Graeme Nattress
Forum Replies Created
-
Yes, issues, and yes acceptable. Colour is very good. Detail is superb. I tried an affordable JVC HD monitor and it’s mushy. All CRTs tend to make the image look nicer than it really is.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
I’d shoot “RAW” on a DSLR, which you can then convert in Photoshop CS2 Camera RAW for best results, with greatest dynamic range and degree of control. I don’t shoot a DSLR for the purpose you’re proposing, but just for taking photos, and I’m using a Canon20D, which is quite superb for the price. I’d recommend taking a look over at http://www.dpreview.com and seeing what’s out there and available.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Probably best to leave the filtering on, then I’d guess.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Sounds like it’s all to do with interlace filtering. That would be the vertical filter that reduces resolution by about 30% to stop interline interlace twitter on interlaced television. If you know it’s only going to be shown on true progressive displays, or projected, or sent to film, you don’t need this filtering, and removing it will give you a higher vertical resolution. This is why 1080i only has the same measured resolution as 720p.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
At any frame rate, the audio is recorded at the same speed, hence, if you record 24p and playback 24p, the audio sounds normal. Similarly, record 30p and play back 30p, the audio sounds normal. Record 60p but play back 24p, the audio will be slow.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
I doubt they’ve hacked the kernel. It’s probably just stuff running on top of embedded linux.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
I don’t get you. Audio doesn’t have a frame rate….
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Walter, you’r right that DVCProHD can look great, even after a generation like what you did, and indeed it holds up to that generation loss much better than HDV which really diminished fast, but….
DVCProHD is a very lossy codec. It’s much more compressed than DV on a compression per pixel basis, and indeed, looks more compressed than DV when you look at it closely. That’s the sacrifce they made to fit HD on a tape (or P2). Now if DVCproHD was only as compressed as much as DVCpro50, we’d have a killer codec on our hands, but it isn’t, so DVCproHD is hardly killer. It’s nice, but it’s by no means optimum.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Jan, welcome to the FCP crowd!
Looking forward to you posting up footage, and if possible, some DVCproHD movs from FCP would be super.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
I think you can use a basic powermac G5, second internal drive for media, and a DV deck for use of getting your tapes in, and viewing your DV on your external monitor. I don’t think you need a mixer, just a nice pair of powered monitors to connect to your deck’s audio out. Again, unless you’re going out to broadcast, a hardware waveform is not really needed.
Hope that helps,
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP