Hi All,

I'm trying, together with an Avid certified instructor, on a mac 10.8.5 MC 7.0.3 to see if this is possible. It seems it is not.

We have been through all the options and conclude that MC probably uses the op-atom MXF file's metadata for (re)linking purposes, hence, whatever metadata it is that is being used, it is not re-created identically when creating a new mixdown in a different resolution.

We've also searched google, knowledgebase, the forum etc... but did not find anybody doing this succesfully and explaining how.

Can anybody confirm it is not possible? Or is there a way to trick MC?

Batch - import is the only trick I can think of.

So, create the mixdown, export SAS and batch import pointing towards that file.

" Might " work

Or Mixdown and export SAS to create an external file.

That is your new "source"

AMA link to it and use as any other source.If you need Avid media consolidate.

Pretty sure Avid works hard to prevent mixdowns cross linking. It would be a disatser if that could happen...

Pat Horridge:

It would be a disatser if that could happen...

Thanks Pat, 

Can you elaborate why? Both the instructor and I do not see where the potential disaster is, which obviously exists.

It works if done sequencially. Meaning... I ama link to original media. Create sequence of the ama media. do mixdown (my case 2:1s).  Then create another mixdown (10:1m for multicam). Start editing with mixdown 10.1 media... finished sequence can be relinked to mixdown 2.1s media.

What I cannot do is do another mixdown of identical AMA media, the same original bin.. (in this my case 2:1) and tell the final sequence to relink to that.

I don't know how MC knows where the mixdown came from but as you have proved it does and that allows different resolution mixdowns to be switched in and out via re-link, whch is clearly very useful.

As log as the sequence used to make the mixdown is retained then re-connecting the AMA to it to make a fresh mixdwon should work.

But a new sequence and it won't. I suspect sequences have their own ID (they must have as you can have duplicate names) and that is embedded in the mixdwon.

Pat, Sorry I spoke too soon. I just learned the second mixdown was not a mixdown but a transcode of the 2:1s media to 10:1. Miscommunication with the assistant editor.

At least things are consistent.

Still do you know what the risk is when mixdowns can be relinked?

With all other re-links you can track back to a source to ensure it's the correct linkage. BUt a videomixdown is a new entity so it has no relationship back. SO a re-link could grab the wrong mixdown and you'd have no way of knowing or controlling.

Don't forget everything else has metadata that's robust but a video mixdown doesn't. So each video mixdown is treated by Avid a unique new entity. Do a transcode of that and the new media will be re-linked to the original (as the original mixdwon is effectively a new master clip)

Thanks again Pat,

I'm aware that performing a mixdown disconnects the capabililty to relink to original media.

I'll explain the workflow that was applied..

CAUTION: rant warning towards Avid.

The customer has 4 Canon 5d MKII camera's and 2 Other Canon EOS ... something camera's. All record in h264.

The workflow that was chosen was as follows.

Because of the terrible quicktime performance issue is was clear that working with the media through AMA was a no go. 1st Avid. 

Secondly the Canon camera's span clips but do not include any text or xml file for Avid to know which files to group. Canon.

Inside MC there is no manual way of grouping clips to create a single media file. 2nd Avid.

We tried with clipwrap but that does not create reliable files MC can link to. Clipwrap (could also be an Avid issue?)

Because the customer needs to work with multicam, there is no choice but to manually select the clips in the bin and put them in a sequence. The next step is the killer as Avid has still not fixed the ability to be able to group sequences for multicam. 3rd Avid.

AVID THIS REQUEST WAS MADE WHEN DINOSAURS WALKED THE EARTH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

So to be able to use multicam a mixdown of the sequence is made into the project target resolution as the starting point for the media during editing. For performance reasons the sequences are transcoded to a 10:1 resoltuion so multicam editing is smooth. These sequences are then synced and grouped.

The assistant editor made a mistake during the mixdown by selecting 2:1s instead of 2:1.

Now as a result of:

1. MC's quicktime performance

2. MC's inability to manually group spanned clips

3. MC's inability to use sequences in multicam

4. MC's inability to relink "mixdown" media (the 4th Avid) 

There is no other way then to create new 2:1 mixdowns from the AMA media and manually replace, including stepping in and stepping out because of colour correction and other effects the clips inside the final sequence.

It's 2014 Avid!!! How long is the Canon 5D on the market and how popular are these DSLR cams and h264 in general? Seriously...  (censoring my own swearing here)........

