An XDCAM-EX newbie question: is there an advantage in using Sony's Clip Browser software to ingest clips in FCP over the log & transfer plug in? At first glance using log & transfer seems easier, faster and more straightforward. But that is probably because I'm missing something...

While I suspect you're talking about Final Cut Pro, always include details because there are certainly Avid, Premiere, Edius users who also use XDCAM EX cameras.

ClipBrowser and Log & Transfer serve two different purposes on the Mac side of things at least. It's like asking whether you should use a fork or a cup for dinner.

ClipBrowser with CRC On should be used to copy from cards to hard drive. That ensures you have a valid BPAV file before you erase the cards. You should then backup that BPAV on to something else as well. BPAV are your camera masters.

You can use either XDCAM Transfer or FCP Log & Transfer to wrap the files to .mov.
XDCAM Transfer is at version 2.12 and Sony's FCP Log & Transfer is at version 1.2
I prefer using XDCAM Transfer independent of FCP because it gives me the opportunity to review the clips without tying up FCP. It's just a preference though.

Hi Craig,

thanks for the quick reply. I mentioned 'FCP' in my question, so I thought that was clear. I understand the difference now. One more question though: before I found out about Clip Brwoser, I used to copy the entire content of the card to a dedicated folder on my back-up disk via 'Finder' and 'drag & drop'. Is there an advantage when copying the clips via Clip Browser, as opposed to my 'dummy' method and as far as safety and quality of the backup is concerned?

Sorry didn't see FCP reference.
ClipBrowser has CRC if you turn it on. It confirms a data match for the copy.
It's possible to have a bad copy using drag and drop (rare but it happens) and once you erase the card the good master is gone forever. I don't believe in taking risks with camera masters so I always use and recommend ClipBrowser with CRC On for copying clips.

OK, that's clear. I'm usually reluctant to get used to another piece of new software, especially when the user interface doesn't look all that handy, but in this case it looks like it's worth wile. Thanks Craig.

Luc,
Another difference in L&T versus XDCAM Transfer is the data in the logging fields. I've found that not all the information put into XDCAM transfer shows up in FCP where as the ones in L&T do show up. L&T also has a nice way to customize the name of the clip.

Luc, am I not correct in understanding that if you don't import via the Clip Browser any long take originals aren't "stitched" together into single, long clips?

Yep, from what I read in the Clip Browser manual, that seems to be the case. I haven't experienced this yet, because I do not often shoot clips that surpass 4 Gb in size. So if I do, I guess I'll have to use CB, although I dislike the user interface very much.

Luc,
Another difference in L&T versus XDCAM Transfer is the data in the logging fields. I've found that not all the information put into XDCAM transfer shows up in FCP where as the ones in L&T do show up. L&T also has a nice way to customize the name of the clip.

The naming feature is an advantage, and that's one of the reasons I like to use log&transfer. But that doesn't mean I have to use Clip Browser, does it?

I would never rename or customize the name of a clip after it has been recorded. The clip naming parameters that I program into the camera's menu system before I begin shooting will create names that are like serial numbers for the clips -- and they should never be changed. The last thing I need is a clip having different names on the SxS card, in my BPAV archives, in Final Cut's re-wrapped MOV copies, my daily backups, etc. Renaming or modifying a clip name after it has been recorded is not a "feature" I'd ever recommend using.

The specific feature I like about L&T Renaming is to augment the original name with additional text such as a keyword. That way the original name is there to backtrack to the original as well as something informative for the clip during the editing cycle. YMMV

I wonder if you're creating difficult hurdles to reconstituting a project by renaming clips. Ideally there's meta data, not the file name, that ties the ingested clip to the BPAV master but I don't trust that. If a project goes offline for any reason it may be hard to put the pieces back together. I'd love to hear otherwise though.

clip browser re-creates a new "virtual SxS card" on your computer instead of just copying the one from your card to the desktop. I use this when I want to consolidate all my actual cards into one. Mostly this is valuable for stitching together spanned cards, but also can simplify your workflow if you like. for example you could put and entire or day's or work , or perhaps one camera's footage on a multicam shoot into one "virtual card". You may lose the reference to which card you used if there was a problem though.

To double check drag and drop card copies use get info to check that the BPAV folder has exactly the same number of bites on original and copy.