Forum Replies Created

Page 99 of 144
  • Graeme Nattress

    June 22, 2005 at 2:05 am in reply to: HVX-200 Vs. Varicam- What do you think?

    The mini35 should level the playing field a lot as it will drop the resolution of both the Varicam and the HVX200 to the same lower level, and equalize any DOF issues.

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 21, 2005 at 10:58 pm in reply to: HVX-200 Vs. Varicam- What do you think?

    I don’t know though. What are people anticipating? I guess people are anticipating a baby Varicam, and I think that’s what they’re going to get, and I don’t see why not. It should produce better looking pictures than the available HDV cameras, and be easier to edit with less system resources used.

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 21, 2005 at 9:03 pm in reply to: HVX-200 Vs. Varicam- What do you think?

    Bigger chips, better glass, on the Varicam should lead to more creative control of DOF, better low light, better dynamic range, more details in picture. We don’t know enough about the HVX200 and how it works to know what the impact of it’s chips will be on it’s 1080 performance.

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 21, 2005 at 8:23 pm in reply to: Hardware for FCP

    Avoid Media100. They’re a very much out of data solution from a company that’s just been bought up because they would have gone bankrupt otherwise, and even still are not in best shape as it’s unknown how long their new owners will support anything the new Media100 will produce….

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 21, 2005 at 1:03 pm in reply to: footage looks untrue after digitizing

    Yes, the Digital to Analogue converter inside the Matrox is also crap. You could also have it set to 7.5IRE setup compared to the camera which could very well be giving out 0IRE blacks, making them look very different.

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 21, 2005 at 1:28 am in reply to: Xserve Raid

    That’s utterly bizarre Mike!

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 21, 2005 at 12:58 am in reply to: Xserve Raid

    I’ve not filled mine up enough yet!

    Two Fibre cards, and four RAID halves together? That should be more than enough for 4:4:4 capture. I think a single RAID is enough for 4:4:4 playback, and on the verge of being able to capture.

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 21, 2005 at 12:33 am in reply to: Xserve Raid

    3.5TB. It’s great for HD – I get over 300MB/s read, 200MB/s write configured RAID50. If you get one, just make sure it’s fully populated with drives.

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 20, 2005 at 9:29 pm in reply to: ATI X800 XT or another 2GB of RAM

    Only thing that helps my filters is a fast and hard drive!! They render at about 5:1 here on a dual 2Ghz, down to 10:1 for a really complex effect. That’s still many times faster than the “competition” though 🙂 The Standards Conversion is 35 times faster than it’s competition…..

    You don’t really get much RT, becuase FCP is not built that way with plugins that manipulate time. Some of the plugins in the set will run pretty good though!

    And with the X800, get a copy of Doom3 – great fun when you’re not editing.

    Graeme

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

  • Graeme Nattress

    June 20, 2005 at 9:26 pm in reply to: footage looks untrue after digitizing

    It’s because the RTMac is, putting it plainly, crap. DV is best brought direct in over firewire!

    Graeme

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

Page 99 of 144

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