Get your FCP Project and Media into Avid without any transcoding via Automatic Duck and Avid AMA
Gonna mix it up a bit with this post, and go video on ya.
This is trick is from a recent Key Code Media event where I discussed Media Creation & Sharing with Final Cut Studio and Avid Media Composer 5.0. (see: Avid AMA, Telestream’s Pipeline, AJA’s KiPro)
In this demonstration, we use a Pro Res timeline in Final Cut Pro, send it to Avid without creating any new media, and have the sequence not only open, but also utilize the same media – all using Automatic Duck & Avid’s AMA feature in 5.0 – via a hidden (undocumented) trick!
Special Thanks to Avid (Casey Richards), Automatic Duck (Wes Plate), Telestream, Apple, and Key Code Media.
3D Creation is (not quite) Consumer
This more of a tech note than dissertation.
JVC, Hyundai, Sony, Panasonic, and the like – are all coming out with 3D monitors. And they’re all flat. And they’re all shiny and sleek. Other subjective features aside, many of the ones you’ve been eyeballing don’t quite cut the mustard when used in the edit bay. Here’s why:
- Frame Rate. Sure, if you’re in the 29.97 / 59.94 world, you’re most likely OK. But if you’re in the 23.98 realm – Be careful! Consumer and pro-sumer 3D monitors often have HDMI input. HDMI is traditionally a consumer and pro-sumer video transport mechanism, so it only stands to reason they would be found on the monitor. Some oddball frame rates – such as 23.98PsF – are not a consumer frame rate. In fact, the HDMI 1.3 spec doesn’t even allow for it. Thus, if you are working in Avid or Final Cut Pro (for example) – and you’re trying to achieve that film look with 3D – that deal you got on your cheap(er) 3D monitor may have served to bite you later. I’ve recent run into this situation with the JVC 463D10U.
Word to the wise: check the spec of the monitor you are buying to ensure it handles any of the frame rates and resolutions you could possibly use.
Solutions / Triage: Cross or down-convert on the output. Avid, for example, can cross convert 1080p 23.98 to 1080i 59.94 or 720p. These are more standard resolutions which a larger variety of monitors can handle. Outboard devices can also handle this, such as the AJA HI5 3G. This unit takes your HD-SDI output (Mojo DX, Nitris DX, Kona3) and does the conversion from 23.98PsF to 23.98p AND converts to HDMI. $690.00 solution. - Type of 3D playback: Passive / Active. I’m not about to launch into the pros and cons of each format but I will tell you what is downwind: Glasses Price. Passive glasses are cheap (in some cases, less than $10, I’ve seen decent paper framed ones – for $1 a piece) Active glasses are over $100 each. So, be aware of the added cost if going active and you have a large viewing audience.
Solutions / Triage: Glasses are probably the least of your concerns – as Active vs Passive is a very old argument – with no clear-cut winner. Decide on what format looks best to you (and the people paying your rate) and find a monitor that handles that. - Flavor of 3D compression. Avid, for example, uses a product called Metafuze to marry left eye and right eye into 1 HD frame size – to constrain to the limits of the Avid software. This yields 2 full frames squashed into 1 full frame, yielding a side by side, over/under, or interlaced image. Aside from losing half the resolution from the get go, this also presents the dilemma “which format should I choose?” Your 3D monitor will tell you. Some monitors only understand, for example, side by side. Thus, if you’ve used Metafuze and encoded into over/under, you now have media that your monitor cannot display properly. That was a waste of time, eh?
Word to the wise: Always verify what you shoot – how you edit – how you view – and how you output – are all the same, or, at least can play together nicely.
Solutions / Triage: Cine-Tal’s Davio, is a hardware based solution utilizing software libraries. One of the libraries handles 3D and can convert inbound baseband 3D video signals into other flavors: side by side can become over/under, for example. You can also split single link to dual link for legacy 3D projection gear. Expect to spend $2500 for the box, and $2500 for the 3D library. DoReMi also has the Dimension-3D box, which reportedly has similar abilities.
