Glenn Camhi
Forum Replies Created
-
If all you care about is getting the highest quality image, and you’re going to a post house to get Blu-rays made (so you’re not buying the software or hardware), what would you want them using to encode your HD movie?
-
What’s used for major studio Blu-rays?
-
So they’re not in use or an advantage anymore?
Or do you just mean that new ones aren’t being made because there’s no need, as the specs and technology haven’t changed?
-
Okay, so the Sonic SD-2000 couldn’t handle 23.976.
Digital Rapids doesn’t seem capable of working with ProRes 4444 source material, or at least the post house we’re using is having trouble with it (a gamma issue rendering a too-bright, somewhat washed out mpeg file).
What hardware encoders are typical for DVDs? I’ve checked with several major post houses in L.A. and so far, they all do software encodes with Digital Rapids.
-
No luck so far. They’re using Digital Rapids for the encoding because they said their Sonic hardware can’t do 23.976.
They tried chroma settings at “default” and “unspecified,” but the mpeg is identical, too bright and a bit washed out.
Now they’re going to try lowering the brightness themselves a bit. I don’t know if that will degrade the image at all, and it sounds a bit like taking a shot in the dark, trying to get it right that way, but they’re trying.
The DIT who owns the ARRI Alexa we shot on said it sounds like an issue with gamma. He wonders if they have any ability to choose gamma correction for the ProRes 4444 files they’re using to make the DVDs, since some applications have a hard time with generating proper ProRes gamma.
Is there a better encoder? Clipster? It’s a big L.A. post house, seems strange.
-
Interesting.
FWIW, we went to another post house with Macs and PCs, and they had no problem opening the file.
I wonder what the conflict could be that’s just on some systems.
-
Somehow missed that sentence.
The the specific issue of the aliasing in animation is what stood out most.
Yep, paying for it, it’s odd. Especially odd since when they did it interlaced at the other frame rate, it wasn’t like this. We’ll see what they do overnight.
-
Well, I learned one thing today: there is a quality hit going to 29.97i. They redid it at 24p and the ton of aliasing that had appeared in some animation diminished dramatically.
What’s weird, though, is that the image is washed out in their 24p version — too bright and desaturated compared to the original and to the 29.97i version they’d done. (The latter is also a bit too bright, but not as dramatically.)
Any idea why this would be?
-
Ain’t that always the case? Go, do other stuff! Thank you.
But lastly… is space the only issue? I’ve got tons of space, it’s only a 29 minute film. I just want to be sure there is zero image quality hit. Whether viewed on a tv (presumably HDTV) or computer.
-
Thanks for your speedy reply. I keep seeing different or unclearly worded explanations, so trying to get definitive answers.
So, is there any *disadvantage* to converting to 29.97 interlaced in the encode for DVD?
You’re saying most major studio DVDs are indeed progressive with flags, rather than interlaced, right?