Neil Patience
Forum Replies Created
-
Hi Matthew
couple of questions:
[Matthew Davies] “I created credits in Photoshop and I exported it as one long JPG.”
What do you mean by a “long JPG” ? Do you mean its 1920×10800 and you are creating a rolling caption ? If so that could well give you issues as FCP does not like graphics that exceed 4K in any dimension. But if it is 10800 that would explain the scaling issue.
Are you viewing with the canvas set to 100% because that can make stuff look blurry as the canvas does not scale well.If you are making a rolling caption why not use the Boris Title Crawl (obv change to roll) or better Motion will do a good job.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Hi Julienne
yes that is the default as far as I can tell. The choice to shoot progressive or interlaced is largely an aesthetic one.
[julienne rathore] “I was always under the impression that progressive was superior to interlaced “Progressive is not really superior but people like the look. Making video look like film has been somewhat of a holy grail over the years. Film is by nature progressive and people associate that look with quality. Its interesting to see peoples reaction to The Hobbit in 48 FPS – many dont like it, too clean, too “video” but it does seem somewhat incongruous that we base “quality” on something that is probably 100 year old technology.
As has been said deinterlacing plug-ins will often result in a poorer quality image as generally they reduce the resolution. The crudest of these literally throws out a field and just doubles up the remaining field, halving the resolution in a stroke. Other use more clever algorithms to average out the differences and interpolate the fields so not as much info is lost.
As Andrew suggests Compressor does a better job than FCP so I would finish your edit and go that route. But you can never judge the quality on a computer monitor. They simply do not process interlaced images correctly so you get a false impression of the quality.
You need a proper I/O card and a television monitor to make any kind of real assessment.
If you are delivering on DVD (not BluRay) then you are losing quality going to SD and that on top of deinterlacing may not show your footage in the best light. It would be interesting to burn a DVD from your interlaced sequence and another from your deinterlaced and then compare them using a DVD player on a decent TV. That will give you a much better indication than your MAC.best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
-
Agree with Dave – plus de-interacing is not a standard requirement, of course it may be that you prefer the look or your delivery requires it
Let us know where your programme is going and that will likely shed some light on whats best do do.best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
I had a quick “google” and it seems moov files were from QT4 kind of era. You will likely have do do some searching for a codec to play them though.
Sorry cant be of more help but hopefully that points you i the right direction.best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
-
As per Steves comment – not sure why you need to de-interlace. The de-interlace filter on FCP is not the most “subtle” of deinterlacers. You will likely degrade your footage if you use that.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
I have run FCP 7.03 without issue (OS-wise) up to OS 10.7.5, others here are running happily on Mountain Lion – obviously I have at times needed to update plug-ins and ancillary software etc but overall not had any problems. With the major OS changes like from Snow Leopard to Lion etc I have always done a clean install but not on incremental updates.
That said is there a a compelling reason to update your OS mid project ? Because the law of sod is potentially going to kick in and ruin your otherwise nice day.
Have to confess I dont remember what happens between 10.6.6 and 10.6.8 in terms of additional features though.
Might be time consuming but perhaps do a total back up of your drive so you can roll back in the event of something nasty happening.
If you dont have Time machine then Carbon Copy Cloner is very good – I have used it many times https://www.bombich.com
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Hmm so if you are working on a previous project that was fine on the older MAC it does seem unlikely that anything has changed in terms of the media.
I suppose it could potentially be a monitoring thing although I would have thought it was unlikely. Does it always occur in the same place or is it random ?Have you any other projects you can open and see if it happens there ? Does it only happen on this sequence or do you have any other sequences you can check ?
If you export a section that is displaying the flickering does it show up on the exported file or is that OK ?
Kinda hard to diagnose without seeing it really.
Maybe worth doing the usual prefs trash and permissions repair just to eliminate the basics.
https://www.digitalrebellion.com/prefman/ – this is the easiest way to trash prefs.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Hi Jimmy
yes I see your issue – I had thought that you could copy the speed attribute then check the box making the clip longer. However now that I have actually tried that it does not work of course. – Kinda silly of me to imagine it would. Teach me to say something while not actually in front of my machine. – Apologies.
I too see odd speeds happening, where you input say 49% and it becomes 49.08% or something slightly random. Speed changes were never FCPs strongpoint.I guess maybe the way to do it is the old school method of baking the slomo shots so they become “standard” QT files again. Not that that helps with your current situation.
I did not realise there was an incompatibility with speed changes. It was the same with older versions of Color and not until FCP V7.03 and Color 1.5.3 that was finally fixed and speed changes were translated correctly.
Hope you managed to get through it.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv