Floh Peters
Forum Replies Created
-
You mean you cannot download the demo because of your Hotmail address? This would definitely not be a good idea from them. I will get in touch with the developer to see what is going on there. I´ll let you know.
-
[Steve Mullen] “They, simply put, are wrong. There is NOTHING gained by “getting out of HDV” as the data that are encoded cannot possibly become “better” data nor are the “bits” any better preserved in another codec. “
You, simply put, are wrong here. And I am not speaking about gaining any additional Data/colordepth/whatever by converting HDV to something else, and not about “better” data, but about a more manageable file and codec format, without the restrictions of handling a long-gop MPEG2 stream.
[Steve Mullen] “PS: it’s possible that M100 has a rendering engine that forces renders to be in the SAME codec as the SOURCE codec. If this is true, then on the M100, one wouldn’t want to natively edit HDV. But that is a failing of the M100. “
They don´t, and (unlike FCP) can freely select into what codec you want to render. Media 100 even supports codec mixing on a timeline much longer than FCP (and it actually really mixes all codecs in realtime without needing to render them before mastering).
[Steve Mullen] “Both FCP and MC NEVER use HDV for rendering. Rendering is always done to ProRes or DNxHD.”
In FCP5 you had to render into your sequence codec (or into AIC) for HDV (no ProRes in FCP5), and you still have to render into HDV codec if you want to master back to a HDV tape.
[Steve Mullen] “IMHO, non-native editing is simply unacceptable in today’s world of quad-core chips. “
That´s your opinion, but Apple announced ProRes especially for the reason of getting over this format chaos. They have said publicly on several occasions that most likely new codecs (like Panasonics new AVCHD) will not be supported natively but via conversion due to the fact that manufacturers are starting to create their “codec of the week”, and that they simply will not try to catch up and support everything.
I think this was my last post on this subject, since I don´t think we will find an agreement here. I think it is unnecessary to support native HDV editing, and we would never think about e,g, mastering our projects back to HDV (which more or less would be the only reason why staying in HDV could make sense for us; but even then you would have to rearrange the GOP structure for the whole timeline to match the HDV specs, which means you have to render anyway). HDV support with the realtime transcoding is working excellent for us, and I am glad to get out of HDV as soon as possible. Most of our footage is touched up in one or another way sooner or later (e.g. Color Graded or distributed to the web for review), and it is much easier to do that with a Quicktime file in your Codec of choice than with something that is a mix of HDV MPEG2 files with other QuickTime formats. So if you say that it is better for you to stay in HDV, then do that; for us it definitely is not an option we would use.
-
Try something in ProRes 422 (the non-HQ version). Sometimes the HQ does not transfer around correctly, which seems to be an Apple ProRes or AE bug.
-
[Steve Mullen] “Of course, they can ACQUIRE from an HDV device via FW — unless you are using a laptop. But, you are NOT capturing HDV which is what one needs to do. Nor, can one edit HDV natively –“
Actually many very knowledgeable people disagree on that you have to edit HDV natively, but insist in getting out of the HDV codec as soon as possible. In FCP you can acquire HDV ONLY natively in realtime, which is as much of a limitation as Media 100 only being able to acquire into another codec.
Regarding the Laptop use: I would think that the guys at Media 100 know this limitation, and they already have said that they are working on solutions (on a webinar about the new features of V12.5).I don´t really want to get into a FCP vs Media 100 vs Avid vs whatever discussion here, but there are many areas in Media 100 that are much superior and much more “professional” than FCP. We rely on our systems for several primetime broadcast shows in some of the most-viewed German TV stations, so they are definitely worth their money for us. If you want to work with FCP, fine (we also have several FCP seats, and do use it in production, so I know what it can and cannot do). But I´d think you should accept that Media 100s approach for editing and the way they are handling their footage is better for some than the way FCP is doing it.
-
[John Aufderheide] “When you say that they don’t support HDV, are you talking about Media 100 Producer or Media 10 HD suite? Or both?
“Both Media 100 Producer and Media 100 HD Suite do support HDV acquire via FireWire. I don´t want to start a discussion about if this is the right way to do it or not (I think it is much better than e.g. what FCP is doing), but you definitely can acquire from HDV sources via FireWire into the current (V12.5 and up) Media 100 systems.
-
We still have some chassis in our basement from our Media 100 i days. You need a PCI-X G5, though. If you would be interested, get in touch with me to speak about a price. We would have to ship them from Germany, though.
-
Currently the IoHD is not supported. If you want to use it, I think it would help to send feedback to the Media 100 guys. They are listening to their customers…
-
[Robert Kopf] “Yes I get the part about it being self-contained so as to contain the actual media files. But as I recall, there are many different choices, Quicktime movie, 3G, AVI, DV Stream, etc. Are you saying that I should just select “Self-Contained Movie?” Are there any other things to select like quality choices or whatever? “
If you look at the “Export from Edit Suite…” dialog, you will see options for export: Self-Contained, By Reference and Other. For Self Contained and By Ref you don´t have additional quality/size/whatever options.
[Robert Kopf] “As for Bitvise Light only being capable of bad image quality, why do they make such a product?”
I did not say that BitVice light will only create bad image quality, I said if you want to create DVDs with bad image quality you could use Compressor. One of the most important features of BitVice, the DVNC noise reduction is missing from Light. Plus, the light version is based on the “older” 1.8 version of the software and is therefore not optimized for Intel-Macs, which means it will be much slower.
If you really want to save the money, try some encoding with Compressor first, and try to adjust your brightness/contrast/saturation/gamma levels to somehow match your incoming video (Compressor does not support Media 100s RGB 16-235 colorspace). Download a trial version of BitVice and look if the difference in image quality is worth the money for you. -
I mean self contained as in Export the clip as “Self Contained” instead of “By Reference”. By Ref exports create a file which is small and points at your original media files. Self Contained exports contain the actual media files and don´t rely on linking to your original media files.
[Robert Kopf] “And can I get by with BitVice Lite?”
If you want to create DVDs with a great image quality? No. If you want to create DVDs with bad image quality, you can even get by with Compressor.
-
Yes.