[Llll–kia]

Thanks for your response Erik. It’s always good to have impartial advice from someone who has experience with both pieces of kit. I

[Llll–kia]

SORRY TYPO should be “Buying Second HAND HW Encoders in the UK”

[Llll–kia]

Hi Todd

I don’t know if this is relevant but footage that has been shot on video (interlaced) always looks fine on a TV but on computer monitors can look a bit jagged when there is motion in the shot. This is to do with the refresh rate of your computer screen, the fact is that you are actually playing back 50FPS in PAL or 60FPS in NTSC because there are two fields to refresh for each frame. As I understand it the computer monitor refreshes slightly faster than the footage and causes a coming effect on the picture. If you look at an encoded video that has originated from a progressive scan source i.e. film or HD you will find it plays back much smother. I don’t know the exact technicalities of this but I think because each refresh of the interlaced fields are derived from the same frame but split into two somehow it does cause the same lagging/coming effect. Sorry if my explanation is a little unclear maybe someone else could explain it better

[Llll–kia]

Thanks Robkahn

I’ve done that before was just wondering if you could save those parameters so that it would be possible to move them to anouther project as exporting omf’s is somthing I will be doing reguly no I have AE 6.5

[Llll–kia]

Thanks for your reply. I have decided to get my AE skills up as much as possible and maybe shortly before I plan to leave the company invest in some Combustion training maybe the DVD training. As many people often suggest in the AE vs Combustion debate essentially they are very similar in terms of what they can do. I’m hoping to learn all the principles and gain necessary experience so that when I do learn Combustion it is simply learning the interface not principles and techniques.