Neil Patience
Forum Replies Created
-
You simply keep the source as 16:9 and then make the sequence you edit it into 4:3 to determine the final aspect ratio.
When you edit 16:9 material into a 4:3 sequence you will get letterboxed pictures by default.If you then want the image to fill the frame, ie no black bar top and bottom, you have to zoom into the image (losing the sides).
You will then have a full frame 4:3 image.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
I am pretty sure that .mp4 files do not support timecode.
So when you create an .mp4 file it reverts to a simple frame counter hence starting at 0:00:00 again.
Obviously the BITC still reflects the TC of the sequence.I think H264 supports T/C so try using that instead of a .mp4 file
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Still images from video, even HD video, in print terms, are low res.
Its worth noting that an HD frame at 1920×1080 is only equivalent to a shade over 2 megapixels. So something poster sized may not look great.
SD video is less than 0.5 of a megapixel so again something poster sized is going to look poor.
Your 4000×2500 still images equate to 10 megapixels so as you have noted will look much sharper.
As a rule of thumb the maximum print size without suffering some quality reduction for a 2 megapixel image is reckoned to be something like a 6″x4″ print.
Your 4000×2500 stills on the other hand should make a 16″x24″ before they start to suffer.
Those maximum sizes are not absolute of course, much depends on the sharpness and quality of the original image but video grabs are not always optimal when compared to a still image of the same dimensions taken with a stills camera. So you can usually push stills to a larger size.
It helps if you pick frames where there was not much camera or subject movement.
I think you might struggle to get poster sized prints without some kind of quality loss being noticed from a frame grab though.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Hi Aindreas
I think you could be right – It could well be just desktop editing for self-op but I wonder how they integrate that into the wider editing system which I too would be suprised was not Avid and where they are doing it. BBC Natural History is, I think, largely based in Bristol where I have never worked so no first hand experience there.
I have emailed a couple of people so should get an answer hopefully.Also just wanted to say I have enjoyed reading your posts on FCPX, I pretty much agree with your sentiments. Are you Uk based ?
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Interesting press release – odd thing is with 2000 additional seats you would imagine that walking into any edit suite there would be evidence of it.
However I was working there in 2010/11 in various suites in London and and it was nowhere to be seen. Avid and some FCP only.
To be fair they were winding down TVC at that time and preparing to move to Manchester so perhaps its there.
I will email a few BBC contacts and see if I can find out whats really going on with this – if I can find out I will report back, it has me interested now.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
[Dave LaRonde] ”
I understand that the BBC has adopted Premiere Pro as an NLE, and is currently integrating it into day-to-day operations. Am I mistaken in this knowledge? Please correct me if I’m wrong.”I too have heard this, however the BBC is a huge place with multiple centres across the UK. Equipment varies from place to place, indeed department to department.
In London alone they have several large facilities for both TV and radio. For instance, until this year BBC TV Centre in London certainly didnt have any Adobe at all that I ever saw. I have worked in many suites there for different departments.
Sports was all Avid, other programme suites in factual and entertainment etc had both Avid and FCP available. However for the last year they seemed to be switching more editing to Avid. Series that I had cut in previous years on FCP were being cut on Avid but the FCP’s were still there.
BBC Wood Lane (close to TV centre) certainly had Avids when I was there about 18 months ago, but likely had FCP lurking too.Now the main BBC London base is well in the process of moving to Manchester and I dont know what the editing facilities are based on there.
I have worked at BBC Glasgow in Scotland and that was on Avid however there are other centres like BBC Cardiff and BBC Bristol for instance that may be different.
Like Steve, I have yet to meet anyone who as actually cut on any of these fabled Adobe suites at the BBC but the scale of the place means that’s not to say they dont have them hidden away somewhere.
Just as yet nowhere I have seen, operated by anyone I know.Perhaps if any COW users have operated these suites or know where the BBC have them they could let us know.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
It should be easy to spot if this is a growing trend or a flash in the pan.
I work through one of the oldest agencies in London that supply freelancers to the broadcast industry all over the UK and some work abroad. I asked them the other day if they had any requests for Adobe editors and the reply was “I think we were asked once”
They have been going for just over 25 years so any change is going to be easy to spot.
I have yet to be asked in just over 20 years of editing.best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
I think the issue that you will have is that computer graphics cards and video IO cards are very distinctly different.
Computer graphics cards dont adhere to video specification well, have issues with interlacing and all kinds of other quirks that can impact on what your client and you see.
I would say that in order to make any kind of meaningful judgement about how your pictures look then you need to get a basic video based IO that interfaces properly with FCP.
I think the BM intesity is pretty much one of the cheapest options to do this.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
If you need to play your film from a 25fps Pal projector then your sequence and output must be 25fps.
Obviously old films that were shot at 16 – 20 fps often look slightly speeded up as they were shot at say 20fps but played back at 25fps.
Really old silent films were sometimes hand cranked and actually speeded up and slowed down by the projectionist to match the mood and music being played. This stopped with the advent of sound and set speeds then had to be used.
There are old film look plug-ins you can use to simulate old film with scratches, hair and jumps etc etc
I guess if you shoot film you will transfer to tape in order to capture in FCP ? If so that will be 25 in any event. (assuming you are in Pal land)best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Hi
It depends if you want the pictures to be 4:3 or 16:9.
Its possible your BM card can convert to SD in realtime – this would be easy but depends on the card you have. Many can.
If not:
For 16:9 FHA and if you want to do it in FCP then create an SD 720×576 ProRes 422 (upper field) sequence and make sure the anamorphic flag is ticked in the sequence settings.
Then use the 1920×1080 file and edit that into the new sequence,
Since everything is 16:9 you will not get any black bars.However resizing in FCP is not always the best way to go and you may get a better result in Compressor.
Same process in Compressor – convert to ProRes 442 720×576 anamorphic.If you want 4:3 then you do the same but do not tick anamorphic.
You will then get the bars top and bottom but you can zoom in to the picture to lose them. Since your source is HD you will not lose any quality in an SD timeline.Dont use a DV codec as that is not ideal for DigiBeta.
I dont use BM but if you are creating a file you can take to work to output then I would have thought your BM card should be fine with ProRes.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv