[Alan Okey]

Relevant link:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/12/30/apples-latest-mac-pro-continues-to-cause-problems-for-professional-users

[Alan Okey]

A few questions:

What kind of Mac are you using? Laptop? Desktop?

What kind of storage interfaces do you have on your computer? USB? Firewire? Thunderbolt?

Will you be editing multicam sequences?

What are the specs of the ProRes footage you’ll be editing (frame size and frame rate)?

What is your budget?

[Alan Okey]

[Walter Soyka] “You might want to compare Teranex output with Alchemist output. It has been a long time since I’ve done format conversion, but Alchemist was superior a few years ago and I’m not sure that BMD has actually changed Teranex.”

We’ve actually done some blind tests recently at my workplace comparing NTSC to PAL conversion using Teranex and AmberFin, and everyone viewing the test preferred the AmberFin conversion in each example.

[Alan Okey]

I’m frankly shocked that he wasn’t stopped and harassed by airport security.

[Alan Okey]

Effects > Audio Filters > Final Cut Pro > Gain

You can add 96dB of gain using the Gain filter vs. only 12dB using the audio level bar in the timeline or the audio level adjustment in the viewer.

[Alan Okey]

https://support.google.com/earth/answer/148137?hl=en&ref_topic=2376767

[Alan Okey]

[Eric Barker] “Can someone give a definitive answer as to what LCD TVs are really displaying to the viewer?

A) old-fashioned upper/lower, on/off combing (like CRTs)
B) 60th-of-a-second refreshing, but with each field remaining up for a 30th? (like I described above)
C) 30th-of-a-second refreshing, but with both fields going through a hardware deinterlace process (so what we’re really seeing is technically 30p).
“

It’s actually none of the above.

LCD and plasma displays are inherently progressive display technologies, which refresh the entire screen all at once rather than in alternating fields, like CRTs.

When given 1080i60 source material, circuitry in modern plasma and LCD displays perform realtime motion-adaptive deinterlacing on the fly, essentially converting 1080i60 into 1080p60. Of course it’s not as crisp as true 1080p60 would be, but the fast refresh rate increases the perceived resolution. It’s also why 720p60 is perceived as being as sharp as 1080i60. I’m not sure if it’s still the case, but ESPN actually used to broadcast in 720p60.

You can see a similar effect in practice when watching a DVD on a computer. Most DVD playback software (and definitely Apple’s DVD Player software) perform realtime motion-adaptive deinterlacing on interlaced SD footage, so what you end up seeing on your computer screen has the same temporal resolution as watching interlaced SD on a CRT. The software is actually converting 29.97 interlaced into 60p on the fly. That’s why DVD footage that originated as either NTSC 29.97fps interlaced (60 fields per second) or PAL 25fps interlaced (50 fields per second) will retain the “live video” look on playback on a computer screen rather than looking like 30p or 25p. An exception would be the web. It’s extremely rare to see any online video with a frame rate higher than 30p, although it’s technically possible to stream 60p.

As far as 24p in the broadcast TV world goes, 1080i60 will contain 3:2 pulldown with interlacing (exactly like NTSC SD), and 720p60 will contain 3:2 pulldown but using duplicate whole progressive frames instead of split interlaced frames. As far as what ends up being displayed on an LCD or plasma from a broadcast signal, it will either be 1080p60 (synthesized from 1080i60) or 720p60, each containing a pulldown cadence of duplicated frames. It can be illustrated using letters as sequential frames thusly:

AA BB CC DDD EEE (repeat)

Where things get more complicated is if you’re playing back true 24p source material from a DVD or Blu-ray player connected to an LCD or plasma. In that case, the footage can be displayed at its native progressive frame rate without pulldown being added. The refresh rate of the screen will vary depending on the model of TV. It might be refreshed at 24Hz, 48Hz, 72Hz or higher, but the frame rate doesn’t change – you’re just seeing the same frame refreshed at a multiple of the base frequency.

An exception to this is what is in my opinion the completely awful “smooth motion” 120Hz processing in many modern LCD and plasma displays that synthesizes new interpolated frames between existing frames, thereby making everything have the motion quality of live video. It’s the first thing I turn off in the menu settings of any TV I come into contact with. You’d probably not be surprised to learn that I absolutely hate the look of the 48fps HFR versions of part 1 and 2 of The Hobbit. The difference in temporal resolution results in a very different psychological experience for me, which I liken to watching an episode of a soap opera versus experiencing a cinematic masterpiece. For me, higher frames rates have the look of something that is happening, versus 24p looking like something that happened. I find the 24p look to be much more complimentary to dramatic material, as it helps to provide a sense of detachment from reality.

Hope this helps.

[Alan Okey]

That’s easy – I would definitely take the tower. For me, the combination of dual CPUs, my investment in PCI cards, superior internal storage capacity and easily upgradable GPUs easily trump a small form factor and lower power consumption. I really don’t care about Thunderbolt.

[Alan Okey]

[Simon Ubsdell] “It was actually Conduit that go me into the wonderful world of compositing in the first place – it was an amazing discovery. There’s no better place to start learning and the results you can get with it are pretty much as good as it gets.”

Thanks for the fantastic work, Simon!

For me, it was Combustion (RIP) that got me into compositing, then Shake (also RIP), but I got into Conduit several years ago back when dvGarage was still selling it (version 1.5 and 2.2).

As brilliant and comprehensive as your tutorial is, I couldn’t help but feel that the project felt cumbersome to put together in Motion. I kept thinking how much faster it would have gone in Conduit or in any other node-based compositor. It’s difficult (for me, at least) to really see in detail what’s happening in a layer-based system like Motion compared to seeing a node tree. However, you’ve done a masterful job of achieving great results in Motion.

For anyone who is interested in seeing Conduit in action, I highly recommend Alex Lindsay’s excellent tutorial videos on the dvGarage site:

https://www.dvgarage.com/conduit-2-samples

[Alan Okey]

[Dave LaRonde] “Let’s do the arithmetic: 50 MB per second”

That should be megabits per second, not megabytes.