- 2D vs. 3D Media. Some 3D monitors easily display a separate 2D image, or a separate 3D image. Taking a 3D image and “muting” one of the eyes – therein lies the challenge. Many monitors cannot eliminate the “combined” 3D image in order to view strictly one eye – 2D. Having this ability is useful in the edit bay, when A) wearing the glasses gives you a headache while you edit B) glasses cut down on light getting to your eye, yielding a darker than usual edit bay and C) you look like damn fool.
Solutions / Triage: Currently, to accomplish this in Avid you would need to keep 2 versions of media – 2D and 3D – and relink to each set of media when wanting to view the appropriate output, or buy extra hardware (see Cine-tal’s Davio, above). Avid’s hardware cannot alter the output of the 3D signal in terms of swapping single frame arrangement or muting eyes (those setting you see in Avid, those are for the Composer Window – Sorry!). I understand Hyundai’s latest 3D monitor has the ability to mute an eye during 3D playback.
- 3D Editing Support. As of this writing (early July, 2010), ONLY Avid has a complete end to end 3D editiorial and finishing solution. While there are other solutions that can trick editorial softs into pseudo 3d editing, or to simply finish 3D after editorial Avid is the only complete end to end solution.
Solutions / Triage: How much time do you want to waste attempting to Rube Goldberg a 3D workflow, only to have the kluge be unsupported when it blows up? If you’re doing a complete project – editing and finishing – stick with the most solid solution.
DIGITAL PRODUCTION BUZZ Interview Summary – 3/4/10
Digital Production Buzz – http://www.digitalproductionbuzz.com
March 4th, 6pm PST
Hosts: Larry Jordan and Michael Horton
Listen Here: (15 min) Michael Kammes on the Digital Production Buzz
Below are links to some of the companies, products, techniques, and workflows we discussed during the interview.
- Key Code Media: Industry leader in digital media – acquisition through post production: consulting, sales, integration, installation, training, and service. http://www.keycodemedia.com
- Automatic Duck: Conversion software to interchange between your Avid and FCP projects. http://automaticduck.com/products/
- Avid AMA: Avid Media Access, which allows Avid to edit and use XDCAM, P2 and GFCAM natively in Avid – no transcoding! BUilt into all flavors of Avid Media Composer: http://www.avid.com/ama/
Stereoscopic / 3D:
- Using MetaFuze to create Avid compliant Stereoscopic files : http://www.avid.com/metafuze/
- Using a pre-release of REDCINE-X to create Avid compliant Stereoscopic files: http://www.red.com/support/index
- Cine-tal Davio: The Davio allows LUTs to be applied in Real Time, as well as decode (Stereoscopic) 3D signals, via HD-SDI & 3G. http://www.cine-tal.com/products/davio_main.asp
Increasing productivity & collaboration and handling data redundancy in post:
- Cache-A: Portable network based back-up appliance for media and files, onset or In the bat to LTO4A digital tape: http://cache-a.com/ Also, I have a video about it at: http://michaelkammes.com/post-production/video/
- StorageDNA: Point to Point accelerated transfer of data, with delta differencing and automation; a true replacement for FTP: http://storagedna.com/
Conceptual Workflow: Conditional Encoding
Venn Diagram of Encoding Ability
The post industry lives and dies around the concept of deliverables. What specifications have to met to appease the viewer, server, or engineer on the other end. Many times, just getting the deliverable out is a chore in itself. The last encoding format sheet I read from a leading encoding manufacturer had 5 pages of supported input / output formats. Being able to decipher these often cryptic encoding acronyms and numeric values appears to need a degree in engineering.
This is Science.
Translating from one medium to another has it’s own inherent problems. Does the image blur or breakup when the camera pans? Is the audio intelligible after it’s compressed? Do the lettering or graphics remain legible when the image is resized? Often it takes a slow hand (and a smooth touch) to know when to finesse parameters to convey the artistic vision when transcoding.
This is Art.
Depending on the deliverable, one may have options as to what path is the easiest to walk down. Is a certain codec really the right choice? Will it play nice in all browsers or devices? Will it cause the media to load slowly? These kinds of decisions are based on thorough knowledge of the medium, and the gotchas associated with the platform.
