Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Tim Wilson] ” the newest version of Liquid was very FCPX-like: one window, insanely nimble, with a lot of extra power (albeit presented modally) that neither FCPX nor anyone has really attempted at the same degree — outstanding CG (DIRECTLY tied to the broadcast engine of Deko that was one of the core drivers of the whole thing), a terrific integrated DVD authoring interface (the best I’d seen), and the best multi-format support on the market — including uncompressed.”
I think I am the only one who ever stated the cool attributes of Liquid. I used to own it.
[Tim Wilson] “Liquid was compelling technology to reach a market where Avid had no play…but it was by no means easy money.”
Liquid was way a head of the the other NLE at the time.
[Tim Wilson] “It happens that Liquid (with the Blue hardware configuration) was the only Avid product that supported uncompressed video at the time.”
Liquid could also edit HD without additional hardware. It used the GPU back in 2004 right as Pinnacle was buying out Fast Multimedia. Fast implemented background rendering in 2000.
[Tim Wilson] “To be honest, I was surprised that Xpress Pro lasted for another couple of years, but not at all surprised that Liquid carried for years after that — again, 5 years as a product, and supported for 2 more years after that.”
? Avid stopped development of Liquid in 2007. There was no Liquid 8 or as Avid stated. Liquid 8 means Liquidate.
[Tim Wilson] “Certainly enough to set to rest the fiction that Avid bought it to kill it.”
I think they bought Liquid to implement the background rendering and GPU acceleration into Avid MC.
[Tim Wilson] “It died a natural death as Avid focused on exactly what they should have been focused on in post, where Liquid lived: dual-platform, team-oriented, feature and TV editing.”
I think Liquid was purchased to help improve MC.
[Tim Wilson] “I still treasure every cycle I spent working on Liquid and its community — and it was a huge part of what I did my last year-plus at Avid.”
Are you saying after Avid bought Pinnacle the Avid folks started doing the coding for Liquid in the USA? I thought the development team for Liquid was in Munich Germany.
[Tim Wilson] “I was also nuts about the Pinnacle product folks I got to work with, in both post and broadcast.”
I don’t think I ever seen you post about the Liquid software. I have many times.
[Tim Wilson] “What he said to us afterward was that we’d had it coming. We weren’t doing well enough. We needed to do better.”
As I have stated a few times Avid had background rendering and GPU acceleration before FCPX but the credit needs to go to Fast Multimedia and Pinnacle Systems. I think Avid made some very bad choices by ending my software of choice but I am not biter. I don’t post hate for Avid daily. I used to edit on a Mac based MC. I liked it but times have changed.
[Tim Wilson] “While most Apple customers are happy enough with the outcome, I simply refuse to believe that they wouldn’t be happier if they insisted on the same level of accountability from Apple displayed by other industry leaders, and Apple actually did it. Nothing bad comes from public accountability, and it’s silly to argue that it does.”
I know some FCPX users would not dare to question Apple but I would.
-
https://videoediting.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=31409-1
“Another jewel in Pinnacles crown that enticed Avid was its unique HDV codec used in its Liquid line of video editing software, which is capable of working with footage from the new HDV camcorders in its native form.”
I am not sure it was the HDV codec. I think it was the fact that Liquid made use of the GPU and that is why it could edit several layers of native HDV at a time when FCP, Avid, Edius etc all crapped out. As of now HDV and even AVCHD is easy to edit.
[Shane Ross] “This happened with Matrox and the RT Mac.”
The RT Mac was cool. I seen a demo. It used the native GUI of FCP instead of plugins. Very cool.
[Shane Ross] “But then Avid bought Pinnacle and didn’t do ANY advancement on any front, really not sure whey they even did that.”
Avid let everything at Pinnalce become obsolete. I think they wanted to port the features of Liquid into the Avid MC but found out it could not be done. They should have kept Liquid and drop MC. I know it sounds like blasphemy but…
“Pinnacles HDV editing capability is in Liquid and will soon be in Studio, and its certainly one of the things that I think makes it a compelling product. But I wouldnt single that out, actually, as being an overwhelming factor. Its just a factor. Its part of what maintains competitiveness in a market which is rapidly adopting HD”
I think Avid knew Liquid was a much better NLE than MC but they didn’t want a FCP7 to FCPX situation. I think Avid thought there would be rioting in the streets of Hollywood if they asked the editors to switch their NLE of choice.
