Re: 744T workflow
- From: "Noah Timan" <dontwritemehereok@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Feb 2006 15:50:29 -0800
Good points all, Jeff. It seems like it is sort of like the metric
system -- we have our own way of doing things here out of line with the
rest of the world, to no distinct advantage. It also seems to me that
once again consumer technology is light years ahead of us, in this case
in regard to file flexibility and media flexibility. Sometimes I wish
the telecine controller was a piece of software installable on a PC or
Mac with a firewire port, USB 2.0 port and a universal optical drive.
Then you could deliver the files on whatever media you chose (FW HDD,
USB 2.0 HDD, CD-R, DVD-R, DVD-RAM, DVD+R, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, CF, SD, on
and on and on -- it's just zeroes and ones, folks!) and the only
obstacle telecine would face on media delivery is simply inputting the
files into their system. This would allow any of us using ANY recorder
to get the broadcast wave files to telecine by any common method,
taking advantage of all of the particulars of all of the different
recorders, and even allowing us to ftp the files in instead of manually
delivering them. But instead of this, we have a machine based around
an optical disc as the only delivery medium standard to which we must
adhere, with a long set of guidelines (this many folders in the
directory, this kind of optical disc, on and on) which causes some of
us to have to jump through all of these hoops. Kind of a shame.
Regards,
Noah Timan
Jeff Wexler wrote:
In article <43fa4904$0$49444$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Oleg Kaizerman" <kaizero1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
before sd would do something about mirroring /folder ,the cf cards would
become a give away media
as it here ( it come back to me after it have been loader to avid )
I would like to point out that it seems that many of the troubles we
have here in the US regarding the use of non-linear files relates to
what seems very clear to me that the rest of the world has a
fundamentally different approach to the relationship of production to
post production processes. In Europe it seems to be the norm that the
production sound that is turned in (even dating back to the days of 1/4
inch analog tape) is first put into some computer based workstation,
whether it be the Avid, InDAW, ProTools, Sadie, or some other
workstation, and syncing to picture happens there. In the US it is
generally exactly the opposite: our sound goes to a transfer facility
that traditionally just transferred our tracks to a medium that the
picture editorial department could utilize (mag transfers in the old
days and now linear videotape for loading into the Avid).
If the typical workflow already has established some computer based
transfer station or the files are put directly into the picture editing
workstation, many of the specific problems we are having go away. I know
there are OTHER problems that show up but the point I am making is that
the workflow conceptually is already geared towards direct use of sound
files in other countries and this is a good thing.
Regards, Jeff Wexler
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Charles Tomaras
- Re: 744T workflow
- References:
- 744T workflow
- From: Larry Long
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Larry Long
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Lee Ascher
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Noah Timan
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Lee Ascher
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Noah Timan
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Oleg Kaizerman
- Re: 744T workflow
- From: Jeff Wexler
- 744T workflow
- Prev by Date: Re: 744T workflow
- Next by Date: Re: 744T workflow
- Previous by thread: Re: 744T workflow
- Next by thread: Re: 744T workflow
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|