Spot, thanks for your response. I guess part of the attitude that's coming through in my post stems from the discussions I've had with tech support at a couple manufacturers. I do hate it that I seem to know more about HDV timecode than tech support - it seems that there are few in these companies who understand production workflow.
Granted, the men & women of Madison have done better than almost anyone in developing a tool in Vegas that lends itself to very efficient workflow, and I do want a tool that can go as fast as I can. I recently got 3 solid days of training on FCP, very interesting, and it does shine at some things. But Vegas supports good workflow in a way that FCP doesn't touch.
What gets me is how we've been let down at every step of the way with HDV timecode, from the manufacturers developing the spec through the chain of camcorders, recorders, and post tools all the way to me. They
have dropped the ball and dropped it hard, IMO.
Here we have the so-called more professional HD version of the very popular DV format. I love it, I like the pictures, I'm ok with DI, faster hardware, etc., but how could they
how could they have cooked this format with less timecode functionality than DV? If anything, HDV is more likely to be used in multi-camera or double-system sound production than DV, but a major synch tool used for decades in pro video and reasonably well supported in DV is just gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle
We've looked into this for our own software or as a third-party gen tool, and it's just not that simple, not if frame-accurate is your goal. There might be some potential changes now that we're starting to see next-gen HDV tools from companies like Convergent Design, Miranda, etc.
|
Woe is me, would that it be so. I'd love it if VASST's efforts helped solve this problem.
Frame accurate. Well, really, what would totally satisfy me is a starting timestamp in the file header, as in the BWF timecode spec. Just that would give me all I need to easly acheive rough sync, and Vegas' sample-level slip'n'slide is extraordinary for fine sync.
Quote:
HDV does not transmit timecode via firewire, so there has to be a regen or other means of pulling the information without using the tape. It *is* part of the HDV spec, just no one is passing it. It's a hardware manufacturer issue, not a software issue, but it's a problem all the same.
|
The information that I've received is different than this, though I really don't know if it is right. I've been told that HDV cameras do put TC up in the firewire stream, but that hardware manufacturers do not have a standard place for this info in the stream.
If so, my read is that software manufacturers have not been sufficiently motivated to write capture/transfer utilities that look for TC in the various places it has been put in the FW stream. That would be a time & money issue. But maybe your info is better and the hardware people eviscerated TC to keep prosumer gear out of professional workflows. It wouldn't be the first time.
Regardless, the manufacturers who contributed to the spec also make software. If it isn't Sony Media Software, Sony Corp. certainly deserves criticism for helping to create this mess. Forgive my attitude, but it still pisses me off!