Bill Buchanan
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks, Craig. I’ll give it shot.
Bill
-
Steven:
You seem a bit annoyed for my posting a question, the premise of which I know (or should know) is not possible? By osmosis alone, you should by now be aware that in any field, especially film/video production, questions addressing issues believed or even proven to be impossible are the very ones that spur certain folks into action and/or invigorate those already trying to make the impossible possible.
Imagine where motion picture technology would be today had there not been hundreds of people who ignored what was considered impossible at a given time back to and perhaps before Muybridge. If not for them, I suspect we would today be sitting around staring at flip cards while speaking in tongues, instead of going to movie theaters where everything we see and hear is wonderously impossible.
Somewhat related to the issue at hand, Professor Abbe no doubt heard “That’s not possible, and you know it!” more than once as he developed his optical “impossibility.”
Of course it is today “impossible” to stretch a square into a rectangle without distorting the image other than by cropping it. But I bet that in time, some pimply-faced hacker who gets off hearing, “That’s impossible.” will come up with a way. If and when that happens, he or she will soon be working and hanging out with Lucas, Jobs or Gates.
In answer to your question: “…What would it look like?” Well, if there were people in the shot, they would look like 52% of the men, women and children living in Garland and Houston, Texas; Critically obese.
Bill Buchanan
Buchanan Film Co.“Let not the wind at your back be your own.”
–Shakespeare–
-
Tim: Essentially what I was asking was: Can a square be made into a rectangle without distorting its contents? As everyone knows, all one must do to convert a 4:3 frame into a 16:9 is crop the top and bottom, then blow up what’s left to fill a 16:9 screen, which of course degrades the overall image. Laying black bars over the top and bottom and NOT blowing it up, leaves the black bars visible on the screen, but doesn’t degrade the image. If the 4:3 frame has been shot anamorphic, no problem stretching it out, of course.
The impossible solution I hope might exist,is a process that would stretch a 4:3 frame out to 16:9 (that was NOT shot anamorphic) without distorting the image. Would that be a nifty piece of software or what?
Bill Buchanan
Buchanan Film Co. -
Adam: I was afraid it was, but thought I’d ask anyway, since what might be impossible today, might not tomorrow. Thanks for the response.
Bill
-
Perhaps Bayu’s query is indicative of expectations engendered by many if not all software manufacturers’ marketing aimed at folks new to the game. It should come as no surprise to any of us, when an editing app sooner or later appears that will handle ALL the decisions required in the creative editing process. In addition to choices related to the juxtaposition of shots and their lengths, it will determine the appropriate pace of the project.
The human “editor” need only input (using Notepad) the storyline and theme of the project and choose the photographic look or style from a list not unlike those already available from outfits like Red Giant. The app will analyze all the footage in the library, determine which shots/takes or portions thereof are right, design titling layouts, font styles, determine and execute any correction/compositing/sfx necessary and the hundreds of other decisions that the “editor” was once burdened with. Imagine clicking “OK,” then sitting back (or going to lunch) while the ultimate app generates another network TV series or car commercial.
Bill Buchanan
Buchanan Film Co. -
I believe it’s up to Adobe to come up with the “work around,” as in the next version being a truly professional-level editing app that can handle long-form projects. I am just starting the creative editing of a 2 hour doc, which has about 4,700 clips categorized in about 50 bins, using just under 4TBs of storage. I’ve created folders on the volumes/arrays representing every bin. The work around I will use is to generate a number of projects, each one representing a portion of the master project, importing only those folders containing the shots I might need for that particular project segment. I’m hopeful that by keeping the shot library as small as possible for each segment, editing that segment will not slow down as yours has (and mine has on previous shows).
Although my sys has 3gb of ram and the “pae switch” turned on whereby xp can use up to 4gb of ram (instead of just 2), adobe tech informed me that PPro can only address up to about 1.8 or 1.9 of ram.
I don’t have a clue what PPro is doing while you/we wait for it to process a cut or change or whatever when the project reaches that ‘magic’ slow-down point.
I am, as I’m sure everyone else is who works in long-form, anxious for 64-bit apps, hardware, drivers, etc. to arrive. According to the techheads with whom I’ve spoken, that will resolve a great many issues that are making life difficult for the long-form crowd.
Bill Buchanan
Buchanan Film Co. -
Tim:
Why then when doing a render using 10-bit footage in PPro1.5, using a BMD Decklink card, is the resulting render file, when checked for “properties” indicate its a 10-bit “clip?”
Bill Buchanan
-
You’re right. I talked with an Adobe support guy today, who confirmed that Prem Pro 1.5 would run on a 64 bit sys, but until they release a 64-bit version, there was nothing to be gained, since 1.5 is coded for 32 bit systems. The guy did however suggest that they had received many requests for a 64 bit release and felt that was in the works.
Bill Buchanan
-
Thanks, Mike for clearing that up.
Bill
-
Peter:
Thanks for sharing your take on Vegas 6. As I replied to Luke on the BMD forum, your views have convinced me to stick with PPro for now.
Bill