-
Recapture uncompressed or do in FCP
I need to reconstitute a project at SD, uncompressed, that I’ve cut in DV. The original footage is in DV.
Here’s my question: would footage recaptured from a dvcam deck uncompressed look better than footage that is converted in FCP by simply dropping dv clips into an timeline with uncompressed settings?
My film is 30 minutes, but has only a couple minutes of actual dv footage. the rest is all stills, titles and other sorts of material.
-
9 Replies
-
https://www.lafcpug.org/Tutorials/basic_chroma_sample.html
Should answer your questions. BTW, what are you outputting to?
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
i’m outputting to digitbeta, ntsc
-
[Christopher Pavsek] “Here’s my question: would footage recaptured from a dvcam deck uncompressed look better than footage that is converted in FCP by simply dropping dv clips into an timeline with uncompressed settings?”
Recaptured footage will most likely look better. However, you can insert DV footage into an uncompressed timeline and you will most likely need to move the footage 1 scanline in order to eliminate the reverse interlacing.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Creative Genius, Biscardi Creative Media
https://www.biscardicreative.comNow in Production, “The Rough Cut,” https://www.theroughcutmovie.com
Now editing “Good Eats” in HD for the Food Network
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!” – Adam Savage, Mythbusters
G5 Dual 2.0, AJA Kona 2, Medea FCR2X
-
FCP5 will position the DV footage correctly now I think – if you put out of field order footage on a timeline, it will put a new field flipping plugin directly onto the footage.
For DV mastering to digibeta, you’ll notice a very slight difference as capturing DV over SDI will smooth the chroma. What you have to weigh up is which is quicker:
Recapture DV over SDI as uncompressed or,
Add Apple’s 4:1:1 chroma smoother to the DV footage and put in an uncompressed timeline and re-render.
Both will produce equally good results as my tests show.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
thanks all.
graeme–the smoother filter is the option to take for me, then. not worth doing the recapture. and i think you are also right: fcp 5 seems to position the clips properly.
if not, i assume it is solved by moving the clip up one pixel, no?
creative cow is great.
-
-
Let me ask this further now (Graeme–i had asked you a similar question in a personal email).
I also need a pal copy of my project. I was considering two options:
1: Laying off to digibeta NTSC and then dubbing to PALdigibeta at a facility with an Alchemist. I’ve been told htat will look good.
2: reconstituting the project as a PAL FCP project and converting the few video clips i have to PAL using Nattress G-converter and then laying off to PAL digibeta on an uncompressed FCP system.
The advantage to 1 is ease. Just dub it. Cost is good too. 150 dollars with stock.
The advantage to 2 is the following, perhaps: my film has a LOT of titles (my work is “experimental” and i use lots of text, some of it quite large and with quite bold colors, including NTSC-hating reds and blues. PAL would handle these colors much better. The final viewing of this project will be at festivals with video projection so color saturation and trueness seem important.
Any thoughts? Am I nuts to think that hte color I’d get in option 2 would be better?
Will a transfer NTSC to PAL with an alchemist get aroudn that problem?
-
Let me ask this further now (Graeme–i had asked you a similar question in a personal email).
I also need a pal copy of my project. I was considering two options:
1: Laying off to digibeta NTSC and then dubbing to PALdigibeta at a facility with an Alchemist. I’ve been told htat will look good.
2: reconstituting the project as a PAL FCP project and converting the few video clips i have to PAL using Nattress G-converter and then laying off to PAL digibeta on an uncompressed FCP system.
The advantage to 1 is ease. Just dub it. Cost is good too. 150 dollars with stock.
The advantage to 2 is the following, perhaps: my film has a LOT of titles (my work is “experimental” and i use lots of text, some of it quite large and with quite bold colors, including NTSC-hating reds and blues. PAL would handle these colors much better. The final viewing of this project will be at festivals with video projection so color saturation and trueness seem important.
Any thoughts? Am I nuts to think that hte color I’d get in option 2 would be better?
Will a transfer NTSC to PAL with an alchemist get aroudn that problem?
-
Yes, there’s a balance. The Alchemist will probably do the video sections a little better, but re-doing the graphics in PAL will give you both a resolution and quality advantage that the alchemist conversion won’t give you. As your project is mostly graphics, I’d go the “home” conversion route, if you like the look of your video converted with the free demo of the standards conversion.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up