Scene detection in FCP while logging?

[Chris Coulson]

Hi,

I was at a friends at the weekend, editing in FCP.

he was capturing (logging?) a tape, and having to set the in and out points of a clip, then going back, and capturing it. then find a new clip etc...

I know in Premiere, you can turn on scene detect and capture the whole tape, and every time the camera start/stop is pressed, you get a new clip.

I'm sure that FCP must do this too, but I looked everywhere for a Scene detect switch, but couldn't find it.

Can anyone explain to me how he can turn on scene detection? It would make his life so much easier!

thanks!

[Per Johan Naesje]

check the "Create new clip on Start/Stop" in the Clip Settings tab in Log and Capture window

[Scott Anderson]

After you've captured a long clip, you can open it up in the Viewer, and select Mark>DV Start/Stop Detect. This will create subclips based on the original camera start/stops. You can then copy and paste those subclips into a new bin and rename them if you wish.

One of the problems, though is the naming convention. The name will be based on the original clip, appended with a number. Instead of starting with "01" or even "001", it starts with 1-9, then goes to 10, which plays havoc with the alphabetical sorting.

So you end up with something like "subclip 9 from clip master capture", then "subclip 10 from clip master capture". You can see the problem.

I wonder, will the "Create new clip on Start/Stop" option in Log & Capture create new clips using the logging info? I always thought that was an option used only for timecode breaks.

[Mike Barber]

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

Can anyone explain to me how he can turn on scene detection? It would make his life so much easier!

FCP User Manual, page 283.

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

he was capturing (logging?) a tape, and having to set the in and out points of a clip, then going back, and capturing it. then find a new clip etc...

Your friend was making things harder for himself than they needed to be. The ideal method would have been to log all his clips first and then capturing them. For more on this, see FCP User Manual page 266.

[Bill Davis]

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

Hi,

I was at a friends at the weekend, editing in FCP.

he was capturing (logging?) a tape, and having to set the in and out points of a clip, then going back, and capturing it. then find a new clip etc...

I know in Premiere, you can turn on scene detect and capture the whole tape, and every time the camera start/stop is pressed, you get a new clip.

I'm sure that FCP must do this too, but I looked everywhere for a Scene detect switch, but couldn't find it.

Can anyone explain to me how he can turn on scene detection? It would make his life so much easier!

thanks!

So this begs the question: "What's the value of "easy" in editing?"

Yes, with FCP just like with Premier and all other editing software I've seen, one has the capability to work in all sorts of ways - including ways that make absolutely no sense to me.

I simply can't fathom why anyone would EVER want use an algorhythm to cut a tape up into clips.

To my mind, LOG AND CAPTURE is probably the single most CRITICAL process in making any video. And relying on auto scene detect is like standing up and admitting that you're intending to make the most MEDIOCRE video you can. It's saying "hey, just cut this stuff up anyway you like, mr computer, and dump it all in a big bucket so I can sort it out later."

For heaven's sake, LOG AND CAPTURE done thoughtfully, is the place where you get to carefully investigate whether each clip has something that it might contribute to the final edit - performance, pacing, delivery - audio - lighting - camera move - alternate angle - whatever. And if you decide that NO, a particular clips has NO PLACE in your edit - good tape logging means you can keep it totally out of your workflow, knowing you've actually thought about why this is so.

If you do this on computer auto-pilot, you're just going to clog up your hard drive with stuff that's NEVER going to make the final edit. Plus you're postponing getting to know the true nature of what you DO have on the drive.

So great, the software has auto scene detection. Just like so many Casio keyboards have "play me a song" buttons. Both from my perspective, are just good ways to avoid having to confront the discipline of efficiently crafting a good video.

Painstaking log and capture is, to my mind, fundamentally necessary to knowing the true nature of the raw materials of what will become my program.

That's how I see it anyway.

YMMV.

[Chris Coulson]

Originally Posted by Bill Davis

So this begs the question: "What's the value of "easy" in editing?"

I've no idea what you're referring to - The OP is about capturing, not editing.

I'm so shocked by your post, that I'm almost inclined to think it's a troll post! :-) I'm sure it's not, but it just seems *that* alien a concept to me!

I'm not entirely sure you understand what scene detection is? There's no algorithm involved - the computer looks at the date and time of the shot, and when it jumps, Hey! there's a new clip! :-)

The computer is making no editing decision whatsoever. it is merely replicating the cameraperson's decision - when they pressed start or stop.

This allows you to quickly and efficiently view the shot that they took, and make a decision whether to use it or not. at the end of the edit, you just delete all the clips that aren't in the timeline (*That's* automated, but it's fine for the computer to make that evaluation for me though!)

