Michael Phillips
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Michael Phillips] “You can create interlace looking footage from your progressive footage by applying the motion effect at 100% with progressive as input and interlace as output.”
Eer, what would that do? (My avid is busy at the moment…)
The other way around is a quick and dirty de-interlace trick, but this ‘should’ do nothing…
Or am i missing something?[mep] I am going on the premise that he is in a 1080i project because he needs to be for whatever reason. If he wants interlace footage in an interlace project from progressive media, he can use the motion effect to create that. It’s just a suggestion.
[Michael Phillips] “It would be great if Avid offered a option when rendering effects while in an interlace project to be frame based or field based. Right now, the project types defines that.”
And what would be the point of that? I can imagine an option where you can set the p or i per render, but overall, for broadcast / dvd / BluRay select I, for other stuff, use P if the footage is P.
[mep] The reason is that if I am tracking an effect on frame based media, I want the render to be progressive for that particular shot – same for interlace. It’s a matter of choice (as an option on a per shot/effect basis) that the user can choose the behavior and resulting look. The same way it in the NTSC world of past, having a rolling title incorporate a 2:3 cadence for film material that had 23.976 so that the movement would match – MPEG encoders have a hard time with flattened footage that has a mixture of cadences in the same frame. The feature would have eliminated the need to first do a “remove 2>3 cadence, apply effect, render out new 2:3 back to 29.97. It’s all about matching VFX to the material and the motion within the frame.
And you cannot choose to render P or i on effects (other than motion effect as an effect) in an interlace project, which is why I brought it up – again, because this project is set to 1080i for whatever reason.
Creating good looking file based exports will depend on where the file is going and what it will be seen on. With more and more screens being progressive, it has always made sense to me to work in progressive, but interlace is still a big part of the acquisition, and libraries, so now it is a matter of dealing with it in post. When I have had interlace footage in a progressive project, I have used the motion effect (fluid) to make progressive from interlace as most time is created the progressive look to match the other material, rather than just basic field blending.
Michael
-
I agree – ask your editor how they want that to be defined. Most feature editors I speak with keep it mono – but shorter form editors like them –
Michael
-
Were you able to see the files? I also want to make sure that these are DNxHD files ending in .mxf and not DnxHD files ending in .mov correct?
Michael
-
It’s more about the motion in the footage than it is about the footage format itself. Moving objects change position every 1/25th of a second in 1080p/25, and every 1/50th of second in 1080i/50.
25p footage in an interlace project will still have the same frame to frame (and not field to field) movement in it but all effects will be processed as fields – so a horizontal wipe for example would have 50 different positions every second, while the car moving by changes every 25th.
You can create interlace looking footage from your progressive footage by applying the motion effect at 100% with progressive as input and interlace as output.
When outputting as a video signal, it will be 50 fields of interlace material per second. How the motion looks will be based on the above.
It would be great if Avid offered a option when rendering effects while in an interlace project to be frame based or field based. Right now, the project types defines that.
Michael
-
When this comes up, my current response is: “Grant is crazy enough to do it, but smart enough not to.” I am in the camp that he doesn’t need to buy Avid – now I reserve the right for him to pick and choose components of Avid if that were ever put on the market.
Michael
-
The mixdown was only a suggestion to avoid a hit & miss conform in Resolve depending on your composition, number of effects, layers, nests, plug-ins, etc. and you needed was a series of DPX files of the program itself. Do this on a copy of the sequence, but always keep the original sequence for other needs.
Michael
-
Just want to make sure that what you list as R:Avid MediaFilesMXF1. is really R:Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1 where it is three embedded folders at the root level of the R drive.
If so, then another way to bring in just that folder’s media is from the bin, File Import – then navigate to R:Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1 and inside the 1 folder, select the msmMMOB.mdb file. All clips in that folder will now have pointers in the bin.
Michael
-
If all you need is DPX for the sequence as completed in MC, then do a video mixdown then AAF or EDL out that new “single” clip for Resolve. DPX from there. Should work.
Michael
-
Excellent suggestion and solution. I forgot to mention Resolve, but that would be the best, free, and LUT control system you could get for exporting DPX files natively from Avid media. Kicking myself as I just did a whole seminar yesterday on third party tools to use with Media Composer for 2K+ workflows. Resolve was used heavily (amongst others) and I already forgot my own lesson one day later. 🙂
Michael
-
If using Avid DS for conform/master, why not just send the MediaFiles as they are now? Why go through any conversion process? Unless I am missing something.
Michael