Having said that I think the FCPX users can tell you first hand how awesome the background rendering and GPU acceleration features of Pinnacle’s Liquid are. For the record I don’t know why it took Adobe and Apple so long to implement GPU acceleration. Would Pinnacle’s Liquid have gone beyond a trackless editing paradigm if it were still being developed? Who knows?
-
[Scott Thomas] ”
Wasn’t Avid’s reaction to FCP, to buy Pinnacle to kill their hardware IO for FCP?”I think Pinnacle had already stopped support of the Targa 3000 (Cinewave FCP) for Premiere Pro prior to Avid buying Pinnacle. Pinnacle got the Liquid software to work with the Targa 3000 pretty easy. It was called Liquid Chrome. Avid I think wanted to transport the super cool features of the Liquid software to Avid but Avid never did get it to work with Media Composer at that time. Keep in mind Apple had to create FCPX many years later to get the features of Fast/Pinnacle/Avid’s Liquid software. It might be much harder to implement background rendering and GPU acceleration than Avid had thought. Avid should have dropped Media Composer and keep developing Liquid. I know that sounds like blasphemy but where would Liquid be in 2017 had Avid kept developing it? From what I understand the Munich (German) team that worked on Fast/Pinnacle/Avid was always in control of the development of the Liquid software (it developed faster than MC). Avid stopped development of Liquid software after Liquid 7 because Avid had to Liquid 8 the software.
They did actually say that.
Liquid 8 = liquidate. Pun was intended by Avid.
-
Not sure what all you need for the TV station. Are you trying to stream live TV? There are several products than can hook up to a broadcast switcher for live streaming. It is the cameras, switcher, audio board and intercom system that should be of most concern. We used to use a Camplex system that allowed for component video, return video and the intercom system to all be fed through one BNC cable. I think they went out of business.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “[andy patterson] “Interesting? I am not doubting you but I hope to a get a client with a DV deck (I doubt it will happen) so I can test it out for myself. ”
If you want more info, here is a link to a pretty comprehensive look at it by Graeme Nattress, ”
Chroma Sampling: An Investigation”.https://www.nattress.com/Chroma_Investigation/chromasampling.htm“
Interesting. They did mention the Apple DV codec. I wonder if the Canopus DV codecs would yield a different result. I know Canopus made DV converters form $50.00 all the way up to $3,000.00 ( 3000) with SDI, component etc. They even had a Fire Wire converter that would convert to HDV. I think it was the HD 50. Not sure if the Canopus ADVC 700 would yield a different result but I think it looks cool.
https://www.vtservice.kiev.ua/images/mod_catalog_prod/18/13001859980.JPG
-
[Shane Ross] “[Oliver Peters] ” I would point out that there was an SD i/o product that converted to DV. That’s the Canopus ADVC-110, which would take in and/or put out composite SD, s-video and DV.”
I believe this is something in which Andy is very aware of, as he has one and talks about it a lot…even has videos about it.”
You are correct. I like to post a quick video tutorial if I think it will help. I love the IEEE Fire Wire converters just because they are so easy to use (no drivers). Don’t get me wrong the BMD Intensity Shuttle is awesome but the drivers can be buggy at times. Not sure about AJA drivers. Having said that it was interesting hearing about the SD to HD conversion process using 3rd party hardware. It sounds like a pain in the buttocks to me but it was a very interesting to read. You, Oliver and myself are into hardware. I know most people don’t like discussing 3rd party hardware but for some people it is still needed. I will not look at VHS video or SD sequences/timelines on a computer monitor when Premiere works so good with 3rd party hardware. The IEEE Fire Wire converters work great for outputting to the old SD CRT monitors. To bad they are no longer made for the occasional SD project that sneaks up.
-
[Dan Powers] “In my first example, is premiere messing with the interlaced file in some way to make it look bad?”
There may be a bug. Can you download a newer or older driver for the Ultra Studio?
[Dan Powers] “This is using Black Magic Design Ultra Studio 4K with pretty much the best gear out there.”
I did not know you had 3rd party hardware. That will make my other post obsolete. The moderators have to approve my post.
[Dan Powers] ” Also see the same results just viewing on the edit screen.
Playing an interlaced video clip looks bad unless I modify it to progressive and change sequence setting back to progressive.”Are you on a Mac or PC? Interlaced video never looks good on the computer screen. All I can say is my interlaced video looks fantastic using the Intensity Shuttle and Premiere Pro. Some times the BMD drivers are buggy.
-
[Dan Powers] ”
Is there ever a reason to have the source media in a timeline set to anything other than progressive?”Yes! If your project is going to be broadcast at 1080i.
[Dan Powers] “Any time you have a field interpreted source file and edit with that file, the resolution in premiere looks like crap.”
That is what the 3rd party hardware from BMD, AJA and Matrox are for.
[Dan Powers] “Does not matter if the sequence setting is set for progressive or for upper. Unless you Modify the interpretation to progressive, it will get hammered.”
Interlaced video never looks good an a computer monitor.
[Dan Powers] “Using an interlaced source in an interlaced sequence and then mastering to interlaced will always look bad in comparison on the air.”
Not sure how the video is getting to the station. If for example they accept HDV tapes or even if it was SD DV tapes they should look fine using an interlaced timeline/sequence.
[Dan Powers] “In my opinion a post production work flow should always be progressive (allowing the fields to pass untouched) unless you have to disturb the field alignment of the source file (enlarging, blurring, etc).”
Not if it will be broadcasted at 1080i.
1080i is a fantastic way to edit if you use Premiere Pro and have broadcast compliant hardware. You can drop 1080P and even 720P video into an interlaced timeline/sequence and it will play back smooth on the broadcast compliant hardware. Motion graphics will look AWESOME in an interlaced timeline provided you have broadcast compliant hardware! Do not use the computer screen for client previews when editing 1080i sequences/timelines!
If you have to output for broadcast compliant 1080i investing in the Intensity Shuttle for $180.00 might be money well spent. I wish I had bought mine earlier. The image quality of 1080i on broadcast compliant hardware really does look awesome but you have to see it for yourself. As I stated earlier even 1080P looks good in a 1080i timeline. The video link below might be worth watching
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Oliver Peters] “[andy patterson] “You are saying FCPX can capture using the BMD, AJA and Matrox products?”
Nope. Didn’t say that. FCPX wants to see something that looks like a connected camera. Therefore it has to be a DV/HDV stream over Firewire of something else via adapter. This eliminates all standard i/o products. From the FCPX manual:”
Thanks for clarifying. So as it stands FCPX will only work with cameras and devices that use the IEEE Fire Wire based protocol.
-
[Oliver Peters] “When it comes to pure scaling from progressive to progressive, you’d think that would be pretty well equal, but it’s not. I just did a test today with some drone footage. UHD 29.97p down to 1080 29.97p. I tested Edit Ready, Compressor and Adobe Media Encoder. Of the 3, AME did the best job. ER had a lot of visible aliasing on fine detail, which is something I hadn’t expected at all. I had also expected Compressor to be better than AME, since AME was using OpenCL and not a software conversion. But, in fact, AME looked better.”
That is good to know.
[Oliver Peters] “Then in these conversions, you have other factors that are often something one can’t really predict. This ties us into the discussion of DV and FCPX capture. So, first the DV part. With FCP “legacy” and a Mac tower you could do a direct DV capture over Firewire. This was a data transfer and, therefore, shouldn’t have induced any extra loss. However, back in those days you had professional DV decks and the AJA Io. If you took a DV tape, played out through a pro decks’ component analog or SDI connections into the AJA Io, you got a better-looking image. This was not because of compression, but because the DV deck had extra electronics to actually process the output video. A lot better image from a Sony pro DV/DVCAM deck versus tapping the DV output from a cheap deck or a camcorder. Typically this would clean up tape drop-outs and other tape artifacts, which were usually passed through on the DV stream.”
Interesting? I am not doubting you but I hope to a get a client with a DV deck (I doubt it will happen) so I can test it out for myself.
[Oliver Peters] “Now as far as FCPX is concerned, it can capture these signals, but only as a live stream. Essentially the software is “mounting” the tape deck like a camera card, so you have no deck control or mark in/out of segments with batch capture. So yes, you can capture into X, but it’s a “dumb” process (not intellect, but interactiveness).”
You are saying FCPX can capture using the BMD, AJA and Matrox products? Can it output back to a Sony HDCAM SR deck or just to a monitor? This thread may have went off course but it has been very interesting. It is good to hear about real world situations when using FCPX, Premiere Pro, AME, Compressor, AJA, BMD, Matrox etc.