Without scene detection, you'd have to view the tape, and if you see a good clip, rewind and write down the timecodes or click in and out for the clip, and then rewind again, and press capture. I guess you could do this at the end and batch all the good clips, but it's still about 2-3 times less efficient than viewing clips in the computer!

Equally, have you never looked at 2-3 takes of the same shot and decided on the timeline, in context, which one works best? You simply cannot tell at capture time the future context of takes...

I really think I've misunderstoood your post!

[Mike Barber]

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

I really think I've misunderstoood your post!

Yes, I do believe you did. I'll try to expand on what Bill was saying.

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

I've no idea what you're referring to - The OP is about capturing, not editing.

True, but they are intrinsic; editing is so much more than just cutting. Logging and Capturing is a fundamental part of the entire workflow and getting it "wrong" (for lack of a better term) from the beginning means you're behind the 8 ball for duration.

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

This allows you to quickly and efficiently view the shot that they took, and make a decision whether to use it or not. at the end of the edit, you just delete all the clips that aren't in the timeline

Efficiency for viewing the shot is not what I would call a good tradeoff for efficiency whilst working with said footage. I hear the argument from "weekend editors" all the time, "hard drives are so big now, why not just capture the whole tape?"

Look at it this way, assuming you shot a full 63 minute tape (with the appropriate minimum of 30 seconds bars or at least black at head, and 10 to 15 seconds at the tail) for 60 minutes of raw footage. Capturing that entire tape will make a single 13.6 GB file. For every clip you use in FCP you are accessing the same 13.6 GB file; instead of working with MBs you're working with GBs. Hello, spinning beach ball! In short, you're taxing your system.

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

Without scene detection, you'd have to view the tape, and if you see a good clip, rewind and write down the timecodes or click in and out for the clip, and then rewind again, and press capture.

If you read my previous post, I pointed out that this was not exactly the best way to log and capture. In fact, I would argue it is antithetical to how it is meant to be used.

[Chris Coulson]

Originally Posted by Mike Barber

Look at it this way, assuming you shot a full 63 minute tape (with the appropriate minimum of 30 seconds bars or at least black at head, and 10 to 15 seconds at the tail) for 60 minutes of raw footage. Capturing that entire tape will make a single 13.6 GB file. For every clip you use in FCP you are accessing the same 13.6 GB file; instead of working with MBs you're working with GBs. Hello, spinning beach ball! In short, you're taxing your system.

Ahh, I thnk I see a misunderstanding.... I have no idea how FCP does scene detection - I use premiere, and with that system, every time the camera person presses start or stop, That's a new file (AVI) it's a real new file, not a "virtual clip" from a physical single huge file.

I just assumed FCP would do it as well as Premere does it....
**JOKE!!!** I'm JOKING, OK?? :-) :-)

[Mike Barber]

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

I use premiere, and with that system, every time the camera person presses start or stop, That's a new file (AVI) it's a real new file, not a "virtual clip" from a physical single huge file.

I have never used Premiere, so I can't comment on how it does or does not do anything, but we may be talking about two different things. The start/stop detect gets applied after the fact, contrast with the FCP making a new clip when it detects a timecode break during the capture process.

Your homework reading assignment: FCP User Manual pages 289—293.

[Bill Davis]

Originally Posted by Chris Coulson

I've no idea what you're referring to - The OP is about capturing, not editing.

I'm so shocked by your post, that I'm almost inclined to think it's a troll post! :-) I'm sure it's not, but it just seems *that* alien a concept to me!

I'm not entirely sure you understand what scene detection is? There's no algorithm involved - the computer looks at the date and time of the shot, and when it jumps, Hey! there's a new clip! :-)

The computer is making no editing decision whatsoever. it is merely replicating the cameraperson's decision - when they pressed start or stop.

This allows you to quickly and efficiently view the shot that they took, and make a decision whether to use it or not. at the end of the edit, you just delete all the clips that aren't in the timeline (*That's* automated, but it's fine for the computer to make that evaluation for me though!)

Without scene detection, you'd have to view the tape, and if you see a good clip, rewind and write down the timecodes or click in and out for the clip, and then rewind again, and press capture. I guess you could do this at the end and batch all the good clips, but it's still about 2-3 times less efficient than viewing clips in the computer!

Equally, have you never looked at 2-3 takes of the same shot and decided on the timeline, in context, which one works best? You simply cannot tell at capture time the future context of takes...

I really think I've misunderstoood your post!

Chris,

Then let me try to expand on my thinking a bit.

For me, Logging is ESSENTIAL for this reason. Usually, I log my tapes when I'm reasonably fresh from the shoots. So I know what happened during field recording. As the director, I also know when "stuff happened." that spoiled the shot. For example, a take that was good for the first 10 seconds before the actor had a fit of sneezing.

