Sony PMW Camera - Editing Workflow

[Alister Chapman]

The original FCP and Premiere edit packages were written by the same software guys. As a result it's very easy to switch between the two. In CS6 you can even set it up to use the FCP keyboard shortcuts.

The tiers of broadcast TV were tweaked a bit at the end of last year. Tier 2J for journalism and news only (ie headline news programmes NOT news discussion or news magazine shows) allows the use of 35Mb/s 4:2:0 mpeg and 1/3" sensors. Tier 2L is still 50Mb/s 4:2:2 and 1/2" sensors, or cameras that have been tested to meet specific minimums. Tier 2L is the minimum for anything long form which would include a news discussion or news magazine show. In each case there is a 20% allowance for "non broadcast" so a magazine show that might be primarily studio based could still use 35Mb/s provided it does not make up more than 20% of the show.

[Doug Jensen]

Luc,

There's nothing wrong with continuing to use FCP7 as long as it still meets your needs. My advice to forget about using FCP7 and FCPX was directed to Kevin, who currently does not use any NLE software -- so he can start fresh with anything he wants. I suppose an argument could be made for getting started with FCPX (David makes some good points) but I really think it would be foolish to get started with FCP7 today since it is clearly at the end of it's life and is really behind the times in terms of speed and functionality.

And I agree with Alister that the transitioning to Premiere is not very hard for FCP7 users, especially for anyone who already knows Photoshop, After Effects, or any of the other Adobe products. In fact, Premiere has an option in the preferences panel to configure the program to mimic FCP7 short cuts and other features. Once you turn that on, the learning curve really flattens out. My main problem with Premiere has not been learning what it CAN do, it has been learning to work around the things that it CAN"T do. Sometimes I scratch my head and wonder if anyone at Adobe has ever used FCP7 and seen what features a professional editor expects to have. I'm hoping that CS7 addresses many of the shortcomings, but in the meantime, I've adapted and still revert to FCP7 for some things.

Obviously professionals have different needs than hobbyists, but in my case, the advantages of increasing my productivity by investing in faster hardware and software was very easy to justify. And now that I have seen how much faster Premiere is on my new Mac Pro, I wish I had made the switch sooner.

Another consideration for professionals is that we can't afford any downtime, and in my opinion, FCP7 could totally stop functioning unexpectedly after some new OS update from Apple. If I'm in the middle of a project or up against a deadline, that could cause chaos for me and my clients. Therefore I chose to make my migration to Premiere at my own speed, in non-panic mode, over the slow holiday period. On the other hand, a hobbyist could ride the FCP7 pony until it collapses and then look around for something else to ride. But pros don't have that luxury.

And one more consideration is that Apple could very well stop making computers that are capable of being used for professional editing. As a stockholder and loyal customer I think that would be a dumb decision, but Apple is pretty good at making dumb decisions lately. So if hell freezes over and I have to convert to Windows machine someday down the road, there will be virtually no learning curve because the whole Adobe suite is almost identical on Mac or Windows.

Just some random thoughts.

[Luc De Wandel]

Thanks for sharing the random thoughts, Doug. I'll keep working with my now familiar workflow (XDACM browser, FCP7, Snow Leopard...) on the Mac Pro until Apple indeed lets me down completely with my 'old' stuff.

As you point out, that would be a dumb decision, just like removing the Expres-card slot from Macbook Pros. They're so blinded by the fast but volatile iPad/iPhone/iMac buck that they seem to have forgotten their original, stable core business. Just like Mercedes with the Smart and BMW with the 1 series. Dollarwise tempting but imagewise a disaster.

This said, on a rainy day, I might still try and have a go with Adobe Première to see what it looks like...

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Kevin Langdon

Robin, to answer your question, yes you hand over the card to the journalist at the end of a shoot.

The reason SDHC cards are used instead of SxS, besides cost, is because news is transmitted at 35mbps compared to programmes which are minimum of 50mbps.

What I heard is that it's to enable them to have many, many more individual SD cards than could be afforded if they spent the same money on SxS - not simply to be cheapskate! I understand that the reliability of using SD cards has been very good.

Which means the workflow can have the best advantages of solid state without giving up the best features of tape. In terms of shooting it means that not only can a cameraman treat the cards as he would tape in the past (shoot, handover, forget) but the cards can be kept for a period intact before formatting and reuse.

It's something I've felt for a long time - in terms of risk the main threat is human error (accidental deletion) rather than technical failure, and presumably the BBC have come to the same conclusion. Getting away from a workflow where you have to have a shoot-download-format-reuse routine to free up cards to carry on shooting can only be a good thing IMO. It's also why the PMW700 and 800 are still so heavily used on many productions, in spite of their disadvantages over the PMW500 in terms of power consumption, weight etc.

Originally Posted by Robin Probyn

Dont think anyone would copy edited footage back to a SXS card .. export to a HDD I would think..

