David Roth weiss
Forum Replies Created
-
Randy,
I worked on Discreet Edit for about a hundred and ten years, now I’m working on FCP. It works for me and obviously lots and lots of others. In fact, if your boss ever wants to hire additional editors with training and experience, then FCP is undoubtedly the ticket over Liquid. I would estimate that for every trained Liquid editor on the planet there are probably several thousand FCP editors.
You might also point out to your boss that Walter Murch cut Cold Mountain last year, and now Jarhead this year on FCP, and that hundreds of feature film and TV companies in Hollywood are also switching over to FCP from Avid. Can you name a feature or a TV show cut on Liquid? FCP really does seem to be quickly becoming the industry editing standard. You can always buck the trend and go with something else, but why???
DRW
-
Paul,
You might try Carlos at ATM Leasing (818) 973-8132.
DRW
-
[CharlieX] “this release is just so buggy. watch it like a hawk!”
Sorry Charlie, but I’d be willing to bet a fortune on pilot error rather than a bug.
Did you by any chance ever try to use a “fade in fade out dissolve”???
-
Ron,
You and Kathlyn don’t look at them because neither of needs a production company to create media for you. Client-type people really like them.
DRW
-
THNX Jeremy, its next on my list after Canopus Procoder.
-
[gary adcock] “In my experience broadcasters like the BBC will not take anything but hardware conversions of content for transmission.”
Gary,
Odd you should mention that, as this is in fact for the BBC… The footage (pink river dolphins underwater) is impossible to get anywhere else, and rather old and funky BetaSP that will never look anything but old and funky. So, maybe the Beeb will accept it under the circumstances, especially since their producers refuse to pay for a proper hardware standards conversion.
BTW, I just did a test using Blackmagic 8-bit QT NTSC converted to PAL using Canopus Procoder on a PC, and it looks like an outstanding conversion. Of course that’s what it looks like on a computer monitor, and I have no PAL broadcast monitor here. So, I’m sending a short clip via http://www.yousendit.com to a friend in the UK to check it for me. I’ve heard Procoder has actually figured this thing out, but I’m always skeptical. If it doesn’t work then I’ll certainly give Graeme’s plug a try…
THNX,
DRW -
[Joey Groah] “We’re talking about handouts/give aways. What do you find effective? What do you like”
CD/DVD business cards make great handouts. They have your pertinent info printed on, and they play your demo too… People love ’em.
DRW
-
Deja vu all over again, and again, and again…
-
[gary adcock] “On compressed vs UC editing of HDV content, in my experience not a lot of HDV users even know what a D5 is and would not work in the uncompressed 1080|60 due to the huge additional costs of hardware for storage and software needed. You would have to agree that most HDV users (or at least most of the ones on these forums) are at the very beginning stages of trying to work in what is really a quasi -consumer product – many even do not see the need for anything other than FW storage for their productions.”
Gary,
As I stated in my previous message, this thread was specifically about mastering to tape, not about editing digital files and storage requirements on hard drives. However, in reviewing Randy’s question, when he asked, “If I wanted to output to a hard drive to take somewhere else for output what format/compression/etc. would be best to output to?,” he shifted gears, as people here are want to do on occasion. I assumed that he wanted to know the best tape formats for output, meanwhile, you saw it as a question about outputting (“converting”) to a digital file format on hard drive. Both are logical conclusions given the context of the thread.
Also, I have no clue where Randy is based — his profile only states “USA.” I specifically asked him where he was located, and for all I know, he could be right around the corner here in L.A. If so, I could easily have directed him to a facility within one mile from my house where he could have output to his choice of HD tape formats.
In any case, it is abundantly clear that both of us have been at this a while, and we are both well-versed in the realm of professional video. I trust that we can both proceed from here on a basis of mutual respect and as “peers.”
Ciao,
DRW -
Gary,
I have read many of your posts on this and other forums over time, and I respect your knowledge and experience, however, in this case your rather snooty response is not appreciated, and certainly not in keeping with appropriate Cow leader behavior, especially since you are simply not correct this time.
[gary adcock] “and for the record the D5 is not an HD format, it is a post tape format”
The D5 format you’re referring to is a rather ancient (2 years dead) SD digital format from Panasonic, which was their attempt to compete with Sony’s DigiBeta format. It was actually a terrific digital tape format, adopted BTW by Fox TV as their major acquisition, editing, and broadcast format. But alas, that D5 format was not otherwise widely accepted, and so it died. Meanwhile, Panasonic developed D5 HD, the format I referred to in my response to Randy, which you evidently know nothing about. I suggest you check it out at http://www.digdif.com/HD_decks.html#Panasonic_AJHD_3700 before admonishing anyone else. As I stated, it is Panasonic’s flavor of true or so-called “uncompressed” HD, which differs greatly from their DVCPROHD, which is a wonderful, yet highly compressed, HD format.
[gary adcock] “Funny, the workflow the largest number of people are using for HDV content is to convert it to 1080|60 DVCPROHD, so that they can get true I-frame available edits and at a data rate not much larger (between 10-20%) than the Native FW based HDV content.”
In addition, you also apparently failed to read and gather the gist of this thread, which is not about editing in native vs. i-frame format. Instead, it concerns mastering back to HDV tape, which Randy and others have found to be problematic. So, I recommended that he master to tape from his finished cut in FCP to an uncompresssed HD tape format. I could have suggested that he master to DVCPro HD, but it is not nearly as good for mastering on tape as are the so-called uncompressed HD formats. While the the editing workflow you mentioned is a very valid workflow, and the workflow I recommend to almost all working in the HDV format on FCP, it isn’t germaine to Randy’s situation, as he’s already finalized his edit in native HDV and simply wants to output to tape.
I hope this clarifies things for you, and that before correcting my posts in the future you will take a closer look and think more carefully about what I have to offer. With all due respect, while you are often a good source of information, as someone who’s been around the block a few times myself, I suggest that from time to time you might be able learn a few things from me.
All the best,
David