Chris Reynolds
Forum Replies Created
-
Thats fine but it still makes our life harder as every online tool still has the pixel aspect set to 1.42. And you still haven’t answered my question as to which one is right
1920 x 1080 or 1050 x 576 as they don’t match up!!! Make it a preference if you have too.
Software is about ease of use!! Not having to manually scale objects in the x and y to fit comps. As we are in the cross over period for the last couple and probably the next couple of year we are constantly working with both SD and HD. As a graphics artist they preferred pixel aspect ratio of 1:1 hence why we work at 1024 x 576 in SD. If I make a circle at 1024 x 576 and pull it into any of my online suits which we have all been doing for the past 15years it look like a circle. That is with operators who have a train eye. We have broadcast monitors in all those suites along with plasmas. So if we can’t tell the how one earth is the public going to tell. I even measured the circle with a ruler and it is a perfect circle. So one again please explain? I am not some student at home who has FCP on his Imac. I own a post house and have been working with every software package that exists for post production for a long time. One of the most important things it having a standard, and Adobe has just broken that.
Cheers, Chris
-
Thats fine but it still makes our life harder as every online tool still has the pixel aspect set to 1.42. And you still haven’t answered my question as to which one is right
1920 x 1080 or 1050 x 576 as they don’t match up!!! Make it a preference if you have too.
Software is about ease of use!! Not having to manually scale objects in the x and y to fit comps. As we are in the cross over period for the last couple and probably the next couple of year we are constantly working with both SD and HD. As a graphics artist they preferred pixel aspect ratio of 1:1 hence why we work at 1024 x 576 in SD. If I make a circle at 1024 x 576 and pull it into any of my online suits which we have all been doing for the past 15years it look like a circle. That is with operators who have a train eye. We have broadcast monitors in all those suites along with plasmas. So if we can’t tell the how one earth is the public going to tell. I even measured the circle with a ruler and it is a perfect circle. So one again please explain? I am not some student at home who has a cracked version of FCP. I own a post house and have been working with every software package that exists for post production for a long time. One of the most important things it having a standard, and Adobe has just broken that.
Cheers, Chris
-
Unfortunately it is not that simple. I wish it was. Any footage that you import has to have a pixel aspect attached to it. So it you work with a comp that is 1024 x 576 which we do so it works with the rest of the suits. Then you have to manually scale every clip that you throw into that comp to fit.
If both Adobe and BBC think they have it that right then how do you fit a 1920 x 1080 (which is 16:9) into a 1050 x 576 comp. It doesn’t fit they are two different sizes. So even in there own program you to manually adjust the scale on the x or y axis to fit the footage.
So Adobe which one is correct. 1920 x 1080 or your 1050 x 1024?
Cheers, Chris
-
Adobe has got it wrong! I completely understand pixel aspect ratios. I have been doing this for long enough to have grey hair and I did start when I was 19. Thats why I use the square pixel example as each pixel is square 1:1. So how does 1050 x 576 equate to 16:9? It doesn’t. Regardless of all of this it needs to match up to any finishing system as you can’t master out of after FX. So anything you do in after FX unless in HD will not simply import into Flame, Smoke, Quantel, Avid DS FCP and so on. Next thing Adobe will tell us is that HD is accually 1955 x 1080!!
Rant over, Chris
-
Hi David
That unfortunatly doesn’t change the way a clip is imported nor does it change that fact that it is losing is state after copying and pasting. Hope they fix this soon.Cheers, Chris
-
Hi David
I completely agree with everything you are saying with the exception of blaming FCP. If you now put a clip that is progressive and has been interpreted as upper into a progressive timeline it will play fine. BUT if it needs to be rendered due to a basic motion, speed change ,etc the FCP drops one of the field (and btw I never look on anything but a broadcast monitor in all my suites!) This is a big problem because I am now spending half of my day switching clips from upper to none. It is almost as painful as pressing the arrow key back one frame every time I need to mark an out point in the timeline. Don’t get me wrong I have based my whole company on FCP because for comercial work I found it one of the fastest editing packages around. It just seems to me they keep adding things that are slowing the basic thing down.Cheers, Chris
-
Sorry but that is not correct. Fields have alot more to do that just transcoding. If you drop a upper field first clip say a graphic that sould be none into asequence that is set to none then it will be deinterlaced (Which is not good) If I render out of a third party app as progressive then I have to change it on import into FCP to none as my timeline is none. So once I have 3 or 4 different timelines as none and I would like to put them all into the one timeline aka copy and paste then all the clip default back to upper first and any clip that sould be progressing gets every second field droped. Does that make sence?
This is a big problem!! and after spending only one week after upgrading all the suites we are spending alot of time pressing apple 9 and change the clip to none.
Cheers, Chris
-
Just make it a pref. It will be the best upgrade FCP has ever had!!! The 3 best NLE I have ever worked on were Light works edit* and DS (before avid avidised it) and the out point was correct. I had to replace my keyboard the other month because the back arrow had given up (to much editing!) IT AN EXTRA KEYSTROKE on every O KEY you hit when your editing. I know the x key mark it right but the x key is not often a solution with 3 point editing. It has been bought up enough times, and yes we are all getting sick of discussing it so make it a pref. I would rather that when I am editing than more reltime effects that we will see in the next version.
Over and OUT, Chris
-
WHAT KEY STROKEs WOULD IT ADD. NONE!!! I ony have two word to say EDIT* and Lightworks both have the out as and out. Not one frame later. They are also the two best editing systems I have ever cut on. I have worn out my arrow back key!!!
Chris.
Applying for a programing job at apple so I can change this myself.
-
Lightwork is much more like cutting on film and it has the out point as out. Much more friendly way of editing and less keystrokes.