Mark Fassett
Forum Replies Created
-
Yea, I tried it on three different machines.. a couple of macs and a windows box. No love!
Is there a way to select which volume CM will use as scratch disk? This is a pretty big problem for me, as I don’t usually have 20 megs or more free on my OS volume, which is what it seems to need on long files that I’m compressing… or am I missing something?
-
Sure! Buy flip4mac.
-
There is NO doubt… NONE at all… that a Mac is DEFINITELY the fastest platform to run FCP.
-
I know you’re quite an expert Ben, but I have been utilizing cleaner to create wmv7 video for many years, and it worked perfectly on the enterprise level. Granted, wm9 gets better video at half the data rate, but my customers (corporate communications, internal) are more than happy with wmv7.
Now I am distributing wm9 now as a result of buying flip4mac, but I haven’t heard a single person (among over 6000 who view my productions) comment.
I know you probably know far more about this than I do, but the combination of black restore, contrast, and gamma correction are your friends when creating good wm7 video. 🙂
-
Well, I just cut a four camera DV based one hour event on my AlBook 17″, with an external firewire 400 drive. It worked fine, no problem at all (except my difficulty figuring out the multiclip tool).
-
OK, maybe it’s just my situation. I have footage from four different cameras, some of which were across two tapes due to time issues. The difficulty isn’t just switching between four clips like you suggest. The issue I have is the only way to get the clips in sync is to put them into sequences. Well, I can’t select the four sequences and create a multiclip… it doesn’t allow the selection of sequences.
OK, so I exported all the sequences out as clips with a common starting point… and then I can create a multiclip. Works fine. BUT… it appears that one of my clips has some time code issues (tried capturing several times) so timing is different. Pain.
I guess I was hoping for a sequence rather than clip based solution.
I’m not giving up, and I suppose it’s possible I’m whining but the solution is really there in front of me… 🙂 I’m going to keep reading, but in the meantime I just dragged the four sequences into a new sequence and cut away, and now I’m rendering out a DVD.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
-
Yea, absolutely true… I had a guy scan some stuff for me, and he didn’t read my instuctions correctly… they were scanned in at something like 8000 x 6000 pixels, it was crazy slow. I resized them all to 2400×1600 I think as all was well.
As far as calling it Ken Burns effect, well, I guess I believe that language is meant for communication, and I think by using that everyone knew what I meant! 🙂 However, you’re correct about the RIGHT thing to call it.
-
bob, that’s a fair point, but in my workflow I always scan larger just in case I want to do some movement or zooming. The only downside is working with these larger files is a little slower, but for my money it’s worth the flexibility.
-
Hello. I don’t understand why you would scan a photo at exactly NTSC frame size. Scan it much larger, say 1600×1200, 300 dpi. Then you can do “ken burns” moves without scaling the photo UP, zoom in on a particular section, etc.