There are very good reasons to do exactly that in some situations. As a personal example, some of the work I do involves recording interviews and playing not just them back to the participants but other videos as well. It makes life easy to start off with a blank card in one slot of the camera (for the days recordings) and a card in the other camera slot pre-loaded with the pre-existing videos rendered to XDCAM card format. So everything gets played back from the camera, simply a case of switching slot to go between the two.

In a more broadcast situation (news, sports OB etc) the link may have to transmit back both cards straight out of the camera and locally edited material. If in the case of the latter the edit is laid back onto a SxS or SD card in camera format it not only reduces the amount of re-rendering, but makes for a simpler operation. The link only has to worry about dealing with one format, one media.

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Tier 2L is still 50Mb/s 4:2:2 and 1/2" sensors, or cameras that have been tested to meet specific minimums. Tier 2L is the minimum for anything long form which would include a news discussion or news magazine show.

It's worth saying that all those EBU recommendations are just that - recommendations. They are not rules, and certainly not laws. If a broadcaster doesn't abide by them, it's their affair - they won't face sanctions. That said, there is a lot of sense behind the recommendations and a lot of sense in adhering to them in general.

But they can throw up anomalies if they were to be rigidly adhered to. For example, the Canon XF305 is designated as being in 2L whilst the Sony PMW350 is in 2J. If I was commissioning material and a cameraman offered a choice of those two cameras my inclination would be to go with the PMW350...... (Especially if lowlight ability was to be significant. :-) )

[Kevin Langdon]

Some good, interesting points there.

My concern regarding which NLE software is I'm Avid trained and can edit quickly and efficiently with this. But upgrading to MC 6.5 is expensive, but may be the best way for me. Though I'm not sure about how well it handles XDCam EX material.

Maybe someone can clarify which system imports and exports footage simply and most efficiently.

I don't have to edit every day, but I do pretty regularly. Plus, I have a couple of projects coming up where I'll be shooting and editing longer features in HD. So I need to sort something as my current laptop and Avid software is only ok for SD.

That's why I thought about FCP X if I buy a MacBook as its around £200 it may be worth trying as an alternative now there have been the various upgrades, etc. But obviously there's the time consuming element of learning how to use it.

I can see why others have moved to Adobe Premiere if it's very similar to FCP 7, that makes perfect sense.

[Luc De Wandel]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Getting away from a workflow where you have to have a shoot-download-format-reuse routine to free up cards to carry on shooting can only be a good thing IMO.)

Since 2000 I've been using solid state media (CF-cards) for my business (concert photography); and I've never looked back to the days of film negative. It's exactly the same for video: all you need to adopt is the discipline to back-up SxS cards immediately, just as I have been doing with my pictures on CF-cards for almost 14 years now. In all this time, I only lost data once.

I do admit that when I bought my PMW320, I also ordered 10 SDHC cards and an adapter, but I sold them 3 months later and stuck to SxS. I find SD-cards way to flimsy to be trustworthy and moreover: once a foolproof workflow is in place, there's really no need for them.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Luc De Wandel

It's exactly the same for video: all you need to adopt is the discipline to back-up SxS cards immediately, just as I have been doing with my pictures on CF-cards for almost 14 years now. In all this time, I only lost data once.

I don't deny there is no one fix suits all, but what may be OK for you with complete control of the end to end process may not be so robust when many people get involved. Believe me, there have been many tales of data loss since solid state started to be widely used, and the majority of them seem to have been down to human error rather than hardware failure.

When you speak of "discipline to back-up SxS cards immediately" that may work well for you - but may not be practical for such as a news cameraman required to hand over material whilst continuing to film. And the journalists prime interest may be just getting the story to air ASAP, he may have far less interest in the longer term or archive situation, may have to prioritise his workload. Similarly, if a cameraman has a long shoot, juggling downloading with carrying on shooting is an accident waiting to happen - and one which many people have had experience of.

In some circumstances, such as a feature film, an answer may be to have a dedicated data wrangler - but that's not really practical, let alone economic, in a news situation! It's in such cases that SD card usage has value - the ability to treat the media as consumable (as tape) is seen as more relevant than absolute hardware reliability. Though SD cards are far more robust than many may have you believe.

But please don't think I'm suggesting that SD card usage is the right thing for all users. I feel it's the CHOICE of SxS or SD card usage that makes the XDCAM offering so strong. Horses for courses.

[Tom Roper]

The Panasonic AG-AC90 AVCCAM is not a broadcast approved codec, but does have (2) SD card slots that can be written to simultaneously, copy for you, copy for me.

[Robin Probyn]

Originally Posted by David Heath

What I heard is that it's to enable them to have many, many more individual SD cards than could be afforded if they spent the same money on SxS - not simply to be cheapskate! I understand that the reliability of using SD cards has been very good.

Which means the workflow can have the best advantages of solid state without giving up the best features of tape. In terms of shooting it means that not only can a cameraman treat the cards as he would tape in the past (shoot, handover, forget) but the cards can be kept for a period intact before formatting and reuse.

