8 Pitfalls to avoid in a offline-online video workflow electricity projects ks2

###########

Offline-online workflows date back to the film days, when it was important to preserve the original camera negatives as pristinely as possible. Reels of film straight from the camera would be duplicated to other reels and cut into workprints. 1 electricity unit in kwh Editors could freely cut up and splice these “offline” reels just to make the edit decisions, and then the editing decisions reflected in the workprints could be methodically conformed back to a fresh copy from the original camera negatives.

Even though modern, digital, file-based workflows prevent degradation of the “original digital negatives,” there are still good reasons to adopt an offline-online workflow. Original digital negatives can be large, processor-intensive, use gammas and gamuts not intended for direct viewing, and are often not yet connected to dual-system sound.

Unfortunately, not all video file formats can hold timecode. The MP4 container, a very common container for H.264, is not capable of storing timecode. This can be a bit confusing, because in many post-production apps, the clips display a count that looks like timecode, but it’s not actually timecode. So, if you want to use an offline-online workflow, you first need to be familiar with which formats can and cannot contain timecode. Image from set of “The Suitcase.” Directed by Abi Damaris Corbin. Image © Logra Studio.

Timecode is not just the particular count on your media that shows up in the source monitor. Just like your clip has a video stream composed of still images in a particular sequence, and an audio stream composed of audio samples in a particular sequence, any professional format that contains SMPTE-compliant timecode assigns each frame a particular hour, minute, second, and frame, according to the SMPTE 12M-2 standard.

ProRes files wrapped in their native MOV container, or DNxHR files wrapped in MOV, MXF OP1a, or MXF OP-Atom, all contain timecode, but you’ll need to check the exact specifications. Different cameras will list in their technical specs whether or not they capture with SMTPE-compliant timecode. So, always double check to make sure your gear can handle this workflow.

As long as the proxies you transcode out of Resolve have timecode that matches the timecode in the original digital negatives from the camera, each post-production application should properly be able to switch back and forth between the online and offline formats as they’re needed. gas dryer vs electric dryer In Premiere, you can check the properties of a format in the QuickTime container, and it’ll show you that there’s a timecode stream. #2: No Organized Folder Structure

The reasoning for having an organized folder structure is more profound than just keeping the offline-online workflow tamed. It pertains to the same deeper reason that you’re using an offline-online workflow in the first place. Having an organized folder structure and using an offline-online workflow are two methods that allow for many disparate collaborators to seamlessly work on a project quickly and efficiently.

If their folder structure is well-organized and identical, one collaborator can quickly direct the other to any particular shot. Both parties can recall the asset instantly. If different collaborators just start throwing their own assets into their own folder structures ad hoc, then projects will stall when collaborators waste time merely trying to recall particular assets.

This is one method to help alleviate the problem of camera files that might have name collisions. Even if you’re not able to rename such problem files, having each camera card with its own unique name means that if you need to go digging into an XML or a project file to check what the last good file path of a file might have been, you would quickly be able to see the difference between /A003/Clip001.mov and /F002/Clip001.mov. Not separating camera cards by date

The offline-online workflow is designed to optimize work for each individual kind of collaborator. gas you up The offline editor gets color-corrected intraframe files at a low data rate, synced to sound, so that they don’t have to worry about syncing, color management, etc. The offline editor should just be able to play footage and set the order of the clips.

Online collaborators have very different goals, though. Colorists, VFX artists, sound editors, and sound designers aren’t finessing the exact timing of particular cuts— in fact, they’re taking many precautions to ensure that the cuts on the piece they’re working on don’t change at all . It would be a dire technical mistake for someone in the online editing process to make a timing change to any particular clip.

Given how online applications are designed, once a piece has been conformed for color grading and sound mixing, even minor tweaks to the timing of edits can quickly spiral into time-consuming headaches to correct. Even tiny adjustments to complex timelines can lead to hours (or days) fixing problems. (Premiere Pro timeline from “Searching”).

For the uninitiated, this seems like it would be extremely easy to do, because in an editing session, an editor could do this in a matter of seconds. However, if this piece has already gone to other collaborators, such a request creates a time-wasting headache compounded across multiple people. This headache would ensue for an assistant editor:

There’s a quotation that I love from Alexis Van Hurkman, author of the Color Correction Handbook and the DaVinci Resolve manual. In the Color Correction Handbook, Hurkman writes, “ Locking the edit should not be looked at as a technological limitation but as a scheduling milestone . Sooner or later, the director and producer will have to make up their minds, be done with the edit, and allow the project to go through finishing.”

Now, many “prosumer” cameras like DSLRs, GoPros, and drones simply aren’t able to keep track of clip numbering across card changes. b games 2 In professional RED, Canon, Sony, and Arri cameras, the numbering of a new card will pick up from whatever the last clip of the previous card was numbered; but in a “prosumer” camera, every time a card is inserted and formatted, the numbering restarts. This could result in a single day’s worth of footage that has 10 different clips all named “C000,” 10 clips named “C001,” 10 clips named “C002,” etc.

Another solution would be to simply rename the clips so that every single one in the entire project is unique. Sony Catalyst Prepare can rename camera files as it ingests, while properly keeping all the sidecar metadata intact for Sony formats. Since the release of Yosemite (MacOS 10.10) in 2014, the Mac OS Finder has had a handy built-in function to batch rename files.

With data burn-ins on all the proxies, any collaborator can quickly call up a shot in the Source Monitor, and within seconds, navigate to any frame in a whole project. This scales down to a short commercial that might only have have an hour of footage all the way up to a documentary that might have hundreds of hours of footage. #7: Not Reconciling Sizing Between Apps

For a long time, I didn’t understand the relationship between how different programs treated the reframing of clips. I would pull an XML from Premiere Pro into DaVinci Resolve, and the positioning data would be wildly inconsistent; some shots would match up perfectly, but others would be way too small, way too big, or placed completely wrong within the frame.

Then, I happened on Patrick Inhofer’s excellent series on Mixing Light that goes in-depth on how Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve treat resizing. For my particular workflow, this was a godsend. You should definitely go check out the full series from Mixing Light, but in short, there are particular combinations of settings across both applications, which, if you rigorously adhere to, will allow you to consistently and reliably transfer your repositioning data out of Premiere Pro and into DaVinci Resolve via the XML. Clearly not what was intended at picture lock. The Timeline Viewer, at the top right, shows that for some reason, an XML hasn’t translated positioning data properly from Premiere Pro to DaVinci Resolve.

It’s tempting to transcode to a lossy, compressed audio format like AAC, but it doesn’t really accomplish anything. electricity prices by state By losslessly rewrapping the uncompressed audio, not only will the offline editor have access to each individual microphone’s own isolated track, but when it comes time to conform the sound files for sound mixing and sound design, there won’t be any additional work in tracking down the original files from the production sound mixer’s field recorder.

Relative to video files, audio files —even uncompressed audio files— are tiny, so transcoding into a lossy format like AAC serves no purpose other than to create pointless additional work and to waste time. If you’ve already set up your storage to be able to handle video files, you should still have plenty of storage space for uncompressed audio.

The offline-online workflow, when properly implemented, is robust and has been serving filmmakers well for about a century. It enables collaboration and gains from the division of labor. However, in the modern age, with file-based workflows, we have to keep track of much more than physical reels of film. As you craft and refine the offline-online workflow for your next project, heed these warnings, and don’t fall prey to these mistakes. Your collaborators involved in the process will thank you for keeping everything running smoothly and efficiently.