FORUMS: list search recent posts

Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Ashley Heilig
Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 3:48:47 pm

Hello,

Here is my situation:

I'm working in the latest version of Final Cut X 10.0.1 . I shoot weddings, sweet 16s and other parties with a two camera angle. For things like a reception, I am going to start using an external recorder, like the H4n, and just let it run continuously. I am shooting off two 6Ds, so I will have A TON of clips for an entire reception. As of right now I have been using the Mutlicam within Final Cut X, and have been selecting the 2 cameras to synch individual parts (I have been using the internal mic on the cameras as of those point-- budget was an issue, but now I am able to purchase a H4n). I have not been 100% happy with the outcomes of the Final Cut X multicam... they've been off about 40& of the time.

Long story short, I am going to have this massively long 3 hour audio clip and we average 112 GB per wedding-- so there are a ton of clips. Is Pluraleyes the way to go with this scenario?


Return to posts index

James Cude
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 4:21:33 pm

FCPX's own sync should be able to handle two cameras and an audio recorder. Some things you can do to help- match the internal clocks of the cameras so you have a lot easier time matching sync when it's off. Also- add on camera mics to the two cameras so they pick up more signal. When you're syncing by audio, the app is looking for matches in the waveforms- i.e. an audible fingerprint. So, the better that signal the better the match. If it still fails for some reason you could certainly try Pluraleyes.


Return to posts index

Ashley Heilig
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 4:24:22 pm

I know that Final Cut X has a limit of angles... and I would prefer to not have to individualize certain clips.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 4:52:44 pm

You assign the audio as one angle (say Angle C), and then make camera 1 as Angle A, camera 2 as angle B. This is done in the inspector before syncing. You can select all of camera 1 clips and assign the angle, then all of camera 2, etc.

Select all of the clips and audio in the browser, Right clip and make a multi cam clip, Angle assembly by Camera Angle, Angle Clip Ordering & Synchronization set to Automatic, check use audio for synchronization, and FCPX should do a great job of syncing all elements with Camera 1 in one angle, 2 in another, and the audio in another.


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 5:04:58 pm

Yes. All great advice. And don't forget that you need to make sure your footage is labelled with the proper camera angle so the multicam tracks line up.

It's also a fairly simple matter to step into the multicam clip and re-sync clips that don't line up correctly.

When I've used it, I've been impressed.

---------
Don't live your life in a secondary storyline.

Mark Morache
FCPX/FCP7/Xpri/Avid
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Ashley Heilig
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 5:09:18 pm

I will be able to synch all 100+ clips for a reception through the Final Cut X multicam?


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 5:10:53 pm

[Ashley Heilig] "I will be able to synch all 100+ clips for a reception through the Final Cut X multicam?"

Yes.


Return to posts index

James Cude
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 5:14:48 pm

There's a 'limit' of 64 concurrent angles but you're only talking about two cameras. All of the shots from each camera will go into just one angle- one for each camera and then a 3rd audio-only angle for your second system audio.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 6:24:45 pm

Ashley,

The bottom line is that you're stressing over nothing.

X can do this in a walk.

You just need to be patient and learn the process which isn't particularly difficult.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Don Smith
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 20, 2014 at 8:13:16 pm

All good advice but it seems the OP is not understanding that all the clips of one camera will go on to one angle once all the clips have the same camera name. Two cameras and an audio? That's three angles.

It helps that the cameras have wild sound to help sync but I've greatly sped up syncing by also having sync on First Marker selected. While leaving the sound sync checked also use First Marker (and that goes for the first clip of a number of clips) and FCPX will use the First Marker so hone in on sync quickly and then fine tune the sync using sound. You just have to be close on the markers. Don't have to be frame-accurate. I've had projects with many clips sync quickly doing this.

NewsVideo.com


Return to posts index

Dave Jenkins
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 21, 2014 at 4:52:58 am

Make sure all your audio is the same rate. 48k or 44.1 but don't mix and match or it will fail to sync.

Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
Mac Pro 3.5MHz 6-Core Late 2013
FCP X


Return to posts index

Don Smith
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 21, 2014 at 10:29:15 am

Boy, I hate to disagree with Dave but I mix audio bit rates on multi cam and synchronized clips all the time. What you say used to be true under the old Final Cut but with Final Cut Pro X that is no longer a problem.

