• Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy

  1080i 60i NTSC to PAL

  Posted by Graham Jones on July 22, 2011 at 4:37 pm

  Hi,

  We just made an international sale to Thailand, and need to convert thirteen 1/2 hour 1080i 60i NTSC shows to PAL.

  The sale was not a lot of money, so we can’t afford a hardware conversion like a Terranex or Alchemist. We totally understand they’re the best, but need a lower cost solution (especially as we can deliver this on hard drive, and save the tape cost too).

  I have been doing some research, and the word seems to be that Compressor doesn’t do a great job, is quite soft, and occasionally has glitches when converting interlaced footage, due to the optical flow technology.

  I have heard better things about the Nattress Standards Converter… however, on the Nattress site it only mentions it being compatible up to FCP 5, and there’s no mention of using it with FCP 6 or 7.

  Also, most of the information on the web about both Compressor and Nattress-based conversions is quite old.

  With the new Compressor 3.5 or 4.0/X, are there still the same quality issues?

  Does Nattress Standards Converter 2.5 (latest) even work with FCP 7?

  Is the Nattress Standards Converter still higher quality than the newest version of Compressor?

  Are there any other software solutions we should be looking at? We don’t mind a little softer conversion, but can NOT afford any glitches.

  Thanks,
  Gray Jones.

  Graham Jones replied 14 years, 9 months ago 2 Members · 4 Replies
• 4 Replies

• 

  Graham Jones

  July 22, 2011 at 4:45 pm

  Just a note that I heard back from Graeme Nattress:

  ==

  Hi Gray,

  It works great with FCP7! For HD sources remember to set field orders to upper.

  Compressor can theoretically get better results than my plugin, however, when I tested it on it’s best settings it was around 30 times slower, and hence impractical. At lower settings that rendered faster, compressor looked worse. The plugin therefore sits in the nice sweet spot between those extremes. Best thing to do is try the demo and see how it looks to you.

  Graeme

  ==

  Still looking for other feedback… is it true that albeit slow and impractical, Compressor’s best settings will produce a higher quality output than the Nattress plugin? What about glitches?
• 

  Graham Jones

  July 22, 2011 at 5:06 pm

  One more response from Graeme Nattress:

  ===

  Hi Gray,

  Well…. My plugin is not adaptive in the way that compressor is – so the quality is constant. With compressor on full, it’s very adaptive with optical flow, which can work wonders, but sometimes breaks, producing artfacts. At it’s best, it’s better – when it breaks….

  Best thing is to try the demo and see. Set motion blur on my plugin about 15% for best resolution.

  Graeme
• 

  Chris Borjis

  July 25, 2011 at 4:27 pm

  [Graham Jones] “Is the Nattress Standards Converter still higher quality than the newest version of Compressor?

  Are there any other software solutions we should be looking at? We don’t mind a little softer conversion, but can NOT afford any glitches.”

  you’re good to go with Nattress then. I just did a documentary with it and it turned out much better than compressor did.
• 

  Graham Jones

  July 25, 2011 at 4:59 pm

  Thanks!

Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up