[Kristin Maling]

OK, so the working space doesn’t really matter—but, if I’m going to be producing ProRes 422 (HQ) masters, retaining as much colour as possible, is there a “suggested” working space? Again, with print, Adobe RGB (1998) and ProPhoto RGB are the “standard” colour spaces when dealing with master images (not that there’s an actual “standard”…rather “the most commonly accepted/used for working with large gamuts”…). Is there an equivalent when working with video?

Also, I’m a little confused on your final comment…

“ProRes 422 should probably be Rec. 709”

Are you saying that I should use Rec 709 as the output profile when outputting my ProRes 422 master?

Thanks again,
Kristin.

[Kristin Maling]

Funny, I got an email from them last night saying, while they were originally a Mac-based plug-in developer, non of their current software is Mac-supported, but “stay tuned, something is in the works” (or, something to that effect).

I can’t believe there’s no way in Premiere, after all this time, either built-in or 3rd party, to do a simple wipe with feather transition.

k.

[Kristin Maling]

Yea, just as a test, I decided to import my exported footage into DVD Studio Pro (as the intended use of this exported file is for use on DVD). When I imported into DVD Studio Pro, I marked the footage as 4:3 and burned a disc and reviewing the disc, the footage looked fine. So, based on your reply, and this test, I would assume my footage is OK.
Thanks,
Kristin.

[Kristin Maling]

OK, thanks again!
k.

[Kristin Maling]

Thanks Walter!
Given that explanation then, is it enough to just use even numbers, or should the macroblock size of a particular codec be taken into account. For example, say I was asked to create a video at 100px x 100px and a particular codec’s macroblock size was 16 — that would result in a division of 6.25. Assuming the result should be whole numbers, would this be an issue?
Again, I imagine this situation would be a rare case, but again, just trying to educate myself as much as I can on this topic (as I’ve been dealing more and more with odd-size requests for video work as of late).
Thanks again,
Kristin.

[Kristin Maling]

Thanks guys!

Outside of a picture quality issue and codecs based on pre-web delivery, is there a technical reason why this shouldn’t be done? I mean, most current rendering/encoding/transcoding applications don’t even allow this (either rounding up or down the crop), so I assume it’s for a reason outside of these applications just “looking out for me” in terms of quality?

For example, I typically render out a lossless, high quality master from AE and then use Adobe Media Encoder for various delivery outputs (typically mp4 or flv). If I’m using AME CS4, it allows me to create an odd-numbered outputs. But, using AME CS5, it doesn’t (it rounds to an even-number). Again, I assume there’s a technical reason why it doesn’t allow this anymore (since it’s obviously “possible” since CS4 could do it)?

The main reason I ask is, while on this project, I’m able to deal with the client directly to suggest going with even-numbered dimensions, in the past, I’ve been dealing with sources (websites) that have odd-numbered dimensions that can’t be changed that I have to supply content for — in these cases, I’ve had to go back to AME CS4 for producing my odd-numbered mp4 or flv files.

Anyway, just trying to educated myself (so I can help educate my clients) and make everyone happy.

Thanks again,
k.

[Kristin Maling]

OK, I just tried to do a quick test with this and I’m unsure how to apply each path to the solid’s Brush position property (using the write-on effect)? Here’s what I did:

– created an Illustrator file (following the “Preparing and importing Illustrator files” doc from Adobe — ie. created the file using one of the Video and Film presets (same size as my comp), set file to “Create PDF Compatible file”, set file to “Preserve Paths”, saved as .ai file, etc.)
– imported .ai file into AE CS5 as Composition
– created a new comp at my working size (same as .ai file I imported)
– created a new solid within the comp
– applied the Write-On effect to the solid

And that’s where I got stuck — I’m unsure how to access the paths within the imported .ai file and then apply it to the solid’s Write-On Brush property? I had assumed I’d just be able to select the path, copy it, and paste it into the Brush Position property (via the Write-On effect applied to the solid I created), but again, I could be wrong on how to go about this step?

Any further advice would be much appreciated!

Thanks,
Kristin.

[Kristin Maling]

Thanks! I’ll give that a go today!!!

[Kristin Maling]

OK, I’ll have a look at the Write-on effect.
Would that be one of the better ways for a line-drawing to “reveal itself”?

[Kristin Maling]

Well, the only method that I personally know for doing this is to import that path I want (designed in Illustrator), then apply the stroke effect to that path (and keyframe the end point). Is there a better way to do this?

Basically, I’m being given a series of storyboards done in Illustrator where I need to have the drawings “draw themselves” or “reveal themselves” (thus, I have all the paths I need, I just need AE to “draw” them).

Is there a better way to do this other than using the stroke effect? The one thing I find when using the stroke effect is that I don’t get clean/smooth lines (but rather, the lines are kinda pixelated around the edges).

Any advice one this would be much appreciated!
k.