NewsVideo.com


Return to posts index


David Powell
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 21, 2014 at 3:02:22 pm

Ashley,

I've done a million of these. You DO want Plural Eyes. You do not want to use FCP's sync. PE will do in 20 seconds what will take FCP an eternity (in comparison) and usually won't get the sync right. If you were using long clips then FCP would be ok, but wedding videography tends to have lots of starts and stops. As long as the audio is running PE will do the job so easy its stupid.

Download the trial and test one against the other. You will pull out your credit card so fast to purchase it will make your head spin.


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 21, 2014 at 8:13:25 pm

[David Powell] "I've done a million of these. You DO want Plural Eyes. You do not want to use FCP's sync..."

David, in my experience FCPX is very fast to sync very challenging sets of shots. Once for instance on a two hour 2 camera DSLR shoot the audio device failed to start so we had two cameras with dozens of individual clips and non-continuous audio. FCPX used a combination of audio and time to sync the whole thing up perfectly in under a minute. Even the the couple of places where there was no video was properly timed out.

I had problems initially with sync until I figured out how to properly label camera name, etc, and since then everything works as well if not better than Pluraleyes.


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 22, 2014 at 5:40:54 pm
Last Edited By Atilio Menéndez on Mar 22, 2014 at 11:10:43 pm

In my experience, something which has a HUGE effect on the reliability of sync in FCPX, is the amount of DRIFT of your audio recorder. Even a very small amount of drift makes a difference and it can vary a lot, even among recorders of the same brand and model (the variation among video cameras on the other hand is usually quite small and can be ignored).

My recommendation is to always fix the drift BEFORE importing the audio files into FCPX. You basically do so by very precisely stretching the audio from your external recorder so that it perfectly matches the audio from your camera. The only real work is to first find out the precise amount by which you have to stretch your audio.

You can find this "magic number" by doing the following: Record simultaneously with your audio recorder and your main camera a minute of audio where there are just two sounds, one close to the beginning and the other close to the end. These sounds should be distinctive, short and loud, such as the sound of a clapperboard. Now compare the waveforms of both recordings with a precise audio editing application. If you carefully align the first sound, then scroll to the second sound and zoom in, you will most probably find that the waveforms of both recordings do not match. Now experiment until you find the exact number with which to stretch the external recording so that its waveforms match those of the camera to one sample (remember to keep checking the waveforms of both sounds). This number will be something like 0.00093% or 1.000023%, so it can take some time to find it out, but since it does not vary with time, but only from one recorder to the next, this is something you only have to do once for each recorder.

Now all you have to do from now on is to use this number to batch process the audio files from your external recorder before importing them to FCPX. I have had very good results using the freeware Audacity, both to find out the amount of drift as to batch process the files.


Return to posts index


Mitch Ives
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 26, 2014 at 4:39:27 am
Last Edited By Mitch Ives on Mar 26, 2014 at 4:41:02 am

[David Powell] "You DO want Plural Eyes. You do not want to use FCP's sync. PE will do in 20 seconds what will take FCP an eternity (in comparison) and usually won't get the sync right. If you were using long clips then FCP would be ok, but wedding videography tends to have lots of starts and stops. As long as the audio is running PE will do the job so easy its stupid."

Yep, PE does this better accidentally than FCP X does on purpose. It's all I use, and it's damned fast compared to X.

There are some people that are hell bent on doing everything in X... I'm more of a why not do it better , faster kinda guy...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 26, 2014 at 4:48:53 am

I'm a cheap bastard. For $199, I'd try to make it work without Plural Eyes first. Even if it didn't work perfectly, I can think of many things I'd rather do with a couple of C notes besides buy something that FCPX is supposed to do... even it it doesn't do it quite as well.

---------
Don't live your life in a secondary storyline.

Mark Morache
FCPX/FCP7/Xpri/Avid
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Should I be looking into Pluraleyes??
on Mar 26, 2014 at 6:15:24 pm

[Mitch Ives] "There are some people that are hell bent on doing everything in X... I'm more of a why not do it better , faster kinda guy..."

Exact same reason I choose to use FCPX rather than PE. Why use a 3rd party solution when I can do it just as fast and just as well in FCPX?


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]