This is Experience.
There was a time when all three of these traits of these were the core component of a now fading job: The Compressionist. Like a Colorist, their job was highly specialized, and had a job to ensure the best quality and visually appealing image once the media left the edit bay. Our attention span has now waned, and our deadlines have been cut short, and one click presets are rapidly becoming commonplace when outputting.
There has got to be a better way.
Replacing the job of a Compressionist – the human eye, the human attitude, the human heart – cannot be replaced. However, we can begin to bridge the gap with what I am calling “Conditional Encoding”, or for you coding geeks, “Boolean Encoding” (patent pending). Of course, both my employer and myself would prefer KCM: Kammes Compression Methodology.
There are baselines that can be assembled for specific criteria. This, coupled with easy to understand non-techie based concepts yield a easier path for users to navigate: An example:
Does the source media involve fast motion?
User: YES
Encoding System: increase data rate. Change motion estimation to a higher level. De-interlace if the file is interlaced. Perform a 2-pass encode.
User: NO
Encoding System: maintain average data rate, reduce motion estimate factor, perform 1 pass
Does the media include large amounts of dialogue?
User: YES
Encoding System: Use less compression on audio, apply equalization favorable to vocal frequences, reduce volume on non vocal frequencies.
User: NO
Encoding System: Use more compression, apply broadband equalization.
Logic Based Workflow
So, we can essentially build rules based on the human perception of the source media. By utilizing these within a Boolean conditional set (IF, THEN, ELSE logic), we can very quickly create a set of encoding parameters “closer” to what a Compressionist would choose. While they will not replace the role, they will certainly get the dart closer to the bull’s-eye.
Think of Choose Your Own Adventure books. Each subsequent decision is based on a prior decision. By incorporating this methodology, this logic could create the desire encode. Once applied to each deliverable, the process becomes streamlined.
Another key to this is presenting users with options and descriptions which translate between technical and laymen. Bitrates could instead be replaced by “need more space”, or “higher quality”, for example. Logic would have to be configured and scripted in to the parameters to balance the users options when answers conflict.
To further efficiency, this could be incorporated into a familiar interface which users could also readily utilize and understand, like a web page. This means an easy to use GUI for the user, the possibility for remote access, and the ability to be ported over to many platforms.
The webpage could then conceivably generate a data file that the encoding solution could parse and understand. Formats like XML have long been a web standard, and several encoding solutions already utilize this format: Root6’s Content Agent, Digital Rapids Stream software, and several of Telestream’s product offerings already have this functionality (albeit limited) built in.
Several consumer software solutions have “wizard” functionality, which incorporates a slimmed down version of this concept. Apple’s Compressor, for example, has once-click device encodes (DVD, iPod, etc.), or time-based encodes (how much material do you need to fit on a given medium). Each of these selections loads up a preset of encoding parameters. This Boolean Encoding brings this concept to the next level.
Compressor Format 'Wizard'
Compressor's DVD Encoding Presets
I can see it now: The Microsoft Paper Clip A.I. turned encoding vehicle. I think I just died a little inside.
Next week, I’ll explore a much larger scale workflow which not only incorporates this concept, but utilizing it as a possible side business – or even a current business enabler.
The Money Room
Off and on for several years, I was involved with a post facility that had what they referred to as “The Money Room” Quite apropos, not only for the greenish hue to the walls, but what they *did* in that room. Unbeknownst to them (but now beknownst to me) the so-called castoff activities and backroom chores which took place in that space are now the new(er) ways to make money at your post facility…and even be a marketable service.
In this room, aside from the usual barrage of CD and DVD authoring, download and uploading of files, temp graphics and label creation, they did basic encoding, usually by a lesser paid assistant. Certainly not glamorous, but essential. Definitely not the first notions of what a post facility does: Offline and Online suites. Finishing. Audio rooms or dub stages. The flagship rooms.
Why?
Well, typically your talent – the editors who have named clients – command more in terms of pay than the backroom assistants, and the talents’ workspaces also have a lion’s share of the gear with which to make them shine.
