-
AJA & Blackmagic use same UC right?
-
[Sean ONeil] “It’s just not true. Sure, hardware conversion is better than software conversion. BUT, hardware conversion is not better than NO CONVERSION AT ALL – which is exactly what firewire xfer is.”
Sean
that would be true if all of the binary conversions were the same. The deck/ camera hardware conversion is certainly better than anything else ( especially FCP)
I agree with Jeremy…
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows -
[gary adcock] “that would be true if all of the binary conversions were the same. The deck/ camera hardware conversion is certainly better than anything else ( especially FCP)
I agree with Jeremy…”
This isn’t a matter of optinion. You two are just misinformed. Badly misinformed. Sorry to be so blunt about it but that’s the 100% incontravertable truth, regardless of who’s pictures are up at the top there.
Gary, using the deck’s hardware decoder (and prefering it to the software decoder) is absolutey fine. Many people feel that way, especially with DV25. But this only makes sense if you are capturing to uncompressed or ProRes. Capturing back to the same format it used to be, means you’re still using the Apple software codec. And it’s taken a hit.
Where you’re wrong is that there is no conversion when capturing firewire. None. Nothing is being altered. Period. FCP doesn’t convert/encode FW data streams. It captures raw data and records the 1’s and 0’s exactly how they were recorded on the tape. That’s how it works. Just like copying a quicktime file from a firewire hard drive to another disk. Or importing a P2 card.
You don’t like Apple’s software decoder? Then you should capture it uncompressed or ProRes. Again, by re-encoding it to DVxx, you’re in the same place you were if you used FW capture. The software still does the decoding for playback The only difference is now the video has also taken a hit.
So what you are saying has to do with playback. Not capture. Let’s look at capturing.
If you capture SDI, there is still no “hardware conversion” taking place inside a Kona card. FCP/QT still does the encoding. Software encoding. The Kona 3 doesn’t have a DV encoder, or a DVCProHD encoder. It has hardware that HELPS the software codec crunch the numbers. But it’s still the Apple software codec.
Jeremy, you mentioned the Kona’s scaling non-full raster footage on ingest is what you think helps it. Well it doesn’t work that way. Trust me. When you output SDI from a deck, it’s already full raster. The deck is scaling it, not the card. SDI doesn’t transmit 970×720 video. The Kona card will scale when converting NTSC to HD, etc. But it doesn’t do the 970×720 to 1280×720 conversion. The deck has already taken care of that.
One can certainly argue that the hardware decoder in a deck is better than the software decoder in FCP (like Gary did). That’s fine. That is an opinion, which I respect. And most people agree with it for DV25 footage. That’s why it’s beneficial when capturing to uncompressed or ProRes. But if you’re encoding it back to it’s orginal format (like DVCProHD) then you completely throw away what you were hoping to achieve. You now have DVCProHD files on your Mac, and the Apple software codec is being used during playback.
And all these times this topic has come up, I have yet to see any literature stating that lossy SDI capture of DVCProHD is somehow equal or better. This is from the AJA web site:
“The Panasonic DVCPROHD format takes advantage of KONA hardware as well. KONA
-
[Sean ONeil] “Jeremy, you mentioned the Kona’s scaling non-full raster footage on ingest is what you think helps it. Well it doesn’t work that way. Trust me”
First of all I didn’t say that because I know it’s the deck that does the conversion on input to FCP. This is my whole entire point.
[Sean ONeil] “One can certainly argue that the hardware decoder in a deck is better than the software decoder in FCP (like Gary did). That’s fine. That is an opinion, which I respect”
Read my posts again. This is the argument I have been making.
Anyway it’s Friday and I’m off to drink beer and grill pork chops.
-
[Sean ONeil] “Where you’re wrong is that there is no conversion when capturing firewire. None.”
Never said there was, my comment was based on the original discussion about converting formats when capturing and that all bits are not created equally. The discussion started as the difference between the way AJA and BMD do conversions when capturing over HDSDI
In that space/ with those regards my statement stands.
“Gary, using the deck’s hardware decoder (and prefering it to the software decoder) is absolutey fine. Many people feel that way, especially with DV25.”
I have only cut in HD for the last 5 years, I will leave the DV discussion to you.
“If you capture SDI, there is still no “hardware conversion” taking place inside a Kona card. FCP/QT still does the encoding. Software encoding. The Kona 3 doesn’t have a DV encoder, or a DVCProHD encoder. It has hardware that HELPS the software codec crunch the numbers. But it’s still the Apple software codec.”
only partially accurate, yes if you are talking about the SD compressed content, but many people like me only use the compressed content (like DVCPROHD) for offline work. My HD masters are always raw uncompressed or lightly compressed original files, preferably DPX, D5 or HDCAM SR.
“There is a HUGE difference between “virtually indistinguisable” and “it makes it look better”. I think the language is pretty clear. It still looks almost as good despite taking a hit. Most people could never tell the difference. Nowhere does it claim to be better than FW capture.”
You are mixing the statements between jeremy and I.
It is always better to capture baseband video if you plan to do more than just cuts, as the depth of the larger color space offers better latitude for effects, conversions, transitions and the like. There is no comparison between working in a compressed space vs working in the decompressed version of the same file and that is what I am referring to.
[Sean ONeil] “Now that we have ProRes, why even bother with this kind of workflow?”
you trust apple way too much. it is not the only way
Since the first ProRes film out tests are just coming to light, and while impressive, there are still issues to be dealt with in any compressed workflow.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows -
[gary adcock] “you trust apple way too much. it is not the only way
Since the first ProRes film out tests are just coming to light, and while impressive, there are still issues to be dealt with in any compressed workflow.”
You’re comparing uncompressed vs. compressed. I’m 100% with you on all that (however, there is the new feature to capture native, but render non-cuts only to ProRes).
The basis for my arguments is primarily people taking a DVCProHD VTR, using the SDI output, and capturing it with there Kona back to DVCProHD. And using that as their online.
Sean
-
Right, this new “FCP 6 workflow”: capture the highly compressed HD formats over Fire Wire in their native state, and set the Sequence to render in Pro Res or Uncompressed. This makes so much sense on so many levels — everything from quality to drive space. No offline/online operations.
I’d love to hear about some folks who are actually doing this on a regular basis. Is it working as well in reality as it does on paper?
– Christopher S. Johnson
-
[Sean ONeil] “he basis for my arguments is primarily people taking a DVCProHD VTR, using the SDI output, and capturing it with there Kona back to DVCProHD. And using that as their online.”
But that is a necessary evil, there are any number of facilities that need and have to do just that. It is much more common than you think, especially in larger operations with dedicated machine rooms, and a limited number of decks.
there is never a single answer or solution to a problem, and just because it does not work for you does not mean that it is not viable.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up