network, which I don't recommend for audio post. --There are ways around the metadata issue. See EdiLoad etc software. --The volume automation is preserved in the OMF if the OMF is made correctly. I get that auto all the time. Whether or not that automation is useful in audio post for anything other than a general picture of the editor's intentions is another discussion. Most audio post people i know look at it, save that version, and then nuke all that metadata from the project timeline they will actually work in--it's in the way, usually. --Importing is pretty fast anymore, How fast do you need to do this work? The sound editor will end up rearranging the project to suit their template in any case. --Many exports? Maybe a few, depending on the size and edit-density of the project. For a 90 min project you might need 1 export for tracks 1-2, another for 3-6, another for 7-10 and maybe one more depending on the state of the music at the time of export. I've had much longer projects take many fewer exports (From FCP). --You can have huge handles if you wish, and FCP load balancing will mean that material cut from the same master clip won't have to have material for the handles repeated. --Again, see EdiLoad etc. The Auto-Duck way of doing an export from FCP is pretty frought, nearly all of my clients gave up on it years ago. philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Also, there are embedded OMFs, that will include all the audio, destroy metadata, have 10sec limit on handles, a 2GB file size limit and so on. And then there are referenced OMFs which do not have any of these shortcomings. I should add though that it's been a while since I've done this kind of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Last time I checked fcp couldn't do referenced omf's. Philp has summed it up pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassmagnetic Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Its also worth having a look at AATranslator, I generally use this workflow from FCP. I ask the picture editor to export a FCP xml and then use AATranslator to covert this into a PT session. Its then possible to use the Field Recorder workflow in PT to link back to the original files from the location sound recorder. Tends to work really well. Also AATranslator can do much more than this, it converts lots of formats both ways, well worth the money and the support by the company has been excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 AAT +1 p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.