I've read the manual but I'm thinking it is leaving an important step or two out.
Embarrassing a bit but I could use a another noggin or two here.
I have 3 cameras shot on XDCAM HD. I have imported the proxy mxf files into my project folder (V8c).
The manual says:
1) Turn on Quantitize to frames. Done.
2) Turn off Ignore Event Grouping. Done.
3) Select your clips in the project media window. (I have selected all 3 cameras clips in the project media window.) Done.
4) Add clips to timeline. If using synchronized timecode, choose Lay Out Tracks Using Media Timecode. Done.
5) The result is a pair of tracks for each camera with events aligned on timecode. WRONG!
When I do this all of the clips are placed onto ONE track on top of each other according to timecode but not as takes. In fact there are minute and a half dissolves in a couple of cases between the clips on the timeline. Basically they are a mess. (I want to note for those who may wonder, I have not accidentally turned on multicam mode or tried to create a multicamera track prematurely.)
I tried to do my own workaround and decided that I would create the individual camera tracks myself with each camera on a separate track. I did this sequentially using the Lay Out Tracks Using Media Timecode option. I highlighted one at a time, in the project folder, the specific camera I wanted for each track. But I quickly found out that this doesn't work because Vegas always lays the clips onto the timeline from the very beginning of the timeline when this command is executed so my cameras wind up not being in sync on the timeline. (I realize I could manually sync them or use PluralEyes but I'm trying to understand how to use multicamera correctly in Vegas.)
So, all of this takes me back to this question. Why doesn't Vegas create "pairs of tracks" for each camera selected in the project media folder when I use the "Layout Tracks Using Media Timecode" option?
The only thing I can come up with is maybe because there a duplicate clip names in the project media folder as XDCAM HD mxf files are sequential starting with C001S01.MXF, C002S01.MXF, C003S01MXF etc. However, that shouldn't be a factor since each file comes from a unique id folder that is part of xdcam workflow in Vegas for conforming. Vegas always understands how to correctly conform the clips to full resolution when they have identical clip names so I really can't see this being an issue.
One final question. Is it possible to edit content from just one camera (the one with the audio track) and then use that as I guide to lay in the other camera choices and choose which shot will be hot? Or must you first first build the multicamera track?
If I can't figure this out, I know that if I manually synchronize the cameras on separate tracks it will work correctly when I "create multicamera track" but I shouldn't have to manually synchronize them on separate tracks. From what I understand, Vegas should put the camera clips on their own tracks and they should be synchronized according to timecode.
BTW, if anyone is wondering I have verified that the code is as expected and there are no problems there.
Erik
Embarrassing a bit but I could use a another noggin or two here.
I have 3 cameras shot on XDCAM HD. I have imported the proxy mxf files into my project folder (V8c).
The manual says:
1) Turn on Quantitize to frames. Done.
2) Turn off Ignore Event Grouping. Done.
3) Select your clips in the project media window. (I have selected all 3 cameras clips in the project media window.) Done.
4) Add clips to timeline. If using synchronized timecode, choose Lay Out Tracks Using Media Timecode. Done.
5) The result is a pair of tracks for each camera with events aligned on timecode. WRONG!
When I do this all of the clips are placed onto ONE track on top of each other according to timecode but not as takes. In fact there are minute and a half dissolves in a couple of cases between the clips on the timeline. Basically they are a mess. (I want to note for those who may wonder, I have not accidentally turned on multicam mode or tried to create a multicamera track prematurely.)
I tried to do my own workaround and decided that I would create the individual camera tracks myself with each camera on a separate track. I did this sequentially using the Lay Out Tracks Using Media Timecode option. I highlighted one at a time, in the project folder, the specific camera I wanted for each track. But I quickly found out that this doesn't work because Vegas always lays the clips onto the timeline from the very beginning of the timeline when this command is executed so my cameras wind up not being in sync on the timeline. (I realize I could manually sync them or use PluralEyes but I'm trying to understand how to use multicamera correctly in Vegas.)
So, all of this takes me back to this question. Why doesn't Vegas create "pairs of tracks" for each camera selected in the project media folder when I use the "Layout Tracks Using Media Timecode" option?
The only thing I can come up with is maybe because there a duplicate clip names in the project media folder as XDCAM HD mxf files are sequential starting with C001S01.MXF, C002S01.MXF, C003S01MXF etc. However, that shouldn't be a factor since each file comes from a unique id folder that is part of xdcam workflow in Vegas for conforming. Vegas always understands how to correctly conform the clips to full resolution when they have identical clip names so I really can't see this being an issue.
One final question. Is it possible to edit content from just one camera (the one with the audio track) and then use that as I guide to lay in the other camera choices and choose which shot will be hot? Or must you first first build the multicamera track?
If I can't figure this out, I know that if I manually synchronize the cameras on separate tracks it will work correctly when I "create multicamera track" but I shouldn't have to manually synchronize them on separate tracks. From what I understand, Vegas should put the camera clips on their own tracks and they should be synchronized according to timecode.
BTW, if anyone is wondering I have verified that the code is as expected and there are no problems there.
Erik
