Mark Spano
Forum Replies Created
-
also – the HDCAM’s channels that you are recording Dolby E data to must be set to “Data” mode, which will disable the automatic bit rate/sample rate converter. Try that first…
-
This is unfortunately a simple answer: you need a separate 29.97fps Dolby E encoded file. Dolby E is coded in video frames. If the encoded file you have is at 23.976fps, then it’ll play back on a 23.976fps tape, but won’t work on a 29.97fps tape. You need to have this file re-encoded.
-
Yes, the most frustrating thing. Machine control in FCP is a terrible unreliable thing. I share your frustrations, here:
Still haven’t found a permanent solution. Without changing settings, I just keep trying until it works. Or, better yet, take my layoff to Avid, where I get frame accurate edits every time.
-
[Mark Spano] “No reason why anyone capturing SD video from a Beta SP shouldn’t be able to give you quicktimes that aren’t 720×486 and look like all the rest.”
aaah – too many negatives in that sentence. (sorry)
I mean: They should be able to give you 720×486 files that all look identical in QT Player.
-
[Deb Field] “Why would the footage, which displays anamorphic in QuickTime, display in perfect 4:3 aspect in FCP?”
It doesn’t make sense to me either. Perhaps what you’re seeing is something relatively normal (720×486 non-square pixels displaying as square in QT Player) or something more bizarre than that. In FCP, there is an option in the viewer windows to correct for pixel aspect. This will be turned on by default for non-square pixel material, such as 4×3 standard definition video. If it really does look anamorphic in QT player, then it would look more like 854×486 and that’s not normal for regular 4×3 SD video.
Either way, from what you’re saying, it sounds like you got what you wanted for all of the other clips, so why couldn’t they have given you what you wanted for the rest? That would be my argument. No reason why anyone capturing SD video from a Beta SP shouldn’t be able to give you quicktimes that aren’t 720×486 and look like all the rest. If in FCP browser it tells you that the files are 720×486, then they most likely are, but you might as well bring this up as there was clearly a change in the way they digitized the clips at some point. Good luck…
-
[Joseph Donarummo] “I was told to open up a final cut 23.98 final cut project and sequence…”
Whoever told you that headed you down a path to frustration. Here are a few things to consider:
– when going from 30p to 24p, most conversions simply throw away frames
– Final Cut Pro is one of the worst offenders in dealing with off-frame media
What I recommend is if you really need to go to 24p, use Compressor. Compressor has a feature known as Optical Flow which can smooth out these frames as best as it can to make it appear as though no information has been lost. It is still losing temporal information no matter how you slice it, but with Optical Flow in Compressor you can get a far better result than with Final Cut.
Open Compressor and drop in your 30p clip.
Find the preset named “Apple ProRes 422 (HQ)” and drag and drop it onto your clip.
Click on the preset name as it is attached now to your clip.
Now you will notice that the Inspector will allow you to adjust the settings. In the Encoder tab, change the video settings so that the frame rate is exactly 23.976.
In the Frame Controls tab, click the gear icon and turn Frame Controls ON.
Set Resize to Fast, Output Fields to Same as Source, Deinterlace to Fast. This sets all of these to be ignored since we aren’t doing any of these. However we are going to “retime” the clip.
Set the Retiming controls to Best. This invokes Optical Flow and will interpolate the frames you have down to 23.976fps, keeping as much of the temporal information intact as possible. Leave duration set to 100% of source, as you want to keep the duration intact.
Click submit and wait a while. You will be left with a 24p file that is possibly the best looking clip you can get with software.Keep in mind this might still not be good enough. The better alternative would be to pass your clip through a realtime hardware frame rate converter like a Teranex VC-1. You will get better results from that. My advice above assumes that you don’t have access to that ~$30K piece of gear. Good luck.
-
[Deb Field] “20 of the 125 clips display “stretched” in QuickTime. These 20 tapes also don’t have a .mov extension, whereas the other 105 do”
Not sure why they would display as stretched, but perhaps whoever captured these captured with an anamorphic flag turned on. The fact that the clips don’t have a .mov extension tells me that it’s likely whoever captured these just dragged the files out of the Capture Scratch. This isn’t what you want.
[Deb Field] “The project manager told me that it’s just a metadata flag in the video, and that it won’t matter for editing in FCP. He offered to run the clips through Compressor and convert them, but also told me it’s not really necessary.”
If you paid for something, it should be right. Anybody who told you they could capture BetaSP to ProRes and gave you whatever this is clearly oversold their ability.
[Deb Field] “Do I need to have the 20 tapes redigitized to match the others?”
I would demand that. If the other stuff is good, just tell them that there are anomalies with some of the footage they gave you, and it needs to be recaptured. Beta SP (NTSC) should come in to you as 720×486, 29.97fps. No anamorphic unless you specifically asked for it. While they might give you reasons why it should work if you use it in FCP, who’s to say you weren’t going to use it elsewhere? If you paid for a straight digitize of standard definition video, that’s what you’re entitled to. Nobody who buys a Big Mac expects to get Filet-O-Fish.
-
[Simon Pegg] “Is no one implementing ATSC A/85 yet?”
This is a well thought out recommendation that some broadcasters are implementing into their specs. What we do is provide content to the broadcasters based on their specs. If it’s in the spec, we’ll hit it. If not, we’ll hit whatever levels they want in their specs.
[Simon Pegg] “That has requirements for average perceptual loudness (-24LKFS) and allows a peak level of of -2dBTP (-2dBFS on a true-peak meter).”
Mixers are so far reluctant to take this on without being told specifically to do so. Reason being that they’re going to have to adjust their dynamics processing severely to hit these targets. In my cursory testing in my own facility, most mixes coming out of the rooms average around -19LKFs. That’s going to be a drastic change when it’s implemented. Until the requirement is there (by the law and subsequently the broadcaster’s spec), nobody is backing down from “loud” mixing. Some broadcasters are already implementing it as test run and those mixes who are above -24LKFs by more than 2dB are being forcefully corrected at the broadcast end, generally by TC or Dolby loudness analyzers/corrective devices.
-
Also – your deck’s meter IS a VU meter. Just not a very detailed one. However, this is PERFECTLY valid for reporting to you the correct VU levels going to tape. If you see even a smidge over that -10 line, send the mixes back. No reason any post mixer using software of the last 10 years can’t hit that perfectly.
-
Mixer is wrong, simple. Your spec says audio can average -15 but not go over -10. They went for an average of -10, therefore mixed to a completely wrong level. Send it back, with the specs, and have them read it again. This is simple simple stuff for any post audio mixer. If they can’t follow rules like this on a simple spec sheet, I wonder how much business they’ll ever do. -10dBFs peak is a pretty standard thing in TV delivery for USA.