File Manipulation

[rob.gordon]

Hi there.

I have the perfect project that I wanted to use Workflows for but unfortunately there seems to be a few issues that I am unable to resolve that you might be able to help with?

I have files from a camera without proper filenaming or timecode so I need to generate files that are usable within a post production workflow. My plan was to create ProRes master files to use in the online and MXF Avid media for the offline, an easy task for Workflows you would think?

My first issue is that in order to rename the source with a consistent structure my files end in the date so for example: A001_B001_1234_200730.avi - Workflows takes the last numbers of the file, in this case my date string (200730) and strips it from the filename and uses this as the timecode generator. This is fine for a file sequence where you may want the frame numbers removed but that may not be what you want to use as the timecode, also it removes that string from the filename but leaves it intact for the tapename field so I end up with  ProRes and MXF files with the incorrect filename but the correct tapename and wrong timecode! If I ‘ cheat’ the system and add _000000 to the end of the source filename I can get Workflows to generate the correct timecode that I am after (in this case 00:00:00:00) and filename but the _000000 is left in for the tapename! There needs to be an option to force timecode to be a specific value within the parameters of the node, especially when there is no embedded timecode in the source media and the same with tapename. There needs to be an easy way to ensure that the tapename can be generated consistently with the filename.

The second issue is with frame rate. My source files are inconsistent frame rates but I need to bring a consistent value to them. In this case, sources can be 30fps but I need to make everything 25fps. The way Workflows handles this is inconsistent with the way Ultima handles it. I do not need any sort of retime, I just need to tag the newly generated files with the updated frame rate. If I being the source media into Ultima in a 25 FPS project and keep it frame for frame and compare it to what Workflows has generated the duration matches but there is some shift in the actual image timing? It is like Workflows is applying some sort of retime when changing frame rate rather than just tagging the files as the intended frame rate?

Any advice appreciated or if any of those Missing features could make in into a future release I would really appreciate it!

Thanks.

 

[rob.gordon]

I’ve done some more investigation into the frame rate issue.

 

Workflows IS just keeping the rendered file frame for frame, which is good. If I align the ProRes file made in Workflows with the source file in Ultima they aren’t in sync, despite the timecode matching. If I move the Workflows file down by 1 frame then the two files are in sync but not timecode alignment. It seems the Workflows file misses the first frame in the sequence but the source file in Ultima is missing the last frame of the sequence! So each file, despite being the same length contains a unique first or last frame, the source file having a unique first frame and the Workflows file having a unique last frame! I’m confused how this is possible? Any suggestions as to the reason why Ultima and Workflows would present a file differently?

Edited July 25, 2020 by rob.gordon

[Miguel Angel Doncel]

Hi Rob, 

yes you can use workflows for that. let me give you some ideas for your issues:

On 7/25/2020 at 11:54 AM, rob.gordon said:

My first issue is that in order to rename the source with a consistent structure my files end in the date so for example: A001_B001_1234_200730.avi - Workflows takes the last numbers of the file, in this case my date string (200730) and strips it from the filename and uses this as the timecode generator.

by default, workflows uses "_" as the separator for the frame number. but in your case, it could be a good idea to change it to ".". that will avoid the interference with the date field in your name convention

To change it, go to Workflows->Name Convention Manager->Open Name Convention Manager

and create one with this name convention: [path][baseName][.frame][.ext]

After that, you can select it for your workflows with workflows->current Name Convention

That way, the software will not detect the date as a sequence anymore. That should fix the tape name, and the time code issues in one go. 

 

On 7/25/2020 at 11:54 AM, rob.gordon said:

The second issue is with frame rate

by default transcoding nodes maintain the FPS and resolution nodes from the inputs. but you can overwrite the FPS field in the transcoder node properties. in Transcoding->FPS if you put 25 there, it will not retime the sequence, but write 25 in the output file as the new FPS (so the final sequence will last longer maintaining all the frames).

There should not be any retimer applied. if you see any difference, it could be a bug, we will test it to be sure it is working correctly and update you ASAP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Miguel Angel Doncel]

On 7/25/2020 at 1:27 PM, rob.gordon said:

I’ve done some more investigation into the frame rate issue.

 

Workflows IS just keeping the rendered file frame for frame, which is good. If I align the ProRes file made in Workflows with the source file in Ultima they aren’t in sync, despite the timecode matching. If I move the Workflows file down by 1 frame then the two files are in sync but not timecode alignment. It seems the Workflows file misses the first frame in the sequence but the source file in Ultima is missing the last frame of the sequence! So each file, despite being the same length contains a unique first or last frame, the source file having a unique first frame and the Workflows file having a unique last frame! I’m confused how this is possible? Any suggestions as to the reason why Ultima and Workflows would present a file differently?

please give us 24h to check this and we will get back to you ASAP.

[Cristobal Bolaños]

Hi Rob!

First of all, thanks a lot for the feedback and detailed messages you wrote to us. They were extremely helpful.

Indeed, we have identified a discordance between Workflows and Boutique when it comes to render fps conversions. The dev team is already aware of this issue and will for sure fix it as soon as possible, so Mistika Workflows and Boutique are consistent between each other. 

Once gain, thanks a lot for your collaboration :)

 

Cheers,

Cristóbal

 

[rob.gordon]

Thank you both for the replies. 

I’ve tried changing the name convention as you suggest, Miguel, but then the process just errors out and says ‘No input file(s) found’ - I am guessing it really needs to see a frame number in the filename to be happy so I tried naming my source file A001_B001_1234_200730.000000.avi to see if adding the .000000 before the extension would make it happy, but it was then giving an error saying ‘Unable to create Render’. The only time it seems happy is when it has the [_frame] in the name convention?

I tested another file with the FPS change and this time it kept the first frame but dropped the 5th frame and from there it was 1 frame out of sync with the source, so there is definitely something unusual going on with how it is handling the FPS change, but it appears that you have been able to recreate this issue there so hopefully you can solve that one.

Thank you so much, I feel that Workflows has the potential be a really useful tool!

Rob.

 

[rob.gordon]

So further to this I’ve just tried another .avi file. This time I still get the 1 frame shift but, interestingly, Ultima places a repeat frame of the first frame in the ‘source’ file and loses the last frame. Could it be that Ultima isn’t handling the .avi correctly where as Workflows is? This is all very interesting!

Edited July 26, 2020 by rob.gordon

[Miguel Angel Doncel]

Hi Rob, we have fixed the bug with the TC. 

if you want, I can  contact you directly to send you an installer to test if it works for you

 

kindly yours

 

Miguel

[rob.gordon]

On 8/1/2020 at 8:13 AM, Miguel Angel Doncel said:

Hi Rob, we have fixed the bug with the TC. 

if you want, I can  contact you directly to send you an installer to test if it works for you

 

kindly yours

 

Miguel

Thank you!

I’ve sent you a messenger message!

Rob.