Mike Most -- account bouncing, bad address
Forum Replies Created
-
One possibility is to render a Quicktime file with a gamma of somewhere between 2.2 and 2.5. That should display properly on a television monitor.
-
A computer monitor is not a television. A television has a different gamma, which is one of the main determinants of apparent contrast. The Macintosh uses a 1.7 standard gamma. The standard gamma for television is closer to 2.5, so anything below that is going to look too dark. DVD players, satellite recievers, and other video devices are set up for television display gamma. Computer display outputs are not.
-
If you capture every clip using one of the time code frames I mentioned as your in point (all of the ones ending in 0 and 5) the Cinema Tools defaults will work just fine.
-
If it was done professionally using standard conventions, all frames with timecode ending in 0 or 5 are “A” frames. This would mean, in any given second, frames 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25.
-
You need to do a little homework here. There are no Avid products for Intel Macs at this point in time, unless you run the Intel Mac under Windows – and even then, the hardware situation vis a vis video cards and the like is a bit dicey. Avid has promised support, but the products have not been released up to this point.
-
>>Just curious, but with as many seats, why do you think Avid does it?
Because it’s their business, it’s what they were created to do. Apple is a computer company. Avid is an editing/media systems company. They provide a lot more than XPress Pro, you know. Their primary businesses today are automation systems for large television installations and professional editing systems. They design, manufacture, and support these systems directly. Apple, on the other hand, is in business to sell you a computer – and then another one about 1-2 years from now. No matter how you might look at it, you can’t run their software without buying their hardware. You do use their hardware. You have to.
-
Hmmm.
Good points. However, the base footage underneath – i.e., the photographed footage – would be unaffected, regardless of whether you cut in a progressive or interlaced mode. For a narrative piece, it makes no difference.
-
Personally, I don’t see where doing a high end system makes any business sense for a company like Apple. The number of potential customers for such a system is, frankly, miniscule compared to their overall user base. The amount of revenue that it can generate, relative to the development costs, in my estimation would be extremely low. Apple is a hardware company. The number of new Macs such a system would sell would be in the low thousands, if that much. I’m not saying they won’t do it. I’m saying from a business standpoint, it makes almost no sense. They somewhat succeeded in turning Final Cut into a consumer product in terms of the number of seats they’ve sold, in part by offering a cut down version (Express) at a bargain basement price, and in part by pricing the “pro” version at an equally bargain basement price relative to both its value and the competition. If they did a “high end” product, they would also have to radically change the level of support they offer for high end clients to even think about buying into it.
Once again, I really don’t see where this makes good business sense. But that won’t necessarily stop them.
-
Why? What difference does it make?
-
If it was captured progressively, it makes no difference whether you digitize it that way or not. If you bring it in as interlaced, field one and two will have material from the same progressive frame anyway. This is often a misunderstood issue in 25 frame land as well, where capturing 25p but posting 50i give you the same result. Progressive capture doesn’t demand progressive format post production unless the material is 24 fps (or 23.98).