-
Multi-Format sequences in 6 = AOK
-
And can’t you decide to render to ProRes in the render settings of the sequence? I would think that would be the best way to do it, that will avoid any compression to dv or whatever.
Jeremy
-
[JeremyG] “And can’t you decide to render to ProRes in the render settings of the sequence? I would think that would be the best way to do it, that will avoid any compression to dv or whatever.”
Yo Alfred!!! You might be onto something there. You keep surprising me with your genius….
I’m going to check file sizes right now for SD ProRes422 vs. normal unc. 10-bit. If ProRes422 in SD has smaller file sizes it would kinda be a no brainer.
I’m testing as we speak… The Girlfriend is coming over straight away though, so I might have to get back on this one later.
David
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Post-production Supervisor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles -
[David Roth Weiss] “The Girlfriend is coming over straight away though, so I might have to get back on this one later.”
I’m sure she will appreciate the testing you are doing. My girlfriend does, there’s nothing more romantic than talking about rendering to ProRes on a holiday weekend.
-
[JeremyG] “there’s nothing more romantic than talking about rendering to ProRes on a holiday weekend.”
Jeremy,
Wow, here are the compelling if not romantic results…
1-min of DVCProHD downconverted to ProRes422 NTSC 48 = 894mb
1-min of DVCProHD downconverted to 10-bit unc. = 4.7gb
Now that’s compelling…
David
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Post-production Supervisor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles -
[David Roth Weiss] “So, I was tinkering under the hood a bit to see what exactly was going on behind the scenes with the multi-format thingie, and I stumbled upon the scale numbers in the motion tab. Somebody at Apple was really using their noggins on this feature, just so we wouldn’t have to use our’s anymore. That’s exactly what those Apple engineers should be doing, cuz hopefully they’re a whole lot smarter than us artists.”
I hate to break it to you guys, but this isn’t new. FCP 5 has always done this. The only difference now with 6 is that you get a green bar instead of an orange one. Obviously that’s huge, but as far as the genius math work – they already did that a long time ago.
Sean
-
[Sean ONeil] “but as far as the genius math work – they already did that a long time ago.”
Actually they changed, it. In FCP5, the clips wouldn’t scale, it’d simply move down a pixel. IF you looked the motion tab, the center value would be 0,-1. This is what I would prefer instead of scaling it.
-
[Taran Reese] “Cutting off an odd number of fields, like 3, would shift your field order, wouldn’t it? My understanding is that you’re supposed to shave off an even number of fields (0/6, 2/4, 4/2, 6/0) to maintain the existing field order. This is what Compressor does last time I checked.”
No it works correctly. Apple shifts the image by 1 frame when you do this to compensate. I believe it puts a “shift fields” filter on there.
This is what FCP 5 does. I assume it’s the same with version 6.
They’re not stupid. The FCP designers know how to transcode between 480 and 486.
Sean
-
[Sean ONeil] “The FCP designers know how to transcode between 480 and 486.”
Au contraire. David said that his clip was scaled, hence all that math.
Jeremy
-
[JeremyG] “Au contraire. David said that his clip was scaled, hence all that math.”
I misunderstood. That sucks, I hope they fix it.
But what I was also saying is that 480->486 issues aside, FCP 5 has always scaled clips when mixing formats. Put a DVCProHD clip in a SD timeline in version 5 and it scales it properly.
Sean
-
[Sean ONeil] ” FCP 5 has always scaled clips when mixing formats”
Got ya. In the case of going from sd<->hd<->sd, this makes sense, but in the 486 to 480 scenario, scaling seems like it would hinder more than help.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up