End of rant warning.

See my earlier reply.

AMA the source clips (with the right hardware accpetable playback is possible so hardware issue not MC issue)

Create sequence of spanned source clips to join elements. Add audio and sync if need be.

Video mixdown to finishing quality (DNX185 most likley) do not make offline res from that mixdown!

Replace the seq video track with the new mixdown masterclip.

Export same as source from those sequences. These exports become the new source files.

AMA those source files into MC. As Avid media you should get realtime playback. But if you need offline quality transcode those new master clips to offline quality.

You will never use the original camera sources as the new DNX185 clips will become your new sources and will work with mulitcam etc.

een doing it this way for some years now. Works well for lots of problematic cources.

 Pat,

In my rant mood I forgot to confirm that indeed your export after first mixdown is the workaround that would make this work. 

Thank you both Tomas and Pat for suggesting that workaround. Stepping out of avid managed media by creating new quicktime files is the way to go.

Still I asume you both agree the time has come for Avid to finally fix these workflow discrepancies.

I'd have to say no.

Understanding how Avid works and it's strengths and weaknesses means I can use it's strength to my advantage and create workflows that avoid it's weaknesses.

I have a long list of things I want and need Avid to address bu this wouldn't be on it because there is a simple solution and workflow for it.

I'd put a bigger project selection window showing project frame rate as a much higher "please fix" topic.

 But by all means add it to the feature request forum. Which I'm assured is monitored by Avid even it does seem to be a black hole....

Pat Horridge:

this wouldn't be on it because there is a simple solution and workflow for it.

The workaround has the disadvantage that the high res media needs to be kept twice besides the original media. Once in a quicktime file format, once in an avid media file format. Of course drives are cheap but on shared storage it becomes a different story.

Of course I agree with you not all these requests require priority1 attention. Only the quicktime performance issue does and AFAIK Avid has already escalated that to a level 1 priority.

I'll follow your advice and make a post in the feature request forum.

The original camera media doesn't need to be retained on the shared storage. Just keep the backup that would have been made originally. The new sources are all you need to keep online.

Currently, Avid Media Composer Relink Command does allow the user to relink a video mixdown master clip cut into a sequence.

Testing the relink command with a selected Sequence and a selected video mixdown Master Clip using Media Composer v8.4.1 with Symphony option, Mac OS 10.10.5.

Below is video mixdown master clip timecode populated in column heading results.

Project Format > Presets: 1080p/23.976

Timecode:

Start - "No clips were relinked."

Auxiliary TC1 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC2 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC3 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC4 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC5 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

TC 24 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Aux TC 24 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Film TC - did not test

Project Format > Presets: 1080p/23.976 (Film Option 35mm, 4 perf)

Timecode:

Start - "Track -1 not found."

Auxiliary TC1 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC2 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC3 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC4 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Auxiliary TC5 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

TC 24 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Aux TC 24 - worked to relink a video mixdown and switch back

Film TC - did not test

In the bin I selected the sequence and a video mixdown master clip and used these relink settings

In Media Composer, before I use the relink command for relinking a sequence to master clips, I use the Clear Bin Memory button found in the info tab of the project window.

Pat Horridge:

I'd have to say no.

Understanding how Avid works and it's strengths and weaknesses means I can use it's strength to my advantage and create workflows that avoid it's weaknesses.

I have a long list of things I want and need Avid to address bu this wouldn't be on it because there is a simple solution and workflow for it.

I'd put a bigger project selection window showing project frame rate as a much higher "please fix" topic.

 But by all means add it to the feature request forum. Which I'm assured is monitored by Avid even it does seem to be a black hole....

No offense, but here is my reply to the desperate rant above.Yes, there are many long-time MC editors being driven nuts on a daily basis dealing with variations on the DSLR /H264 /Spanned-Not Spanned/ NG-Timecode/ start-stop/ multi-camera nightmare. One false move and you are totally lost, as the example above demonstrates. Meanwhile, competing NLEs are touting their multi-camera solutions, and we perpetuals are supposed to embrace our venerable kit's "weaknesses" and salute hard-drive wasting, wackadoodle workarounds as "simple solutions"? I like simple too, but please pay close attention to this oft-requested feature request. Black holes can and do collapse. It's necessary in these competitive times to bring forth a major improvement in how MC/Symph handles multi-camera workflows.