I was asked recently to completely re-transcode an existing project that has about 3TB of media. It's all 23.98 but in different DNX flavors and resolutions.
The online editor has asked we EDIT in 1080i 59.94. (Not just deliver) Previously this meant working with the 23.98 in realtime in a 1080i 59.94 project - as far as I know it went fine. (A previous Editor was working that way) We would transcode the sequence if editing became sluggish.
Now a new editor has come on board, and apparently performance is terrible, AVID is crashing, etc, and they are asking to re transcode ALL of the existing project media into 1080i 59.94 220x .
My suggestion was to use Media Tool, find all of the media, transcode everything, and then relink. However this is a lot of footage - we're not talking relinking a sequence, we're talking relinking every single master clip.
In summary, we want to avoid whatever is causing the performance issues in AVID. Conforming all media to current project specs seems the most logical choice, but I am also concerned about relinking an entire project that way.
Has anyone had experience doing something like this? Someone has expressed concerns relinking will not go smoothly.
And for those curious, we are being asked to edit in 1080i 59.94 because about 50% of our footage is archival footage, where that hi res material is 59.94. Our online editor says starting with 59.94 will make conforming much easier.
(Ignore sig - this is a side job that is running AVID MC 6.5 on OS X on a Mac Pro)
I am curious as to what has changed that is causing the performance to be "terrible"? Is this a different workstation being used? Different media drives? Why did it go from fine to terrible?
Jef
_____________________________________________
Jef Huey
Senior Editor
This is the million dollar question.
I am only being consulted, so I haven't seen, and the Director/Editor are saying that nothing has changed.
They are using the same Mac Pro, same hard drive, same connection, etc etc. The only change is a new Editor.
I have asked about this as well a few times but no answers so far.
avidtex:The only change is a new Editor.
So the first thought is this editor's settings and what other applications this person is also running. Does performance change with newly built user settings?
And FWIW, I was dealing with daily crashes for 18 months until I finally realized another application I had always running in the background, Quickeys, was the culprit. Stopped using Quickeys continuously, crashes stopped immediately.
Troubleshooting is a tedious, one-variable-at-a-time process, and a brand new transcode is pretty drastic, and maybe unnecessary.
Good luck!
www.brianfunck.com
Totally agree with funckdren.
It would seem from an economic standpoint, figuring this out is the smartest move. The first approach mentioned will cost dearly.
I agree and recommended the same - unfortunately they insisted on transcoding (I only showed up briefly to assess/discuss).
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, if you transcode all a project's footage via AMA Transcode, you should be able to relink your existing media to these new clips, no? After I left I was told they won't be able to relink to the new media, and will have to start from scratch, which doesn't sound right to me either.
At least, usually during online-ing, that's the whole point, right? You can relink your transcoded media? I've never done an entire project before by grabbing the clips from Media Tool, but the same principle should apply, right?
Well they are proposing transcoding 23.976 material to 59.94. While this will work if everything is done correctly (that is a different story) I am not sure about a relink. Never tried that before.
About the "everything done correctly" bit. They need to be absolutely certain that all the 23.976 clips to be transcoded is flagged as progressive under the Field Motion column in their respective bins. Otherwise they will not get a proper 2:3 pulldown during the transcode. And this can not be "bulk" changed. It is clip by clip - at least in v6.5.x
Some testing NEEDS to be done. Or even worse pain may arrive.
jef:Well they are proposing transcoding 23.976 material to 59.94. While this will work if everything is done correctly (that is a different story) I am not sure about a relink. Never tried that before.
If you try to transcode 23.98 footage in a 59.94 project you will get a warning about mismatched frame rates causing a host of problems, inluding an inability to relink via AMA.
funckdren: jef:Well they are proposing transcoding 23.976 material to 59.94. While this will work if everything is done correctly (that is a different story) I am not sure about a relink. Never tried that before. If you try to transcode 23.98 footage in a 59.94 project you will get a warning about mismatched frame rates causing a host of problems, inluding an inability to relink via AMA.
I don't think AMA is an issue here. But the more I think about it I do not believe the newly transcoded 59.94 will ever relink to 23.98 material for a host of reasons. I could be wrong, but I would not bet on it.
This sounds like a very unpleasant situation.
It sounds like this whole workflow of transcoding everything just sounds inherently flawed then. They have material in ScriptSync, footage sunk with external audio, etc. Without relinking there will be a ton of work needed to be redone most likely.
At this point they are moving forward on their own, but I agree they are probably looking at re-doing a lot of their existing work after transcoding.
And thanks for mentioning about the "Progressive" flag - all of the footage was 24p but I can certainly see room for error in the metadata which could give the wrong pulldown.
© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Site Map | Find a Reseller