Missing Support Files - HELP! (only MP4's)

Mitchell Lewis · October 17th, 2010, 06:50 PM

I'm guessing #1. :) Thanks again.

Robert Young · October 17th, 2010, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchell Lewis

I'm guessing #1. :) Thanks again.

Amazing story- they gave you footage with 1/3 the data rate of normal XDCam Ex.
You were soooo smart to look into the details.
Now you should suggest a whopping bonus for being so clever :)

Ian Skurrie · October 17th, 2010, 09:53 PM

An even worse scenario is that the original production company hasn't been paid, or there is a dispute given that the client has decided to swap ships.Therefore the original production company may have given them preview copies only and won't release the original files until the dispute is settled.
I would be cautious in proceeding too much further until you get the original files.

Mitchell Lewis · October 18th, 2010, 06:46 PM

I would agree Ian, but this client is a public company with a very good reputation. I don't think that's what happened.

UPDATE: Turns out our competitors shot with an EX3 connected to a NanoFlash. That's why they had MP4 files with a higher than normal data rate. Maybe not such a bad thing after all. Not sure that it was necessary though. The footage is just landscapes and buildings.

Luben Izov · October 18th, 2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchell Lewis

I would agree Ian, but this client is a public company with a very good reputation. I don't think that's what happened.

UPDATE: Turns out our competitors shot with an EX3 connected to a NanoFlash. That's why they had MP4 files with a higher than normal data rate. Maybe not such a bad thing after all. Not sure that it was necessary though. The footage is just landscapes and buildings.

Maybe I missed something here, but, nanoFlash does not shoot MP4 format. NF makes .MOV/.MXF files when doesn't shoot for BD. They must have done something with the files... Why don't they provide the MOV/MXF files to you? Am I wrong here?
Cheers

Craig Seeman · October 18th, 2010, 06:59 PM

Those files don't look like they came from a NanoFlash. NanoFlash would be high data rate MPEG2 files. Given the frame size those data rates in VideoSpec are on the low side. 12.3 mbps for 1920x1080 is pretty low. I think Luben has this right too. MPEG2 MOV or MXF.

See the range of data rates. What you have seems a bit lower than the lowest HD setting . The lowest is 18mbps
Media for nanoFlash | Convergent Design

If they're making these claims about how they shot than I'd say they are genuinely being dishonest.

Mitchell Lewis · October 18th, 2010, 07:06 PM

Hmmmmm........maybe you guys are right. Then they did convert it.

So the NanoFlash files would drop right into Final Cut Pro (MOV). Or do you have to specify MOV or MXF when you start recording?

The client did want to be able to view the footage on their office computer. Maybe they converted it to MP4 so that they could pay it?

Still sounds fishy though, you're right. I'm going to show the client this thread tomorrow when he's in our office.

Craig Seeman · October 18th, 2010, 07:45 PM

Your client did NOT get masters. He got screening copies. Unless you know the politics behind it I think your position is that in order for you to deliver the best quality product you need masters. The client may have no clue what that is so it's up to you to explain.

Generally it would be XDCAM EX files from EX (as you know them). If it was NanoFlash it would be MPEG2 .mov or .mxf. There are some device that would record to Apple ProRes.

Nick Wilson · October 18th, 2010, 08:20 PM

Also, were you/your client expecting sound? There seems to be no audio with the MP4 files.

October 17th, 2010, 06:50 PM	#16
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	I'm guessing #1. :) Thanks again. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

October 18th, 2010, 06:46 PM	#19
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	I would agree Ian, but this client is a public company with a very good reputation. I don't think that's what happened. UPDATE: Turns out our competitors shot with an EX3 connected to a NanoFlash. That's why they had MP4 files with a higher than normal data rate. Maybe not such a bad thing after all. Not sure that it was necessary though. The footage is just landscapes and buildings. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

October 18th, 2010, 07:06 PM	#22
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Hmmmmm........maybe you guys are right. Then they did convert it. So the NanoFlash files would drop right into Final Cut Pro (MOV). Or do you have to specify MOV or MXF when you start recording? The client did want to be able to view the footage on their office computer. Maybe they converted it to MP4 so that they could pay it? Still sounds fishy though, you're right. I'm going to show the client this thread tomorrow when he's in our office. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

October 18th, 2010, 08:20 PM	#24
Nick Wilson Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 259	Also, were you/your client expecting sound? There seems to be no audio with the MP4 files. __________________ Nick Wilson www.cinescene.co.uk

October 17th, 2010, 09:53 PM	#18
Ian Skurrie Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Mooroolbark, Victoria, AU Posts: 63	An even worse scenario is that the original production company hasn't been paid, or there is a dispute given that the client has decided to swap ships.Therefore the original production company may have given them preview copies only and won't release the original files until the dispute is settled. I would be cautious in proceeding too much further until you get the original files.

October 18th, 2010, 06:59 PM	#21
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Those files don't look like they came from a NanoFlash. NanoFlash would be high data rate MPEG2 files. Given the frame size those data rates in VideoSpec are on the low side. 12.3 mbps for 1920x1080 is pretty low. I think Luben has this right too. MPEG2 MOV or MXF. See the range of data rates. What you have seems a bit lower than the lowest HD setting . The lowest is 18mbps Media for nanoFlash \| Convergent Design If they're making these claims about how they shot than I'd say they are genuinely being dishonest.

October 18th, 2010, 07:45 PM	#23
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Your client did NOT get masters. He got screening copies. Unless you know the politics behind it I think your position is that in order for you to deliver the best quality product you need masters. The client may have no clue what that is so it's up to you to explain. Generally it would be XDCAM EX files from EX (as you know them). If it was NanoFlash it would be MPEG2 .mov or .mxf. There are some device that would record to Apple ProRes.