It's something I've felt for a long time - in terms of risk the main threat is human error (accidental deletion) rather than technical failure, and presumably the BBC have come to the same conclusion. Getting away from a workflow where you have to have a shoot-download-format-reuse routine to free up cards to carry on shooting can only be a good thing IMO. It's also why the PMW700 and 800 are still so heavily used on many productions, in spite of their disadvantages over the PMW500 in terms of power consumption, weight etc.

There are very good reasons to do exactly that in some situations. As a personal example, some of the work I do involves recording interviews and playing not just them back to the participants but other videos as well. It makes life easy to start off with a blank card in one slot of the camera (for the days recordings) and a card in the other camera slot pre-loaded with the pre-existing videos rendered to XDCAM card format. So everything gets played back from the camera, simply a case of switching slot to go between the two.

In a more broadcast situation (news, sports OB etc) the link may have to transmit back both cards straight out of the camera and locally edited material. If in the case of the latter the edit is laid back onto a SxS or SD card in camera format it not only reduces the amount of re-rendering, but makes for a simpler operation. The link only has to worry about dealing with one format, one media.

It's worth saying that all those EBU recommendations are just that - recommendations. They are not rules, and certainly not laws. If a broadcaster doesn't abide by them, it's their affair - they won't face sanctions. That said, there is a lot of sense behind the recommendations and a lot of sense in adhering to them in general.

But they can throw up anomalies if they were to be rigidly adhered to. For example, the Canon XF305 is designated as being in 2L whilst the Sony PMW350 is in 2J. If I was commissioning material and a cameraman offered a choice of those two cameras my inclination would be to go with the PMW350...... (Especially if lowlight ability was to be significant. :-) )

Discovery/natgeo etc are pretty strict about 50 mbps.. and what percentage they allow of less than that per program.. or conditions that they will allow it.. it would be the productions company that would be in hot water not the broadcaster .. they also a sometimes illogical list of approved camera,s too..

[Kevin Langdon]

My concern regarding which NLE software is I'm Avid trained and can edit quickly and efficiently with this. But upgrading to MC 6.5 is expensive, but may be the best way for me. Though I'm not sure about how well it handles XDCam EX material.

Maybe someone can clarify which system imports and exports footage simply and most efficiently.

I don't have to edit every day, but I do pretty regularly. Plus, I have a couple of projects coming up where I'll be shooting and editing longer features in HD. So I need to sort something as my current laptop and Avid software is only ok for SD.

That's why I thought about FCP X if I buy a MacBook as its around £200 it may be worth trying as an alternative now there have been the various upgrades, etc. But obviously there's the time consuming element of learning how to use it.

I can see why others have moved to Adobe Premiere if it's very similar to FCP 7, that makes perfect sense.



My previous post (above) may have been lost amongst comments about recording media and rates.

Therefore, I thought I'd list it again. I would be interested to know how simply (or not as the case may be) Avid and FCP handle XDcam Ex material for importing and exporting, etc.

[David Knaggs]

With FCP X, it needs to put a QuickTime wrapper around the XDCAM EX files before it can work with them. Sony has a plug-in (for FCP X) which you can download from their site which will automatically wrap them in QuickTime when you tell it to import the XDCAM EX files. It's pretty quick and simple, but it does take extra drive space for the new QuickTime files. Alternately, you can put the XDCAM EX files into QuickTime wrappers before you import into FCP X using an application such as XDCAM Browser or XDCAM Transfer (available from the Sony website).

You can export in whichever codec you wish (ProRes, XDCAM EX or whatever) either directly from the FCP X timeline or via Compressor.

[Doug Jensen]

Everything David said also applies to FCP7.

[Kevin Langdon]

Great, thanks for that info.
I've heard exporting to a DVD for a client can cause a drop in quality due to QuickTime. Do you know if this is the case?
Clients over here tend to prefer a format they can use instantly like a DVD or SDHC card rather than a more pro formats such as a SxS card as they don't have the right equipment to watch it, copy it, etc.
Also wondering whether Avid has a similar set up. From research it looks as though you have to use its AMA system though I have to be honest I'm not sure how this works.
Any hints would be gratefully received.

[Doug Jensen]

As I said in post #5 of this thread, the client should tell you how they want the content delivered. DVD and SxS cards are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum and serve totally different purposes, so it's not really a question of which one is better -- it all depends on what client needs. For example, do they want original clips they can edit themselves, or do they want to sit down and watch a fully-edited and finished production? The answer to that question will dictate how you deliver.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with Quicktime. Just because a video file is inside a Quicktime wrapper, that doesn't tell you anything at all about the quality of the footage. Quicktime is just a file format, or a container if you want to call it that, and that container could hold anything from high-end ProRes 4444 images all the way down to the crappiest quality YouTube video.

[Brian Drysdale]

If it's not urgent, Lightworks is doing a lot of recovering lost ground on the video front. Currently not available for the Mac OS, although that's being previewed at NAB. You can use an AVID keyboard and increasing numbers of professionals like using it. Lightworks

The Pro version should met your codec requirements.