Working from a script, I also know which scenes are CRITICAL to my program. And so I might do multiple takes of those trying to get them just right. After working for years, I've learned to take good field notes so I can reference these and other on-shoot issues.

Now, it's time to sit down and LOG the tape.

It might surprise you to learn that I NEVER just skip over the stuff I thought was unusable during a shoot. I always watch the entire tape during formal logging, just to enhance the nature of each take in my memory - including the ones I plan to discard.

That's because I'm amazed at how often I notice things that I was too busy to pay attention to in the field.

Perhaps on the take where the talent sneezed, there's some background action on the far left of the first part of the scene that's excellent. Or perhaps that "take" happened while the sun was in a particular position and the overall scene illumination was particularly good. Or perhaps the delivery of the opening line was outstanding prior to the sneeze.

Understanding these things MIGHT cause me to consider extracting some aspect from a scene I would otherwise discard for use later. Or not.

If I have a "final take" that makes me really happy and I don't have to pay attention to any of these things, great. I just don't LOG anything but the good take - thereby saving the need to capture six TIMES (presuming six takes under consideration) the data that I need to digitize to simply capture what I want.

Plus I don't just save the hard drive space. I GAIN something incredibly valuable. Time spent UNDERSTANDING the true nature of my raw materials.

I can't tell you how many times in my career I've been editing and have run into a problem with the footage I've been working with - only to remember something I'd seen during logging that I had acknowledged existed, but chose NOT to capture - and have gone back to grab to subsequently use.

And the argument that if you just capture EVERYTHING as an "auto detect" system does it's still going to be there for you - ignores the critical point of the logging process. It's not the CAPTURE that's important - it's the LOGGING TIME spent - up front - getting intimately acquainted with the footage and forcing yourself to re-examine EVERYTHING from the field prior to even beginning to choose and order any scenes that I see as so valuable.

I guess what I'm saying is that the process that works so well for me is this.

Shoot it - then get to know it WHILE thinking about what I really need (logging) - then import only what's important (Targeted CAPTURE) - then enjoy the efficiency of organizing and concentrating on only the footage that's "made the cut", knowing that if I made a mistake, it won't be much of a problem because I know not only what I have, but what I have discarded as well.

I know that others can work in different ways and also get excellent results.

And if an editor wants to throw the whole box of ingredients on the timeline and do all the sifting and sorting there - fine. It just seems to me that as in cooking, sorting and assembling the ingredients in advance, (and knowing you have everything you need before you start!) is a more efficient method of cooking, than just grabbing EVERYTHING in the pantry and moving it to the kitchen counter before you begin to cook!

Just another way of looking at things. Not necessarily the only way.

[Chris Coulson]

Thanks for taking the time to explain Bill.

I don't feel that any of your reasons for logging manually and not using scene detect are exclusive to manual logging, as all of them are achieveable with scene detect.

However, I feel the advantage of scene detect, is sometimes I want to watch a clip a couple of times, to see various aspects, and if it was still on the tape, I'd have to wait for it to rewind, stop it at the start point etc. whereas if I have the clip on my computer, I can just click it again, and watch it straight away.

An additional bonus too, is that this re-viewing in the computer causes zero wear on the camera too. It may be that you have a $million suite with dedicated capture machines and don't care about head wear, but I don't :-)

I do appreciate your explanation, but nothing you've said, can't be done on a ready captured tape, with every clip neatly organised in a list. With the added bonus in the hour it takes to capture and scene detect the entire tape, I can watch the rushes with the team, and we can discuss how the day went, and unwind a little.

[Abdessamad Idrissi]

I agree with you Chris,
for me the process of capturing the whole tape with scene detect is the most efficient; it gives you more control on viewing and reviewing the clips easily on the computer without dirtying the play-head of your VCR with REW's and FF's.
I find that the old logging method of using a paper and pen and start writing the in/out point of every clip then make a batch capture is outdated and rather than concentrating on the "quality" of the shot, you spend time deciding where the in and out are. Technology has evolved so editing workflows should evolve too.

@Bill
relying on auto scene detect IS NOT like standing up and admitting that you're intending to make the most MEDIOCRE video you can. IT IS NOT saying "hey, just cut this stuff up anyway you like, mr computer, and dump it all in a big bucket so I can sort it out later." BUT IT SAYS "Hey Mr computer; I got no time to spend on detecting when the scene is in and when it is out! do this technical part for me, so I can concentrate on the creative part ".


Anyway, that's how I see and do things, and I'm quite happy with it.. for the moment ;-)