Brandon Kraemer
Forum Replies Created
-
Cutting on FCP7. Shot at 25/50fps. Converted with cinema tools to 25 from 50, 5D is sourced at 25fps. Footage has the same issue regardless on what resolution timeline it is on. Monitoring from FCP in 1080/50i… but looking at sources in QT Pro reveals the same issue on progressive scan monitor.
Crawling lines on anything with bunched up detail or contrast, but also in anything with pattern, like gravel and areas like hair.
Wondering if the issue is working with PAL friendly resolutions?
-
“That Apple, which controls Quicktime, may muck with that in ways that impact Avid and Adobe negatively.”
They already have… Apple mandated Adobe use an updated QT API when they went to develop CS4, the result is you can’t render over an AFP or SMB network if your resulting file is a QT over 2.15 GB. This has thrown a huge wrench into a lot of peoples pipelines. I am well familiar with the recommend work arounds, the fact is this worked for over a decade and now is broken and the workarounds are not convenient for a lot of people. Apple acknowledges this bug and Adobe has publicly stated the two companies are trying to work together but it’s Apple’s issue to fix.
So yea, hopefully there isn’t a repeat of this kind of thing, but this bug certainly took people by surprise.
-
sure…
I’m not the shooter, and I didn’t prep the footage, but it’s my understanding that the footage was shot on the 7D shooting over-cranked and this windows the footage down to 1280×720, where as I am intercutting this footage with 5D sources shot 1920X1080. All footage was transcoded to ProRes422 using compressor first.
Footage looks soft and has very noticeable line jitter as described above. I can’t speak more to the production process, just the post. What variables might I be looking to inquire about as far as the production end?
-
Sorry I didn’t explain that we tried different lenses too. The odd pattern image seems to be in focus, it has detail, so it doesn’t appear like typical dust on sensor artifacts.
-
Yeah, why only FCP Studio 2? Maybe they will bundle the 3 upgrade (for those who need it) with a free license of FCP-X as incentive to try it out in it’s glorified beta release state. Now that would be offering your customer something truly worth their while.
-
Lack of SAN support is for now a non-starter for us, not that we’d jump at this app right now anyway, but no SAN means we can’t even really efficiently test a project with X and I have to assume this is also the case for most larger facilities. I hope this is on the priority list.
I don’t know much about code or development, I am an end user… and I’ve been using NLEs since 1990, but in my guess it would seem that SAN support would be a basic foundation level thing and not an add on like XML. Lets hope I am wrong and it appears soon, but what we’d really like is a direct statement about these and other concerns.
-
While the original poster seems to lack a lot of tact and writing skill when expressing his opinion, I think is point was both misinterpreted and in part correct. This was not a comment about the lack of pro-features in FCPX that people are complaining about.
The original poster was rebutting people who are complaining that putting so-called professional tools in the hands of the masses eliminates the need for professionals. It’s a different argument and one I have seen expressed along with the features complaints on other forums.
It’s not a new argument however. FCP Studio vs. FCPX (+compressor/motion) is only a $600 discrepancy in cost, not that big of a game changer. Adobe CS5.5 Production Premium only cost $700 more than FCP Studio and gives you 5 major applications. The software has been getting more accessible form a cost standpoint for 10 years now.
So I agree, it’s still about your skill level, experience and most of all ones professionalism, which is a good reason to not call each other cry-babies.
-
An interesting thread, among the many on this topic.
In response to the low priority of opening legacy projects expressed by Mr. Ubilos I have this point to draw.
My company works with brands, several very large brands with years of footage acquired for each. Not only is it very important to be able to open old projects on a regular basis and share sequences from them towards new projects, it’s absolutely vital to source the logged footage that exists in our legacy library projects. The man hours that goes into the effort of logging the nuances of this footage is a huge investment for us and it vital to serving the brands we create content for. If there is no way to port these logs and sequences of selects strings than migrating to FCPX is a non-starter. It’s not at all about switching programs in mid project, it’s about all the intellectual capital that is organized in a programs architecture that is unable to be mined. So I agree with others that until Apple talks to the pro-users directly and tells us that there will be the ability to import bins and sequences from legacy projects there is no way we can consider this product.
Furthermore, aside from the working speed provided by a 64-bit version of FCP, there is NOTHING that I can’t accomplish creatively with virtually any other NLE application that requires I use FCPX. You shouldn’t be able to watch a professionally produced product and say, that looks like FCPX. I can solve any problem I need to with what ever tool I use, it will just be a different approach. I don’t see how FCPX as made any other tool I could use obsolete. Therefore cutting off legacy project and product support is a very arrogant move on Apple’s part. I can find a tool that will open my important legacy libraries, it just isn’t apparently FCPX.
-
Bob,
No big shots here… just probing possibilities. You see, we do finish Uncompressed 10bit now, no need to change that. So if we want to deploy a SAN, then maybe that will have to be for offline workflow, or non-broadcast finishing and we use a DAS for the high-end work we currently do.
Not sure where you arrived at the $20k number, I never said that, and the lowest quoted system I have seen so far has been over $30k. I came here to get some expert advice, in specific terms, and your previous post provided some of what I am looking for. Beyond that I will defer to the vendors for specific cost and bandwidth scenarios for our workflow.
Good day.
-
I think you misunderstood the roll of the X-Serve RAID… it is not what we are building around. At most it would become a proxy server for Final Cut Server, or a direct attached box for a finishing suite, which is what it works in now. It would not be mixed into the SAN as a first tier storage server. By future proof I meant that were looking for a bandwidth solution that we can grow into as formats continue to grow. Of course what ever technology one purchases, it’s 50% obsolete once you leave the store with it. Yesterday everything was 1080, today it’s 2k, 4k… tomorrow… ??? So if 4Gbs or 8Gbs hardware allows for some of that top end room to grow into, it might be worth the expense. I hear you though… it’s always changing.
And yes, Uncompressed 10-bit really. We work with lots of motion graphics and compositing in our pipeline and we always want to keep the compression out of the mix till the very end. I have seen ProRes codecs, and to the eye they are very convincing, but that doesn’t always hold up in the pipeline from my experience. I think ProRes is fantastic for offline or reality TV/corporate/web delivery work, but i wouldn’t online with it for national TV commercial broadcast or push it though a composite pipeline for a film out. I don’t want the technology to handcuff the format if there is no need to. But the dedicated suite for this might be a cost effective way to go, as you mentioned.
Thanks very much for sharing the ballpark costs. This is on par with some of the quotes I have seen, but I can see how the Ethernet option is very attractive, saves some serious dough. Worth considering for sure.
Best,
bk