Forum Replies Created

Page 6 of 6
  • Nicholas Natteau

    May 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm in reply to: FCP-IO HD question

    Thank you very much Shane for taking the time to explain that to me.

    I find that if I select 1080i as an upconvert option, my upconverted footage looks a lot more interlaced than the original 480i footage. Is this normal? Is it because I am blowing up my footage 225% when going from 480i to 1080i? (as opposed to upscaling only 150% when going from 480i to 720p).

    To eliminate the interlacing, is it acceptable to throw an FCP de-interlace filter onto the upconverted 1080i footage? Or would you advise against it?

    Thanks again for all your help and advice.

    – Nick

  • Nicholas Natteau

    May 15, 2010 at 3:27 am in reply to: FCP-IO HD question

    Hi Shane,

    Thanks again for your help. Just wondering if you could shed some light on this. Having upconverted from 480i to 720p59.94 with IO HD, I noticed that when I dropped my upconverted 720p clip into my blank FCP timeline, the timeline has 59.94 as an editing timebase. I thought 59.94 referred to fields per second not frames per second. Yet it seems IO HD doubled the number of frames as it upconverted from 480i to 720p. Is this normal? I see there is no 720p30 as an upconversion option, nor a 1080p24, only 720p59.94 and 1080i29.97

    I called AJA Tech Support about it and they believe FCP is reading the clip incorrectly. But yet when I open the upconverted 720p clip with Quicktime, under movie properties, it also lists FPS as “59.94”.

    Just interested to know what you thought about this. Thank you in advance.

  • Nicholas Natteau

    November 24, 2009 at 4:37 am in reply to: using FCP to upscale SD to HD

    Hi Walter,

    Thanks for your help. I just got off the phone with an AJA rep who recommended that I consider getting the AJA IO HD instead of the Kona LHI.

    He mentioned its portability. I have two Mac Pro desktops: one at my office and one at home. I’m working on my doc-film in both locations.

    He also said that the Kona LHI was really more for ingesting uncompressed video whereas IO HD would allow me to upconvert using the Apple Pro Res codec. I found this more appealing in terms of the disk space I could save using Apple Pro res. I have one Terabyte size for my media hard drive right now.

    What’s your view on IO HD as opposed to Kona LHI?

    Thanks again for your help,

    – Nick

  • Nicholas Natteau

    November 24, 2009 at 12:18 am in reply to: using FCP to upscale SD to HD

    Hi Walter,

    Thanks for your feedback. I see that the Kona 3 is twice the price. Is it just becasue it can handle 2K or does it scale up SD to HD faster than the Kona LHI also?

    I’ll definitely upgrade to this hardware option. Can you tell me what Kona 3 does better than LHI?

    Thanks again for your feedback.

    – Nick

Page 6 of 6

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy