Forum Replies Created

Page 32 of 39
  • Devin Crane

    July 28, 2007 at 11:13 pm in reply to: Digital Betacam Vs HD XDCAM

    For that reason alone we love it, we can ingest @4x realtime. More of our stations are starting to pick it up also. NAB for that past several years has been all about HD, this past year it was all about tapeless. I would bet that XDcam, though not perfect will start picking up speed. Keep in mind though Sony is suppose to come out with a new camera later this year with 2x the capacity of the current HD-Xdcam and a new codec Mpeg 422@50mbs. If you can wait until end of summer I would wait for this to come out.

  • Devin Crane

    July 19, 2007 at 10:20 pm in reply to: Digital Betacam Vs HD XDCAM

    Not talking about HD XDcam. SD IMX XDcam, IMX50 doesn’t have near the dropouts that’s prone to Digibeta, also it’s a lot nicer to capture to disc than tape. Saves a ton of time. If you notice Sony is pushing their XDcam line more than any other. Have you viewed IMX50 to Digibeta? Can’t tell the difference.

  • Devin Crane

    July 18, 2007 at 1:55 pm in reply to: Digital Betacam Vs HD XDCAM

    The SD XDcam would be better than the Digi Beta. IMX 50 is much nicer to edit natively rather than having to go over Baseband video with Digibeta. The quality is very similar the only difference is IMX 50 is 8bit. But it is still 4:2:2 and is viritually lossless. When we compared it to Native Uncompressed we could not tell the difference.

  • Devin Crane

    July 16, 2007 at 6:51 pm in reply to: Multi-Cam w/Different Video Formats

    You will definetly have to shoot in the same codec for Multicam to work. Even with the new Open timeline Multicam doesn’t support different formats. Even IMX 50 and 30 will not mix for me. Has to be the same DV, HDV and DV will not be able to cut together in Multicam.

  • Devin Crane

    July 8, 2007 at 6:51 pm in reply to: What are the 2 SDI inputs for?

    Doesn’t the IO HD only support 4:2:2? No 4:4:4

  • Devin Crane

    July 5, 2007 at 4:57 pm in reply to: FCp on 8-core Mac Pro

    The new FX Plugins that FCP and Motion share run off of the Graphics Processors not so much off of the Main CPU Processors. CPU Processors do a lot of guessing in it’s formulation while graphics processors use 32bit float precision processing. The faster the card the faster the Rendering. Not every Effect has the same scripting, only the ones that share between FCP and Motion, these are the ones that benefit off of the Card. You can check this out at the FCP site.

  • Devin Crane

    July 5, 2007 at 3:42 pm in reply to: FCp on 8-core Mac Pro

    The 1900 xt has been smokin for me, I think were people miss it a lot of times is Ram, once it fills up things will get really slow. I’ll turn on the Activity Monitor to watch it and once it gets full, performance turns to molasses.

    Quad 3ghz Mactel 4gb ram Xraid.

  • Devin Crane

    June 30, 2007 at 1:46 pm in reply to: 1TB Optical Discs on the Horizon

    Even with the 4 layer Blu-Ray discs they still won’t match the Holographic Discs.

  • Devin Crane

    June 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm in reply to: final cut pro studio 2 upgrade

    All my Motion overlays opacities have changed. Had to go through all of them and change them so that they looked right. Also have had some File Error messages come up. Other than that Motion Renders seem a little faster. I would wait if you are working on so many projects on a tight deadline. If it’s not so tight and you can go back and fix some issues go for it.

  • Devin Crane

    June 21, 2007 at 7:24 pm in reply to: Anybody Happy with Motion3 ?

    Motion itself is great and I have had a great time with it. It’s the long renders in FCP that get me.

    4x3ghz, 1900xt, 4gb ram, Xserve Raid DAS.

Page 32 of 39

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy