Eddy Falconer
Forum Replies Created
-
No answers over here still as to what happens, but you gave me the idea to do the assemble edit in FCP rather than AE. For whatever reason, they all play back fine there and I have my edit intact without any weird stripes or colors anywhere.
Most mysteriously, in FCP, when I import the troublesome clip to a project and look in the viewer to see what frame size FCP thinks it is, it says the clip matches all the others, 1920 x 1080…(also, they are all Apple ProRes 422 and 29.97…..including that one)
Wonders never cease. I am chalking up erratic behavior of everything to conflicts with newly installed Pro Tools. Am hoping that blame game can stop sometime soon, but there have been some strange episodes, indeed. WHo knows!
-
No, the clip was not created in FCP. It was created in AE out of imported PSD documents. (Each PSD has only one layer, very simple stuff ‘done to them’ in AE). Rendered out in Pro Res.
Frame rate of result is 29.97
It is entirely possible that it is operator error. But what could the error have been? That is the question.
Yes, 960 X 540 does seem a little improbable….and that is the only evidence, clicking on the clip in the project panel now, of anything being different than it was intended. Aside from the color!
-
Sorry, not helpful.
As I said, the sequence won’t play back in a comp created specifically to its stated specs, either.
All the other clips rendered the same way, with ProRes, Best and Lossless (yes, Best and Lossless settings had already been used) play back properly in AE. ONly this one does not.
I used ProRes for the sequence on the recommendation of another professional who said the Animation codec would make it impossible to work with jpegs over a certain size, so try the other codec. As I said, Quicktime plays them all back fine, including this one, only AE won’t. Even in a comp of matching size. THere is nothing to suggest anything in the COmp settings ought to be different between this sequence and the others except for the PAR dimensions. And what would that have to do with color playback? BTW it’s not that large a file, under 900 MB
Nothing has changed from one sequence to the next in any Comp settings before rendering, otherwise.
Is there another suggestion aside from render it over again? Would be great if anyone can think of one. I would hate to think there is no more information to be had about what to try.
-
Ah—same codec as other files (apple ProRes 422), but somehow 960 x 540 (1.00) instead of 1920 x 1080….
I rendered. “Make Movie…:”
Just now tried playing it back in a new composition with those settings, but the same problem with color & striping persists.
Also, the footage is only footage by way of rendering out a movie in AE—it was never live footage, but a movie rendered out of animated PSDs.
-
well, no, that didn’t work, alas. it did allow compressor to show more of its windows than it had been doing before the reinstall, but i’m still getting the same message on submitting: unable to submit to queue, please restart or reinstall Compressor. any other suggestions of what to try?
-
Thanks, Ty, thought that might be the case.
-
hey, similar issue,
can anyone tell me if leaving on the ‘battery on’ switch on a condenser mic while running the phantom power setting on the Marantz compact flash (the 660) will generate an ongoing annoying buzz on all recordings? or even just leaving a battery inside the mic?
-
Hi, Todd, thanks again,
Yes, it’s the difference between ‘actual’ f-stop and ‘effective’ f-stop that I’m talking about.
I’m checking with the filter manufacturer to be sure they do mean ‘stop value’ for these filters and not ‘filter factor’…. They’re listing increments of 1/3 so I doubt I’ve misunderstood, just kind of wishful thinking that there could be additional reasons to need less light and still use the 200T.
You can probably tell I’m not a cinematographer. (Usually do post-production). Thanks for your patience.
-
Hi, Todd,
I’m not attached to the film speed. Grain doesn’t matter that much, so yes, I could go to 500T. Actually, I need relatively shallow depth of field, but because of the stops I need to add based on the filtration, I’m cutting down depth of field by opening up the aperture anyway. See, it’s that the actual shot needs to be more than 4 stops larger aperture than f11, i.e. ultimately I’m using an f-stop of larger aperture than 2.8 even though there’s enough light falling on the subject for an unfiltered measurement of f11.
The project is actually just a test, of sort of extreme color filter use. I’m using the stop values attributed to each filter I’ve chosen based on the specs provided on the filter manufacturer’s website. In other words I need a lot of light because I’m going to be cutting that light back severely. Unless I’m misunderstanding ‘stop value=4 2/3″, I need a lot of light to use that filter.
The f stop on the camera/lens I have access to won’t go wider than f1.9, so this adds up to using a lot of light to be able to shoot this at all.
Thanks for pointing that out about the barn doors, wasn’t thinking about the fact that they’re absorbing the light they block, not redirecting it. Pretty bonehead I guess.
Does any of this make the situation more clear? I know, everyone who hears about this project thinks I need f11 because I want lots of depth of field, but that’s actually not so.
Do you mind letting me know how using 500T might change the situation, since you seem to have an ASC manual nearby? I had actually ruled 500T out as possibly giving me too much depth of field all over again, but….