Arc Nevada
Forum Replies Created
-
Ben Holmes,
Boo Boo, I never said FCP causes a lose in quality. As others have stated, like myself , who actually know what they are talking about it depends on the method used. You even admit the video will look jerky for parts with fast motion using FCP. So FCP is not doing as good of job as a telecine would with a Goerge Lucas Film.
Boo Boo, I never said progressive is not acceptable format. Can you read English? If the station demands PAL are you going to shot in NTSC and then converter the footage using FCP? NTSC, PAL and progressive all have their place.
Kris Anderson,
Please show me the contradictions. I am just glad I know what I am talking about unlike yourself. Keep in mind I was the first to go against what everyone else was posting because I knew I was right. If you agree or disssagre it makes no difference to me. You can continue to but heads with the techs if you want
One day soon progressive may become the standard but as of now it is up to all of us in video production to meet the specs of the station.
-
Paulo Jan,
My comments remain the same. I am not saying progressive is better or worse than interlaced nor did I say the interlace has more data. The amount of data is the same but during the conversion data can get lost because of the field vs frame method. If the station needs interlaced footage you should just shoot and edit with interlaced footage. You are fighting an up hill battle when you don’t need to. It would be like useing interlaced vido for a film project. It could be done but it would not be wise.
I think you have got some good info that will help you see the light.
-
Larry asbel,
That is what I was saying but I did not think it was important to get to technical about the scan line method. In the end the motion data is not there when converting because the interlace method relies on two fields that alternate as opposed to one single frame that is quick. They both have scan lines with the same amont of resolution data but when converting some of the data might get lost. Some programs will only use half the data of the full progressive frame for interlacing progressive video although there are many ways to do it. Others can interpolate the missing data to give a better image (Telecide). In the end I think we can all agree motion data is absent and quality could be lost when converting. The technician at the station was right. I never said interlaced video had more data or better resolution than progressive but when converting data can be lossed. I think everyone gets the idea now. Until my first post everyone was totaly lost.
-
Matthew
Canopus and other companies have filters that will make the fields look like frames. It does work. I think they interpolate the fields. FCP may have a decent film filter but I can not say for sure. That would be the better way to achieve the film look. The filters will manipulate the video to sync with the NTSC and PAL fields.
-
Paulo Jan,
I admit you may have some very good transfering software as far a resolution is concerned (it may interpolate) but in the end the data is not there to have smooth motion for every frame/field of NTSC. You can use it but it would be wise to opt for NTSC or PAL depending on your location.
-
24 fps or 25 fps makes no difference. I admit one extra frame would have a tad bit more data but in the end the full frame size of 640 X 480 is reduced to repeated odd and even fields of 320 X 240. You will not get the film look or quality you want. If you have a DVD burner and software that burns progressive and a DVD player that plays true progressive hooked up to a high end projector then it will look good (full 640 X 480). It should play back OK as an uncompressed AVI or quick time file on the PC or Mac.
640 X 480 is just a reference resolution I used for this thread.
-
I dissagree with the comments made thus far because they are not correct. The guy at the station is 100% right although no one has stated the correct reason why.
24 FPS progressive should only be used if you are going to out put a transfer back to film. Film does not have interlaced fields and will look OK with fast movement. On the other hand 24 FPS progressive will look like crap on a NTSC or PAL system because there is indeed not enough information for each field. Say you had 640 X 480 progressive scan at 30 FPS. The fields will only be 320 X 240 and they will be repeated twice for each field (NTSC 60 field). If you had 640 X 480 progressive at 60 FPS it would look much better because there is more data. Each frame would still have 320 X 240 of data for each field (odd and even) but the data would be different not repeated. It would look smoother. Use NTSC or PAL if you are going to broadcast over the airwaves.
There is a time and place for 24FPS and progressive scan. If you were to make an actual film that would play in theatres you would want to record at 24FPS. If you used NTSC or PAL mode to record your film you would need a reverse telecine process to transfer to film. It would be retarted to record in NTSC mode for a film release. It would also be retarted for anyone to use 24FPS progressive if the final out put is for broadcast. Movie theater films shot in 24 FPS will look OK on TV but that is because they are using a telecine type system to make it look good.
I would have expected better answers from the FCP crowd. Any way there is the correct answer. You will not get a film look if it is broadcasted in NTSC or PAL because the progressive frame size of 640 X 480 is broken down in a very crappy way. You would get a film look if your final out put was to film.
I am not sure about the siz of resolution for yuor camera but it does not matter. The theory is the same.
-
How do you like the realtime editing of Edius? I think the RT is amazing but the GUI needs some work.
-
I am hip to 3D animation. While Premiere Pro may look almost as good in RT preview mode as it does rendered that is not the case for 3D animation. 3D animation must render in order to get the light through transparency and soft shadows to look 100% real. Realtime Open GL is only so good.
-
In my opinion Premiere Pro works good enough with a mere 2.66 GHZ Core 2 Dual fro DV-25 adn DV-50. You get a good RT preview and then you render it out. I know the Matrox card does not have to render back to DV-25 tape but it does not take all that long to render. The AJA or Black Magic cards might give you a slight boost because it does have hardware to help read the DV codecs.
I used to use a Canopus DV Storm with Premiere 6.0. The suport was not bad but with the new Premire Pro and a Core 2 Dual I don’t miss it. I can lay down uncompressed with DV-25 and it works great. I can even do PIPs with the RT preview mode set to highest quality. I admit the DV Storm would out put to DV in RT rather than just give a good RT preview.