Yes, I am of course referring to the almighty R.O.I.
With the current race to zero, rates for the client focused suites are continually dwindling, definitely at odds with the cost of gear and talent operating within them. Possessing a ‘Money Room’ already begins with less overhead – both financially and technologically.
So, what can you do in this money room to earn some of dat cabbage?
First and foremost: Encoding. Every website nowadays is content rich, from youtube to Facebook. Everyone has multimedia on their phones. All of these media riddled avenues necessitate a *special* and unique format. Those have to be created somewhere. Why not from you?
Utilizing your offline / online bays to chomp through 100 different formats for deliverables – when you could be billing for editorial or finishing in the room – is simply poor planning. A facility could conceivably upgrade to a new computer for the Online suite, and use the older machine as an encode station in the Money Room. This not only boosts the productivity (and marketability) of your Online suite, but also gives your Money Room a CPU to encode with.
So, I have a box with some processors. Now what?
Quicktime References. Have your offline / online bays and your encoding station see the same storage over a SAN. Whether it be via SMB re-share / Ethernet, Fibre, or simply cloned / portable firewire drives, these are a sure shot to not only increase productivity, but create a more efficient workflow. Have your editorial room export a QT Reference which links to the original media, then have the encode machine pick up that reference file, and let the number crunching commence. You’ve now significantly cut down the export time out of your edit bay (QT References are much faster to generate than a complete export) and also freed up the client bay for other activities. Hopefully more glamorous. Hopefully billable.
I recommend you create encodes for the following:
• H.264 or the like for web review and approval, or FTP uploads. Perhaps even iPod or iPhone versions.
• Flash versions for embedding in websites.
• MPEG formats for DVD or Blu-Ray dailies and/or screeners.
• Predefined proprietary formats for youtube, Facebook, myspace, Hulu, etc. Each site has its own requirements for submissions. Perhaps you can charge per location’s format?
Advanced encoding software packages allow for multiple simultaneous encodes on one machine, and some allow for distributed encoding over many machines. Others still utilize watch folders that are always looking for a QT Reference to begin encoding from, and even sets of parameters for multiple groups of encodes. What a value add it would be to tell a client that you could not only do the editorial, but give them deliverables for any destination they could desire – same day.
So, you’re not billing out your editorial room enough to justify something like this. I get it. As an example, this is where the promises of highly compressed formats (such as RED) being quicker can actually backfire and allow other revenue streams.
These abnormally large sized and compressed files are still a very, very intensive process for editorial machines. It takes a great deal to chomp through a 4K file – especially when 99%, if not more, of this material will never be viewed at 4k, or even on a playback system that would do it justice. More often than not, you will see it at less than 50% of its original quality – HD – or even less on broadcast TV or on the web. Given this truth, one can make an argument for simply downrezing the raw 4K footage to a manageable frame size and codec; like DNxHD for Avid or ProRes422 for Apple. This previously difficult to manage format in now in a much more edit machine friendly format for use in the editorial process. These formats can exceed broadcast quality standards – very appealing.
So you’re a purist – I get it. You want to have a 4Koutput. That doesn’t mean you can’t do a pre-encode (in this case, transcode) to an offline format for ease in editorial. Despite being suitable for broadcast, DNxHD and ProRes 422 – as well as DVCProHD – make create offline codecs, too. Provided the computerized tool (or the assistant!) does things right, your facility can matchback from the offline material to the 4K when onlining. Sound familiar? This is what telecine houses have been doing for years to DVCam –and charging you a ton for it.
I’m amazed at just how under-utilized this concept is: not only as a pure way to tighten ones belt, but to simply be more efficient. As an example, I happened to be at one of the studios here in Hollywood that gets the editorial output – rough cut and fine cuts – in one, and only one, format. A format that is antiquated and popular almost 10 years ago. Each department downwind of that facility spent hours encoding into a format they could use with their systems, meeting their visual and technological specifications. Imagine the amount of money spent in manhours working around this issue.
The film? Catch it this summer in theaters. Budget is $200 million.
-
Follow Me
