Nate Weaver
Forum Replies Created
-
[Eben Abbaan] “won’t be any different than when we color correct our DSLR footage in FCP 7: we have the same abilities/limitations in the 4:2:0 color space as before.”
Yes and no. FCP7 never did color calculations/image processing in 32bit float, I don’t believe.
But yes to the 4:2:0 part. Just because you processed the 4:2:0 image in a 4:4:4 bucket doesn’t mean it makes it better, other than the fact than you can be assured it didn’t make it any worse.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
[Eben Abbaan] “”Will picture quality suffer [by editing native h264/AVCHD]? Not particularly. The downside is render time and limited color correction space.” -Larry”
Render time nobody can argue with. “Limited color correction space” is what does not make sense based on what I know of image processing in Resolve and FCP (or X).
The 8bit codec is decoded into a 32bit deep frame buffer, whereupon processing is performed in 32bit float. At the end of the pipeline, it is truncated back to 8 bit or 10 bit, depending on viewing method or render format.
Larry’s assumption is that the frame buffer/processing is 8bit/4:2:0 because the codec is 8bit/4:2:0. Not really the case, not in FCPX, not in Resolve. Frame buffer is gonna be 32bit float 4:4:4.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
I disagree pretty strongly when people talk about transcoding to Pro Res is going to increase your image quality.
You can’t make a better image (i.e. less compression artifacts, get the benefits of a 10bit file from an 8 bit codec). Just like when you upscale SD to 1080p. More detailed image data doesn’t just magically appear.
You’d be putting 6lbs of picture in a box that holds 10lbs. But you don’t get a free image quality lunch. The damage is done when that uncompressed baseband video inside the Canon is compressed. It doesn’t come back. Not a tiny bit, not a lot.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
I saw this and thought to myself, “oh, that’s how they’ll solve audio stem outputs”
But then I thought about posting that in the other forum, thought better of it, and went back to learning the program.
The deeper I go in, the more I can figure out about how certain things are going to be fixed…like how multicam is going to be an offshoot of Synchronized Clips, most likely. Etc etc.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
>And when you were talking about 30p issues I read that backwards, as in putting 29.97 footage in 23.98. That’s when you need a Teranex.
Actually, the Terenex does a horrible job of this. 3 years ago I directed a concert in 30P, and then 5 months later they did a theatrical release of it via DCI.
We did tests for a week. Compressor’s Motion Compensated frame rate conversion won. The Terenex looked awful. The 90 minute render took 48 hours. 🙂
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
Guys, I’m confused where you’re coming from.
Last night I exported a 1080/29.97i “Project” with a 1080/23.98P clip inside it and it exported it perfectly with 2:3 interlaced pulldown.
Just NOW, I made a 720/59.94P “Project”, put a 1080/23.98P clip inside it, and exported that.
The resulting 720/59.94P Quicktime had the correct repeating cadence, 2 solid repeating frames followed by 3 solid repeating frames, then followed by 2, then 3. Over and over again. On a constant speed panning shot so I can see it with my eyes as well, it’s smooth.
It all seems to work for me, and I understand clearly what the issue was with FCP7 as I had to go out of my way to do it correctly many times in other programs.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
I saw this late late last night.
Surprisingly, this seems to be the most legit source of info so far, and what they say is encouraging.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
I was working in Position mode, razor blading, and moving endpoints around.
Do that enough though, and “track 3” bumps down to “track 2” and starts to make things confusing.
I think if I do it again I will be in Position mode, razor blade, and use the V shortcut to toggle visibility.
I learned on the old FCPs that doing stuff like that tended to make your project size balloon, but I’m betting some of those old habits aren’t needed anymore.
Not a good alternative to real Multiclips by a long shot, but I *can* get work done this way.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
You might be right about 720p59.94 though. I didn’t check that out.
But that bit about 30P I mentioned above is def impossible, really, without doing way more complicated processing that I couldn’t expect in an editing program.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net -
[Tony Silanskas] “Or just make a 29.97P project and do it in there”
There’s no such thing as correctly putting a 23.98 file into a 29.97P stream. You need the fields to do it correctly.
To make 23.98 go into 30P smoothly there needs to be morphing work like Twixtor or Optical Flow.
Nate Weaver
Director/D.P., Los Angeles
https://www.nateweaver.net