Andrew Stone
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks Dennis, thanks Kevin,
That is exactly the kind of machine I will need… one that has ample CUDA power to throw at editing and color correction.
To the multitude of Mac based editors that are planning to move over to PC based workflow, you will want to make note of this laptop. Be prepared though for a bit of sticker shock. When you kit it out, the price will range from the high 4s to about 6 grand, if you spec it out with a Dreamcolor display and the high end NVIDIA offering and that was with an 18% discount. The one I configured the way I wanted was $7222. prior to discount… just so you know.
Dennis, similarly is their a desktop machine that would come down in the same category, as a good starting point for an editing workstation?
-Andrew
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
Kevin are there any PC laptops that you could mention that are qualified to use with Adobe Premiere CS 5.x?
-Andrew
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
From page 24 in the manual…
Consumer Level Analog Audio Signals
Can I use H.264 Pro Recorder with consumer level analog audio signals?…
Yes and no! H.264 Pro Recorder is designed to work with professional, balanced, analog audio equipment. It does not work directly with unbalanced, consumer level analog audio. In order to capture unbalanced audio from consumer equipment, a line level converter can be used.
It is not necessary to buy an expensive line level converter. Low cost models exist and do a great job.Please refer to the support note Working with Consumer Level Analog Audio Signals which contains more detailed information including any, inexpensive line level converters that we have tested and have found to work well.
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
Hi Scott,
I am not familiar with the FX1 although I use Sony cameras. I assume your output is 1080i60. The Blackmagic recorder does do progressive output. I assume it can convert the signal to progressive so it should be more useful and subjectively the image should look much better, if your cam does output interlaced video. Progressive video is much more useful as an acquisition format unless your video is going DIRECTLY to broadcast a la ENG material being zipped off for news programming.
Go to the support section of the Blackmagic site and download the manual for the device. It should mention the different ways it can acquire the footage. You can check about conversion as well.
I cannot stress enough how good the footage looks given what it is doing — compressing the footage on the fly. It could give your camera a new lease on life, if you can only capture interlaced and it will output progressive from your cam.
Hopefully someone from BM will chime in soon. They’re on Australian time so they should be arriving at work soon.
-Andrew
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
Too busy with paying work to fulfill your request… Should be known though, the quality of the output, the video is stunning. If you need to produce video dailies of takes on a set or you are producing material that will end up on Vimeo or YouTube, this solution fits the bill to a “T”. If you are looking to produce long form web ready video out of the shoot to post on the web, until they lower the acceptable bitrate scale from 2.0 Mbit to 500 kbps. You need to look elsewhere but the only solution I know of that will do this is the Teradek at over 2 grand and out of the box the Teradek solution doesn’t give you h.264 that directly savable to your computer. You have to buy another $500 piece of software to do this. Obviously the Teradek is aimed at the higher end pro market, who won’t blink at this kind of price tag and the wireless functionality that it affords.
I am hoping that Blackmagic will see the wisdom in providing a lower bitrate as this would make the unit the runaway success that it should be.
Again the quality out of the BM H.264 Pro Recorder is stunning.
-Andrew
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
Thank you for the reply Hersh. It may help matters if there are key components on motherboards that need to be there, like certain chipsets for the USB 3.0 ports and an updated list of graphics cards, this might assist people in finding their solutions.
Gear has evolved significantly since UltraScope was first released so it may be as simple as having the correct USB 3.0 chipset that will give a reasonable degree of certainty that things will work…and of course the graphics card.
Personally I am interested in both a desktop and a laptop UltraScope solution although desktop is a higher priority at the moment.
Good to hear Blackmagic is still actively supporting this product.
-Andrew Stone
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
It is coincidence. I follow Apple stock closely… The stock had gone way down well below “resistance” as the stock people call it, on the 21st. The markets that day had a significant rebound and if you plot the Nasdaq and the Dow against Apple’s stock performance you will see it is just following the market, more or less.
Conspiracy doesn’t apply here as much fun as that would be.
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
Hi Dexter,
I grabbed that URL after doing a search in the support area of the website only a week or two ago. Something got fouled up with their support search engine only recently.
It’s possible they are planning an update to the page and began to work on it.
Anyway, hoping Blackmagic can update it soon as more than a few of us now are building PC systems as we migrate part of our production workflow from Mac to PC and compatibility with Ultrascope, at least for me, is paramount.
I want to know what high end motherboards will support Ultrascope. It would also be good to know if Blackmagic plans to have a Thunderbolt i/o device developed for Thunderbolt. I have heard of one PC motherboard that has a Thunderbolt card.
-Andrew
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
The URL to the minimum sys requirements page is below. However, as mentioned much of the product is no longer available.
-Andrew
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator -
Chris,
You really have to drop this argument that this is all about FCP X being too much like iMovie. The majority of us are concerned that Apple has presented itself as being incompatible with the business requirements of the industry. It is about pulling the current version of FCS and has little to do with FCP X.
I have spelled this out at least once a day for the past week or so and so have many of the long time pros and so has even Apple/FCP apologists like Larry Jordan. Look deeper into this. It is about the industry’s needs and continuity with licensing requirements and not the immaturity of FCP X.
Myself, I am so past this point in the discussion. Right now I am trying to figure out the best way to move forward in a business case scenario and so are many other people and production facilities.
-Andrew Stone
—
Steadicam & Camera Operator