Kelly
Forum Replies Created
-
Rumors have it that a new mini will be ANNOUNCED on January 10th. That doesn’t mean it will ship any time near there, IF it is announced. A bird in the hand…..
-
As far as I know, Quicktime can play Flash files natively. Maybe you already knew that. If so, sorry and I don’t know how to “convert” the file.
-
I think what hasn’t been explained to you so far is: even though the IO and Firewire have enough bandwidth to send an uncompressed signal down the wire, the internal drive on the iMac isn’t fast enough to reliably record that signal and play it back without skipping. You would need an external group of RAIDed drives to handle that much data, but external drives generally use the Firewire connection (which you have already saturated with the IO). You could use a USB2 port for your external RAID like another has said, but this generally isn’t ideal. The fella says it works and I believe him, I’m just telling you that this generally isn’t done and would be really pushing things to their limit.
The simpler solution is to compress the signal upon capture. This frees up disc space, let’s you work with slower hard drives, and is still very good quality (better than the DV you’re used to). Having said that, it is a bad idea to capture video to the same drive your operating system is running off of. Again, it can be done, but it isn’t recommended.
-
They are in GB though, so if you’re not there, ordering may be a problem:
https://www.silverprint.co.uk/acc13.html
-
https://www.litepanels.com/DV-ADAP.html
Great light: daylight balanced, dimmable with no color shift, no heat, nice soft light and lasts forever.
Downside: kind of big for a miniDV camera, expensive
TV is called a medium, because it is neither rare, nor well done (He..he…)
-
When High Definition cameras are going for under $5000, are you surprised that people choke at paying $20,000 for a monitor? Not everybody on this forum works with HDCAM SR (in fact, I would suggest that those who do are in the minority). Telling the poster to “suck it up, or get out of HD” is, in my opinion, just a little bit rude. I don’t mean to be rude in turn, but he came here for help and advice, not condescension.
TV is called a medium, because it is neither rare, nor well done (He..he…)
-
In your initial posting, you did not mention that you were using a wireless set-up. This adds a whole new level of possible reasons things might have gone wrong. Perhaps some of the distortion comes from wireless interference. In any case, they are right: once it’s there, it’s very hard to fix in post. Headphones are mandatory (but now that you’ve learnt that lesson, you won’t forget it, right?).
I don’t know if this was just a typo, but you mentioned “line”. I can’t think of too many wireless receivers that have a line level output to the camera. Did you perhaps set the camera to Line and wide open, and then crank up the Mic output of the wireless super high? This might account for things (doubtful, but all I can think of right now).
TV is called a medium, because it is neither rare, nor well done (He..he…)
-
As I said earlier in the thread, the resolution of digibeta and dvcam are exactly the same, the main differences are color sampling (digi 4:2:2 and dv 4:1:1) and bit depth. If you are just doing a moderate amount of editing with little effect work, and you shot the DVcam on a comparable camera to the digibeta (ie. three 2/3 inch chips, quality Canon/Fuji lens), then for 80% of what you do, the reults will be “good enough”. Now. Re-read that sentence. There are a lot of qualifiers in there. You are going to see a quality hit, there is no getting around it. You have to decide if the loss in quality is worth saving what I would typify as a quantum leap in costs difference. Quality is a highly flexible word (just read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to find out how flexible). Some might judge the small loss of picture quality to be unacceptable. I would argue that being able to have 2 cameras on a shoot would give a better quality final product. Being able add another edit suite and a laptop to edit on the road would enhance the quality of your shows. Being able to have instant access to more footage online, and therefore more options, increases your quality.
Something else to think about if you have to do intensive editing is this: if you are already geared up to edit digibeta, that might help you. With a quality DVCAM camera for aquisition, you could edit everything uncompressed. You are already geared up to do that with digibeta, so you could do all the effects work you wanted with no loss of quality. Then, dump that pristine copy out to DVcam in the end.
One final note: if you decide you have the budget to continue the “high price” route, I would get out of digibeta altogether and originate and edit in high definition. A Varicam and decks are cheaper than Digibeta, and just as practical to edit with. Plus, you future proof yourself. Have fun!
TV is called a medium, because it is neither rare, nor well done (He..he…)
-
They are both 4:2:2 color space, which is much better than regular dv (although they have the same resolution as dv). The main differences are bit depth: Digibeta is a 10 bit format and DVCpro50 is an 8 bit format (like dv). In most situations, you will not be able to tell the difference. The only place where the 10 bit will really stand out is if you are shooting objects with lots of gradiated color. The digibeta will have more (and therefore smoother) steps between adjacent colors in a gradiation. Certainly, if you are going to be broadcasting over satellite, the compression there will eliminate any advantage the 10 bit may have given you to begin with.
Given that the advantage of Digibeta over DVCpro50 is minimal by the time the end user at home sees it, I would recommend going DVCpro50. Tape stock is cheaper, and of course the big advantage is that it can be imported natively over firewire into FCP. You can edit it on fairly low speed drives (it only requires twice the storage and speed of regular dv). With Digibeta, although it too is compressed on tape, Sony has never made the codec used available to outside editors. Therefore you can’t import it into FCP in its compressed form, leaving uncompressed SDI as your only option. This means raided drives, and big ones at that (which of course means more money). Well, not ONLY option. You could compress down to a motion-JPEG format or some such thing as you bring it in over SDI to save disk space, but then you’re throwing away quality (which is why you asked the question in the first place, right?). The one small advantage of an uncompressed format within FCP is that you will have more real-time effects, since the computer isn’t wasting some of it’s horsepower decompressing a format like DVCpro50. Having said that however, Apple and Panasonic have worked hard to optimize FCP’s handling of DVCpro50 to the point that it is very fast (practically as fast as as uncompressed).
Well, this has turned into a bit of a book! Sorry about that. SHORT ANSWER: unless you squint hard at very testing footage, you won’t see the difference between DVCpro50 and Digibeta. And, DVCpro50 is less money, offers greater workflow advantages and the added benefits of having some backwards compatibilty with your existing library of dv footage.
TV is called a medium, because it is neither rare, nor well done (He..he…)
-
As I understand it, .AVI and .MOV (Quicktime) are simply wrappers put around DV video. If you have downloaded .MOV’s off the net, they all play back using Quicktime, even though the “video” contained within that .MOV file may have vastly different frame rates, resolutions, originating formats, etc. It’s still DV under the wrapper, and since neither format alters the DV video, but rather just refers to it in different ways, there should be no quality difference. Having said that, I feel that Quicktime is the best computer/video handler out there (and since this is a Final Cut Pro forum, I’m not likely to be contradicted!).
TV is called a medium, because it is neither rare, nor well done (He..he…)