Forum Replies Created

Viewing 1 - 10 of 1,891 posts
  • Sean ONeil

    January 17, 2013 at 11:43 pm

    Alright I figured it out. There is a bug but it’s very minor.

    Basically if you have [email protected] anamorphic footage, and you have Best Performance set for playback, FCPX thinks it’s interlaced as it scales it and the image bounces up and down in the Viewer, even if the clip is set as progressive in the Inspector. I thought it was exporting like this to Vimeo but I don’t have Vimeo plus so I can’t try and replicate it easily.

    By running the source clip through Compressor and cropping off 6 lines, the new 480p version I made does not have this problem at all. FCPX’s Best Performance plays it like it does everything else.

    Turning on Best Quality for 486p it seems fine.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    January 17, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    [Charlie Austin] “Type “Conform frame sizes and frame rates” into the FCP X Help Menu search field. Go to the help topic that appears. The geniuses put instructions there for you. :-)”

    Thanks! That help article does indeed describe how to get to the Info>Settings View (never seen user settings inside an info pane before – weird) where what I was looking for does reside. But to be fair to me, the article does not say anything about setting interlace/progressive flags (just that you can apply a deinterlace filter to it) so I may not have thought to look there even if I had read it.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    January 17, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    Thank you for that! I did not know that was there. Previous things I read said FCP couldn’t add an anamorphic flag or anything like that.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    January 17, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    Thanks as well. Am I wrong in thinking this option didn’t exist in 10.0.0?

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    January 17, 2013 at 8:22 am

    I’ve been messing around with it. I even used QT Edit and made sure everything was flagged properly. Pretty sure this is a bug. It doesn’t happen in FCP7, Premiere, or Avid. The geniuses probably didn’t think 720×[email protected] is a thing. FCPX seems to be assuming it’s interlaced when it isn’t and there’s nothing I can do to change its mind.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    January 17, 2013 at 8:09 am

    Thanks but I don’t see anything other than Color and Spatial Conform.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    July 17, 2011 at 3:39 am

    I’ll get back to you in 3 years.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    June 30, 2011 at 12:48 am

    Most of the backlash has to do with metadata conversion (importing, sharing – even the ability to use a separate tape capture app). Personally I’m somewhat impressed with FCPX. The under-the-hood performance jump is off the charts. I watched someone scrubbing around and doing elaborate RT effects on an iMac with media that was on a consumer NAS drive. And I like the modular philosophy. Allowing FCP to get bogged down with all that easily breakable junk is what held it back in the first place. I agree with you on that point. I really don’t see why metadata conversion needs to be built into the program you use to edit with. Automatic Duck made it possible for me to switch from Media100 to FCP years ago. I’d actually rather experts on metadata translation be the ones making it happen instead of some cubicle drone at one of the world’s largest corporations.

    But I disagree with your view on the future of the post production business. All the arcane things the pros still use that should have been obsolete for years now (tapes, broadcast monitors, SANs, even interlaced video formats) provide something an indie with a DSLR and iMovie can never provide: Confidence. The people who control the purse strings don’t know or care if a $50 hard drive can store what HDCamSR tape can (sans the $80k deck), or that a properly calibrated Vizio TV is probably better for color grading than any uncalibrated broadcast monitor. They just want to make sure that when things go wrong (and they always do), nobody blames it on them for being cheap and not going with “the best.” That’s the barrier that the “indies” (as you call it) will have difficulty breaking.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    December 31, 2009 at 11:16 am

    I think it does this to encode faster. It segments Frame 1 into two fields, and then throws Frame 2 away into oblivion. Do you actually need a DV file or are you just trying to make a tape? If it’s just to make a tape, you can probably make a 576p50 ProRes QT in Compressor, then bring it into FCP and output to tape. I bet that would work.

    Sean

  • Sean ONeil

    October 5, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    Use MPEG Streamclip to convert it to something else.

    Sean

Viewing 1 - 10 of 1,891 posts

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