-
fcp to digi, confused about pixel aspect (no broadcast monitor)
Hey there. Basically I am editing tv spots at a home studio without a broadcast monitor and now I am VERY confused as to what is my best quality output method.
My footage is digitised from digi at a facilites house in 422 HQ – I then drop it into a sequence (PAL 25 fps, upper field first). To finish I supply them with a QT at the end to lay back to digi.
SO – my footage is in CCIR pixels… my graphics guy creates the end frames in photoshop in sq pixel (he has assured me this is the way to go, and when he makes them in CCIR they look awful, on a computer monitor…that is…and through QT)
Some of this is also for web output, and when I export a QT (h.264 or quicktime, current settings) all looks soft and very, very ordinary.
I also have one or two renders coming in from afx for each project. they have been arriving in pro res 422 HQ as well, with CCIR pixels, but now I am questioning the fidelity of these graphics also.
These are the only three components (digitised footage/tiff/afx render).
Anybody got any good ideas as to how I can maintain a great broadcast quality – and also generate top quality web based files? Any codec tips/pixel shape help…
Thanks alot,
Tom.(PS – when I export QT as PRO RES HQ it is soft and desat – but when I change my sequence to sq with no field dominance, export QT conversion, PRO RES HQ, it is rich and crisp…once again, on a computer monitor…but I guess my footage is slightly squished that way… how will it look on tape?)
-
7 Replies
-
[Ed Sharp] “SO – my footage is in CCIR pixels… my graphics guy creates the end frames in photoshop in sq pixel (he has assured me this is the way to go, and when he makes them in CCIR they look awful, on a computer monitor…that is…and through QT) “
If they set the correct size for SQ pixels (768×576 or 1024×576) and you check it as SQ in the Browser, it shouldn’t be problem.
However is better if they make the graphics 720×576. Thy only need to set “Correct for aspect ratio” in Photoshop. This avoid a re-sizing in FC.
Rafael -
Thanks for that – I have tried doing it and well, it still looks ordinary in fcp. Was your suggested solution for optimum results on a broadcast monitor?
I just find it weird/annoying that when I set the sequence to sq pixels/no field dominance, everything looks great. Will there be any field issues if I export it as such? Probably…
-
Do you have the Canvas set at 100% and the sequence rendered at Full quality?
rafael
-
I think you’re hitting the wall created by the lack of a broadcast monitor. You don’t have any way to accurately see what your end result is going to be.
You should buy something like a Panasonic Pro plasma or a JVC LCD monitor and an entry level capture card like he Black Magic Intensity, Matrox MXO 2 series, or AJA Io Express. This will allow you to see accurately what is really going on with your output. It will save you the headache of being rejected, and it will pay for itself by not having to redo work.
Arnie
Post production is not an afterthought!
https://www.arniepix.com/ -
Hi there Arnie. I agree with you 100%. Although that is not possible in the next couple of weeks. I fully intend to do that and have looked at (and used in the past with no complaints) the aja boxes.
I should point out I have had nothing rejected so far (in over 3 months using this workflow) – but the variation in my exports is freaking me out. And anyway, they wouldn’t reject if a graphic was a little soft I reckon.
So yeah, my exports from QT reference, QT self contained, and QT Conversion look completely different, which in turn look completely different to the browser/canvas in fcp itself. So which do I use to export my final QT that I then send to the facilites house… get my drift? It is just the pixel ratio thing that does my head in…I guess there are too many variables to figure it out through chat like this… but all ideas are still welcome.
I do work with some HD footage and it is absolutely painless because it is all sq and no dominance already – no stress…
-
Hi Raf,
Yes render is all set to full/dynamic etc – video processing is set to all YUV at high precision.
If I put the canvas to 100% it does indeed look sharper than ‘fit to window’. It is still not ideal, but I guess that means it is at the source (photoshop). The problems with final exports are, well, still a problem.If I indeed set everything to sq and no dominance (despite using PAL footage) will it go onto to tape ok? Will I have field shifts or anything similar? A de-interlaced graphic with bad aliasing..? I wonder…
The variation between exports is astonishing (I mean, between QT Conversion, Self Contained QT etc – I even get tv lines appearing through my cross fades/dip to blacks… but not all of the time…!)
Oh dear.
-
If you intend to export in any standard format (Tape, DVD, broadcast,..) you must keep the standards.
Toast a couple of minutes in a DVD and play it in any TV.
rafael
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up