Mark Maness
Forum Replies Created
-
You don’t need this file. CS5 expects your Flash file to be in the H.264 codec. If you need to compress anything other than H.264, use the Media Encoder with CS5. If you have installed CS5, you already have everything you need.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
You need the latest version of Sony’s XDCAM Transfer software, version 2.12, I believe it is.
As for outputting your timeline, you have go thru the File menu, Export, then Sony XDCAM.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
I can answer this…
[Lee Warner] “When I sent a test timeline to compressor, the XDcamHD 1080i 59.94 preset is set to 1440X1080 rather than 1920X1080. I can’t find a preset that is appropriate. I’m curious as to why that is.”
First of all, the setting is correct. XDCAM HD is a form of HDV, so, the both have the frame sizing of 1440×1080. Now, if you are shooting with the new XDCAM HD 422 cameras, you can shoot full raster 1920×1080 video with this series.
[Lee Warner] “Second question is that once I have outputted my master, what folder should I place the finished file in on the XD disk? I want to be able to put the disk into a PDW-HD1500 deck to play it out.”
This is simple. You don’t. In order for you to output to an XDCAM drive, you have to have installed Sony’s XDCAM Transfer software for the Mac and Final Cut Pro. You can get this from Sony’s Broadcast website. There is no other way to properly place files on a disc to be played but the PDW-HD1500 deck. Be prepared… The output is rather slow but effective.
Always use the latest versions of software so that you can work efficiently.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
No. You do this on the completed QuickTime file itself.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
No. You do not need to buy the Flash component. You already have it. Adobe Flash uses H.264 as a format. This is really nice. Just compress to an H.264 QuickTime file and change the extension .mov to .flv That’s it! You now have a Flash file. This the reason why all of the third-party codec vendor stopped production on new Flash encoders.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
Everyone is right to a point and yes, FCP lists this as anamorphic. But let me add to this… The reason camera engineers and AJA call it pixel scaling is because the term anamorphic refers to a method of projecting an image whereas in digital cameras, the actual pixels on the chips, be it CMOS or CCD, are in non-square pixels patterns to maximize the chip area.
I say all of this because my background in broadcast TV is in engineering. So this technological discussion really fascinate me.
Hey Gary… Chime in at any time…
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
Well, that probably was your cuprit alright. The old drives will slow your whole system down just like connecting a fw400 drive to your fw800 drives. It will knock everything down to 400 unless you connect to a different fw buss.
That’s OK, Jeremy. We’ve all done something like that.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
[Joey Burnham] “Elaborate please.
Is not anamorphic just widescreen picture squeezed 33% horizontally to fit in a 486 frame size? Ignore HD for the time being.”To answer your question, yes. In video, we normally refer anamorphic as a 16:9 frame in 4:3 video space, otherwise known as letterbox or widescreen.
The discussion we are in is about 1440×1080 and 960×720 being called anamorphic, which they are not.
In order to HDV, XDCAM HD (not XDCAM SD) and DVCProHD to work as they do, they use a method of pixel scaling to cram as much info into the smallest amount of space to maximize tape or disc and also, the manufacturers can use lesser quality chips to get similar results of full raster chips. I didn’t say they got the same results, they just get similar results, meaning HD video from a smaller CCD or CMOS chip.
Like I said, pixel scaling is referred to video sizing like 1440×1080 and 960×720 only, everything else is using the term anamorphic.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
[walter biscardi] “HDV, HDCAM and DVCPro HD all shoot 1440×1080. This is an anamorphic version of 1920 x 1080. Yes, this is, and always has been, an anamorphic format.”
Ok… I know I shouldn’t do this, but I need to…
Walter, technically speaking 1440×1080 and 960×720 are not anamorphic formats, they are pixel scaled formats. AJA and every one else uses pixel scaling to translate the media from 1440×1080 to 1920×1080 and the same holds true for 960×720 scaled to 1280×720.
Using the term anamorphic is not proper in this case. Now, when your talking about aspect ratios like 2.1:1 or 2.35:1, yes, they are usually described as anamorphic. The term anamorphic is referred to as aspect ratios other than 4:3 and 16:9, not pixel scaling as in this case. Just ask someone at AJA about this.
Its kinda like the difference between megabits/sec and megabytes/sec.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com -
[John Pipes] “We can’t say for sure because the math does not add up (through-put, etc.) but we think as many of you that the long GOP nature of the CODEC is still an issue for editing. We did extensive testing on our hardware setup before we tried this as a group and actually found that render times in the XDCAM 4:2:2 CODEC were shorter than ProRes with our 8 core Macs and the amount of ram we have. “
This is why we ALL say to edit in the ProRes422 codec, not in the XDCAM HD 4:2:2 codec. Final Cut Pro has ALWAYS had issues with the Long-GOP method. But if you notice, when you drop an XDCAM HD clip into a ProRes422 timeline, yes, the clip shows a yellow bar BUT it plays in real time without issue. AND… This solves the problem with the Long-GOP issues.
[John Pipes] “XDCAM 4:2:2 is about a third of the file size of ProRes HQ.”
John, John, John… You are comparing Apples to Oranges (pardon the pun). XDCAM HD 4:2:2 is the equivalent of ProRes422, not ProRes422 HQ. ProRes422 HQ was SOLELY intended for working with 2k and higher quality material. When you capture and work into ProRes422 HQ, you are wasting space and computer resources unnecessarily. ProRes422 is a 10-bit codec, so is ProRes422 HQ. But they have very different bit rates. ProRes422 work somewhere around 100 mb/sec and ProRes422 HQ works around 220 mb/sec. (I hope I got my mb/sec, right… That designation always stumbles me)
[John Pipes] “But stability has definately been compromised since we switched to the XDCAM 4:2:2 CODEC as our house CODEC. This has especially been the case with graphics in our sequences. So at this point we will continue to shoot on our F800s for EFP and aquire our multi cam footage to XDCAM 4:2:2 on the 1500 decks (again the CODEC looks amazing!) but we will go back to ingesting as video via HDSDI to ProRes.”
As for your stability, Sony has ALWAYS been known to be at least one year behind on FCP full compatibility when it comes to XDCAM. We have lots of experience since dealing with these issues for the past five years since the introduction of XDCAM.
The tip I have for you on this… Have someone completely catalog the discs using the XDCAM Transfer program (and hopefully no one used the cacheing feature on the cameras), import the media into FCP using the Sony XDCAM in the File Menu, delete the media itself – not the clips and recapture into the ProRes422 codec. Then your good to go… Yeah, I know this seems lengthy but it works. This is the reason why many news oriented organizations use DVCProHD. Its much more friendly since the technology is much more mature.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
https://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com