Forum Replies Created

Page 134 of 144
  • Graeme Nattress

    April 11, 2005 at 2:40 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    Thanks. I’m going to do some more investigation and see what I come up with….

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • The SPX 800 doesn’t do tape. Why should the HDX200 do tape? The whole idea of P2 is to get away from tape. A single P2 slow would be suicidal for P2 – I’d hope for 3 slots, but you could just about use 2 slots.

    I know Sony did 4xDVCAM playback for news ingest over SDTI – but I don’t think it recorded at that speed though, only playback.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 11, 2005 at 9:59 am in reply to: DVCPro HD bit rates/resolutions/frame rates

    Yes, MPEG2 is DCT based.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 11, 2005 at 1:58 am in reply to: codec question

    Ziping is lossless compression, so it’s not quite an appropriate analogy. But that’s reasonably close, remembering that DV is quite lossy.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 11, 2005 at 1:53 am in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    I have an idea that the Digital Betacam codec might work something like this for bit depth, but I dont’ really have any evidence for that, but I may have read about such an idea in conjunction witht that format at some point.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 10, 2005 at 6:20 pm in reply to: DVCPro HD bit rates/resolutions/frame rates

    1080 has half the frame rate and double the pixels precisely, making the compression per pixel the same.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 10, 2005 at 4:08 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    With perceptual encoding, I’d got straight to 16bit RGB no chroma resolution reduction. With the perceptual coding, you’d only use more than 8bits when it’s needed, up to the max of 16, as a lot of the >8bit data would just be noise. Fully raw is nice, but you need to correct it before playback or it just looks out of whack. I see something inbetween – lightly compressed R’G’B’ 16bit video.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 10, 2005 at 3:47 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    Output out of AE as uncompressed then, or if that takes up too much space, use PhotoJPEG75%. No need to pay money for an intermediate codec. Does not automatic duck translate dissolves across from FCP to AE? I think the bigger issue is Jason’s point about the DVCproHD codec implementation by Apple. I don’t have enough DVCproHD footage or any transferred over SDI to be able to see exactly what he’s getting at, but it’s bound to become important at some point. I think I’d better get to work with some magic de-artifacting and de-banding algorithms….. And also the code I’m working on to improve the conversion of 8bit to 10bit or more video. As people in Yorkshire say, “where there’s muck, there’s brass”.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 10, 2005 at 3:30 pm in reply to: variable speed playback/slo-mo HVX?

    You’re preaching to the converted!

    Yes, we know it wouldn’t be too hard to do, but these big corporations are often like snails when it comes to jumping on an idea and taking a product to a whole new level.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

  • Graeme Nattress

    April 10, 2005 at 3:28 pm in reply to: DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

    What about edit in FCP, send over to AE and do dissolves CC and titles, and then output back through FCP. Only one DVCproHD generation.

    Graeme

    http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

Page 134 of 144

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