[Robin S. kurz]

Could it be you’re mixing threads here? ????

Assuming we’re talking about the issue from the other thread, the 3D + Z coordinates should definitely work, yes. Just tried it. Works as expected. You must be missing something.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

DAMMIT… beat me to it, once again. ????

Though the question is, whether the other squares need to stay visible? Or are you not scaling full screen? In which case, if they don’t need to be visible, you could solve it other ways as well.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

That won’t have been done with a replicator, though technically possible I guess, but rather simply using a drop zone that has been cloned, masked and animated accordingly.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

[Joe Marler] “[Hans Lucas] “I’m running QT 10.5 full screen and it looks just fine, which is not the case when I run FCP X full screen (same screen size)”

This is because QT10 will deinterlace in some circumstances –“

Which doesn’t explain why it “looks fine” in QT10 in comparison, since if it in fact deinterlaces, then both should look exactly alike, seeing that that is what FCP does by default as well. But then one needs to define “fine” to begin with. Since most will consider the display of BOTH fields to look worse, since it has “combing” in fast motion, but is factually TWICE the resolution vertically, so most definitely looks better when there is no motion. Just no one is used to seeing fields anymore since the advent of HD, which more often than not is shot progressive, but also because it’s displayed WITHOUT fields by default no matter how it was shot, which is far less detrimental to the perceived quality due to the much higher overall resolution. On the other hand showing 25p/29.97p on a regular TV as opposed to their i-counterparts is a horrible, jittery idea as well.

In other words, if you’re comparing QT10’s and FCP’s displaying of interlaced material, then you need to also be sure that BOTH are set to the same. Because in that case there is absolutely no technical or even logical reason why they should look ANY different. If they do, then they clearly must be using different settings.

[Joe Marler] “The FCPX viewer apparently does not deinterlace so this can be confusing.”

Huh? By default? Sure it does. You have to explicitly turn (both) fields on to see them, not the other way around.

[Joe Marler] “Will it be uploaded and deinterlaced by Youtube?”

Youtube doesn’t not deinterlace interlaced material per se. That would be nuts. If anything, it will deinterlace the lower res versions of an interlaced clip, but not the original. Easily seen by various hi-res versions of any given talk show clip for example.

[Joe Marler] “So in theory (if you edit DV in an interlaced project) you could apply the deinterlace filter, then remember to turn it off before exporting.”

Question being: what exactly could be the point or advantage in that? ???? If you don’t want to see both fields, then simply DON’T TURN THEM ON. In which case you’re seeing the exact same image.

[Joe Marler] “show various networks shooting with cameras that are likely progressive”

That may well be, only they could simply be shooting 50p or 59.94p respectively, from which at least FCP can generate true interlace from if edited in a 25i or 29.97i project. Which is why I in fact shoot 50p if nothing says I can’t. Since from that I can produce both pristine 25p and 25i output if and as needed.

And I can’t speak for U.S. broadcasters, but here in Europe 99% of broadcasters demand interlaced or at least pfs masters, i.e. “fake” interlaced clips.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

Fixed with 10.4.5 Update.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

[Joe Marler] “it’s not deinterlacing, it’s just discarding one field”

Yes. the exact same thing that any and every “Deinterlace” filter does, except maybe “Fieldskit”. Which was my point.

[Joe Marler] “if you add legacy DV content to a progressive project, don’t deinterlace that and output as progressive, the DV clips look bad”

Then I would suspect that your field dominance settings are not correct, since I’m not seeing that. Which is the whole point of that setting: so FCP not only knows that it’s interlaced, but also, with that, knows that it needs to toss one field upon output as progressive i.e. which on to toss. But then it doesn’t really matter either way in a case where you know you’ll never need to output interlaced, since either way you’re always just tossing one field. Just with the filter you can choose which one.

[Joe Marler] “[Robin S. Kurz]”…And whether an exported clip is “flagged” as progressive or not is solely defined by HOW you output it…”

The project type can definitely affect this. I just put a DV clip in an NTSC interlaced project, output it using the ProRes 422 preset and it was flagged as interlaced. Then I changed the project characteristics from 29.97i to 29.97p, output it the same way, and it was flagged progressive. The only thing that changed was the project characteristics.”

Which is exactly my point, yes. Outputting as “Original” (i.e. ProRes) will obviously always respect the project settings! But you can just as well output that same project via Compressor or a Compressor preset to the opposite of the project and ProRes you want. Ergo: “is solely defined by how you output it”.

[Joe Marler] “If that same clip from the same project is output as DV, it will be flagged interlaced”

Because there is no such thing as progressive DV. As with ANY SD format of yesteryear, DV is ALWAYS interlaced. Even if your source footage was progressive, yes. Or even if you slap a deinterlace filter on any interlaced footage, which will only make it look crap… but it’ll still be output interlaced no matter what if output as DV.

[Joe Marler] “Also it’s less common nowadays to have all-interlaced material.”

Erm… wha? Any and everything I produce for broadcast not only IS interlaced (either coming in, going out or both), but in fact HAS to be interlaced, if “only” pfs. And outputting in any given progressive format when needed has never been a quality issue. But obviously… YMMV. ????????‍♂️

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

[Hans Lucas] “The only new little problem is that I can now see the two fields shifting from each other as soon as there is movement in the image… (I don’t get that either in QT).”

Pretty much an “Eat your cake and have it, too” situation, no? And I suspect that you just don’t notice it in the QT Player due to the display size. Because the QT Player (X) most certainly doesn’t deinterlace on the fly. QT 7 had an option for that.

[Joe Marler] “In theory the FCPX viewer should do that”

How is it NOT doing that if you don’t tell it to show both fields? ????

[Joe Marler] “each interlaced clip can (and should) be deinterlaced with the filter, and the output will be flagged progressive in the video header”

No they shouldn’t. Unless of course you want the exact quality that he’s trying to avoid. And whether an exported clip is “flagged” as progressive or not is solely defined by HOW you output it. In which case the original state of any one clip in the timeline, whether p or i, is irrelevant. Meaning if you output an interlaced clip as progressive (e.g. with one of the “Apple Devices” Destinations) it is automatically reduced to its first field upon export. If output as “Original” from an “i” project then p material is rendered with fields. Only if that material isn’t e.g. 50p within a 25i project, both fields will of course be identical, effectively being “pfs”. But if you output a 50p clip from a 25i project then FCP in fact generates true interlaced frames using frames 1+2, 3+4, 5+6 etc. etc.

Of course if you apply some interlace filter, then you kill any and all chances of outputting the material in its original format and quality if you decide to.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

Still don’t get it, sorry. Since any audio person worth even half their salt would and will never have any such issue. Especially If you’re using and assigning your roles correctly and outputting your (I’m assuming) AAF e.g. via X2Pro accordingly.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

I don’t get it. If you assigned each track correctly and exported it AS SURROUND, there’s absolutely no need for any labels. Any and every app will know what’s what. That’s like wanting to tag left and right of a stereo file, where it’s obvious which is which and is interpreted by every app accordingly, whether tagged or not.

Otherwise simply export a separate AC3 file!

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

[Kenny Evans] “So what is the official way to do this kind of an edit in the new FCPX?”

Erm… new FCPX? It’s been that way since day one.

Simply hold the “~” key (assuming you’re on a U.S. keyboard) when deleting, to temporarily override all connections. Done.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook