Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Relinking spanned clips

Feb 18, 2014 8:18 PM

I have received a project edited on PPro 7.1.0 with a number of Canon C300 spanned clips. I have PPro 7.2.1. When I relink the clips the spanned clips link incorrectly. In fact all the span clips have incorrect timecode. The original editor on PPro 7.1.0 brought in the span clips as individual clips with sequential timecode. When I import the clips they come in as clips all of the same length but the time code is way off eg a clip that should start at 01:01:31:17 starts at 01:17:18:18. This is really less than satisfactory and the fact that we need to hand this project back and forth is really going to make life very difficult. Adobe and Canon need to sort this span clip thing out. It's been going on for over a year now at I'm about to start loosing it... a trip to the post office might calm my nerves.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 2:05 AM   in reply to third unkle
    I'm looking at you Mr. Adobe

    Uncle Adobe is out for the moment, he will call you later.

    it would seem that no one is that interested in this and no one from Abode is willing to help here

    Not that no one is interested in your issue. Rather you have one, which was answered several times in other threads. Check e.g. this discussion. Hope this helps.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 10:59 PM   in reply to third unkle
    Very frustrating that something that should just work...

    Agreed.

    As someone noted on one of the other threads relating to the topic of spanned clips, we have been sold a dud by the camera maufacturers.

    I don't support this point of view. Irrespective of which format a footage can be acquired a software dedicated for editing this footage must recognise it properly. Hardly any editor manipulate binary data stored in a particular file in order to edit what has been shot or recorded. If any acquisition format proved to be obsolete, it is naturally replaced with a newer one.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 10:52 AM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik

    a software dedicated for editing this footage must recognise it properly.

     

    The point is that would be easier done without spanning and folder structures.  We never had these issues with DV media.  Moving to tapeless should have kept that simplicity, with self-contained files that can be renamed, moved or deleted as desired without breaking any functionality.

     

    The technocrats messed up with tapeless, adding unnecessary and unwanted complexity that then generates problems with NLEs and proper project management.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:00 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    The only point here is that manufactures should provide comprehensive documentation for software developers on how to properly use all those file structures - that's it and has nothing to do with the file structure per se.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:03 AM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik

    My point is that with a self-contained file, without these asinine folder structures, they wouldn't need to.

     

    So yes, they should solve the problem they created with proper documentation, but...they should not have created the problem in the first place.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:12 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    And they didn't create any problem: both documentation and vendors' transfer utilities, which can convert camera assets to something more habitual are available.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:18 AM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik

    Ah, but they did create problems.  The need for a transfer utility.  The inability of NLEs to always understand the structure.  Hell, even the need for NLE programmers to add that ability is wasted effort.  And worst of all, the inability to properly manage our media as we desire using a file manager.

     

    Those are all problems we did not have with DV, problems we should not have with tapeless.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:31 AM   in reply to Jim Simon
    Ah, but they did create problems.  The need for a transfer utility.

    Well, with that point of view the problem was created much earlier: the need to copy data from a card to a computer.

    The inability of NLEs to always understand the structure.

    An NLE per se can't understand anything until a developer wrote some code. If a developer wrote buggy code, it has nothing to do with data he/she is trying to process with the code.

    Hell, even the need for NLE programmers to add that ability is wasted effort.

    Without an ability to write some code any new format would never be possible to import in any NLE.

    And worst of all, the inability to properly manage our media as we desire using a file manager.

    Jim, how often you manage core Windows files with the file manager as you desire?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:37 AM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik

    with that point of view the problem was created much earlier: the need to copy data from a card to a computer.

     

    No, that part was an improvement over realtime capture.  But...it should be possible to get a self-contained file without special software, using just a file manager.  That means the cameras have to write them that way, with nothing extraneous required that will break functionality if files are moved or renamed.

     

     

    how often you manage core Windows files with the file manager as you desire?

     

     

    It's the only thing I use to manage files.  I use to be able to rename my actual media on the disk as desired.  Now I can't.  That's a step back, in my view.  Not enough of one to make me want tapes, again.  But tapeless would have been a pure advance if it did things correctly, rather than the two steps forward and one step back it turned out to be.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:59 AM   in reply to Jim Simon
    it should be possible to get a self-contained file without special software, using just a file manager.

    As you know, you can copy a self-contained folder structure without using special software.

    I use to be able to rename my actual media on the disk as desired.  Now I can't.

    You can give a folder on disk, which contains respective subfolder structure, any name as you desire. It's quite similar to managing folders with image sequences. Nothing too complicated.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 12:13 PM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik
    As you know, you can copy a self-contained folder structure without using special software.

     

    Correct, and I do.  But I do not get the flexibility with moving, renaming or deleting those files afterwards.  That's what we long with tapless, that we had with DV.

     

     

    You can give a folder on disk, which contains respective subfolder structure, any name as you desire.

     

     

    True, but not at the file level, which is how I managed things with DV.  Self-contained files that break no functionality when you manage them with Explorer was the norm before tapeless.  It would have been better if we still had that with tapeless.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 12:25 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    The only issue with moving, renaming or deleting files inside the folder structure is ruining metadata, which are used for reading spanned clips only. Non-spanned clips are 'free' from that dependency. But as I already mentioned this limitation in managing all assets at a file level is just a matter of habits rather than a real issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 10:48 PM   in reply to third unkle
    over to you Mr. Adobe and Mr. Canon... please get it sorted

    That's exactly what Uncle Adobe accomplished in 7.2 update.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 11:10 PM   in reply to third unkle
    Well I'm on 7.2.1 and I would beg to differ...

    How so? Spanned MXF clips, which PrPro used to read incorrect are now properly recognised and you claim that being wrong?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2014 2:25 AM   in reply to third unkle
    Unless the span metadata has been corrupted... yes they are reading them incorrectly. Have another read of my earlier posts again. This is what is happening.

    Sorry, I don't follow you. Your project was originally created in PrPro CC 7.1, PrPro read spanned clips as separate pieces and built Media Cache Database on this wrong assumption. Then the project was transferred to another machine with PrPro CC 7.2 installed, where it read them correctly and built proper Media Cache Database. Which metadata exactly was corrupted in this case?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2014 2:55 AM   in reply to third unkle
    When I imported the clips into my 7.2.1 (4) version I got the clips spanned incorrectly in a different way

    Rather the opposite: you got correctly interpretted spanned clips in PrPro CC 7.2.1. Yes, they were interpretted differently. But the reason lies in their improper interpretation on the first machine, not on yours.

    That system was subsequently upgrade to 7.2.1 and yeilded the same result

    Did they delete all Media Cache Database entries and Media Cache Files and let PrPro rebuild Media Cache Database from scratch after update? I bet they did not and kept working with existing one.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2014 2:21 PM   in reply to third unkle

    PrPro, AE and AME create Media Cache Database entries and Media Cache Files on importing assets into them. You can check the location of Media Cache Database and Media Cache Files in Preferences -> Media...

     

    Once Media Cache Database entries and Media Cache files were generated, they are shared not only between different projects of the same application, but between all three PrPro, AE and AME applications. They can be duplicated if an application has some issues with utilising existing Media Cache Database entries and Media Cache Files. If you manually delete them, they are rebuilt from scratch.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2014 5:07 PM   in reply to third unkle

    third unkle wrote:

     

    I would still really like to hear from someone from Adobe regarding this issue...

     

    Hi third unkle,

    Sounds like you are sorting out your situation. Sorry it was so much trouble for you. BTW, you should know that this is a user to user forum, not an official support channel. Adobe participation in these threads is voluntary. I keep an eye on things, but it is quite impossible to answer every thread that comes up.

     

    Official contact channels: To give a bug report to the Premiere Pro team, here is a link: http://adobe.ly/ReportBug If you need support, use this link: http://helpx.adobe.com/contact.html

     

    Thanks,
    Kevin

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2014 8:35 PM   in reply to third unkle

    Hi third unkle,

    Yes, sorry about that. On the support contact page for Premiere Pro, go to the option: Downloading, installing, and setting up and you'll see options for contacting support. Feel free to contact our agents there.

     

    Thanks,
    Kevin

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2014 8:17 AM   in reply to third unkle

    Hi Pete,

    Here is a link to the contact page: http://www.adobe.com/support/download-install/supportinfo/

     

    Thanks,

    Kevin

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points