Tevya Washburn
Forum Replies Created
-
use 640×480 if cinepak will allow that.
–the Fiddler
-
I just remembered a couple things after posting (are these forums ever going to get edit, bump, & other features that other “modern” forums have?): One main one in my descision to go with Firewire was that it also requires less CPU power to opperate. Thus when you’re transfering data via USB, it may hit higher speeds, but pulls more from your system to do so. Now that I think about it, maybe this has something to do with our different results. Are you guys on dual-core, or dual CPU systems? If so, maybe your machines are able to sustain a higher transfer rate, while still allowing you to do other things without interupting that data flow because of the dual cores. I’m still stuck on a single CPU, single core system.
So maybe in the “olden days” Firewire was better, but with newer, better tech, USB 2 wins out. However, I’d assume that Firewire 800 with it’s much higher bandwidth trumps them both.
–the Fiddler
-
Mike: I really like the MacAlly brand enclosures for USB or Firewire (and assume their SATA ones are great too). They’re well built, alluminum (to draw heat away), and have worked flawlessly for myself and others I know of. As for daisy chaining, yes, that’s how I’ve got my machine setup. There are two MacAlly enclosures chained together, and I often hook a camera into the end of that chain and have never had any problems with transfer rates or anything.
John and Gary: I don’t know what’s up here. I’d really like to find out the truth here, so here’s why I said what I said (and I intended no offence): when I was setting things up as I have them now, I did extensive research to decide which was better before I purchased one way or the other. All the stats I looked at, as well as many hardware “gurus” (who know way more about all the down and dirty technical aspects than I), said to go with Firewire because it will can maintain a higher average transfer rate, in spite of its lower 400mbps cap. They cited issues with the way Microsoft and others setup the USB 2 standard, and other things. Because of this, I went with Firewire and have never had so much as a small sneeze in opperation this way. It’s been fast and painless all the way. I can’t say as much for USB which occasionally causes system hangs when multiple USB HDD’s are plugged in at the same time.
I now have an external drive that does both USB 2 & Firewire. And testing with various HDD read/write benchmarks revealed all I’d read to be true (at least in my case). On USB 2, it hits some really high transfer rates (around the full 480mbps), but can’t sustain them, quickly dropping very low, then spiking back up again. The result is an average that’s lower than when it’s attached via Firewire. In that case (Firewire) it holds a fairly consistent transfer rate below the full 400mbps, but noticeably higher than the average that USB 2 gets.
Have either of you benchmarked your Firewire drives against the USB ones? And if so, is there a possibility that the Firewire was older hardware that either needed a firmware update, or had slower drives inside? If none of this is the case, I wonder why we’re experiencing such different results? Also, anyone else had experience with both sides that might be able to weigh in here with some new info that could shed some light on the discrepancy?
–the Fiddler
-
Gary Kleiner: with Firewire you get a much more consistent data rate than USB 2.0. Though USB can go higher at its peak, it’s averages are ussually significantly lower because it bounces from peak to 0 (or very low) very quickly. With firewire, you get a more consistent sustained rate, making it overall faster, and much more reliable, especially for video. So I think his descision to switch is a good one.
Mike Minske: I have two external HDD’s daisy-chained, then will often hook my camera into the end of that chain. So far it has work wonderfully, without problems, including ton’s of capturing from the camera to one of the HDD’s (while all three units are on and part of the chain).
–the Fiddler
-
I’ll second the glow thing there. I’ve actually gotten some great results for other (non-wedding) grading using two glows together, one to bring out the white highlights, then a second to kinda blur and soften them. If that makes sense.
–the Fiddler
-
The bundled script will also allow you to render regions. With the ability to import other projects as clips, you could create a new project, then place each of the projects you want to render on the timeline. Make each of the projects on that timeline a region, then use the batch render with the region option set. This will render out each region (in this case each project) for you as a separate file.
–the Fiddler
-
Concerning Wax. It does plugin to Vegas, and it in theory does allow you to use VirtualDub filters. However, until it’s updated it only sorta works with Vegas 6 and 7. And can only successfully use some VirtualDub filters. I’m not saying don’t try, you might get Deshaker to work, but I’d be very shocked if you did.
Deshaker does do something that the one included with the stripped down version of Boris doesn’t (I have no idea if the full version does it). Which is to use previous and future frames to fill in the edges as it compensates for motion, this means you don’t have to zoom on the video as much (or perhaps at all) to remove shake. This is a great feature, that the Boris LTD doesn’t have. To me this makes it only marginally usefull, and only for shots where there is very little shake, so you don’t have to zoom much.
–the Fiddler
-
Sounds like we’ve got another convert. Vegas: +1 Premiere: -1
Sony ought to make a Mac “Switch” type commercial and use all of us who switched from Premiere to Vegas, and love it!
–the Fiddler
-
Mike’s right. As long as you have Vegas 6.0d or better, you can just use the settings he listed to eport directly for iPod. However, this only supports the older 320×240 video format for iPod. If you’re just playing back on the iPod this works great. But if you want to playback on say a TV from your iPod, the new 640×480 support (with iTunes 7 & a firmware upgrade, or the newest iPod videos), is much better. Vegas currently does not support this. Upping the resolution in the preset Mike mentioned won’t work. iTunes won’t synch it. The Apple guys made it so some specific bits have to be set a certain way (or with certain info) that’s different for the 640×480.
–the Fiddler
-
Your post gets really confusing about half way through. If I understand correctly. Yes, render out the video a second time from a 16:9 project (converted from the original). Telling DVDA that they both use the same audio file, should work fine, but it doesn’t really matter, because when it prepares the DVD it will mux it into both files as separate VOB files. Now in your menu, just have two play options: 1 for 4:3 and 1 for 16:9, then link each to the respective video. This should work fine. If you play them back on a 4:3 TV, it will show the 4:3 one normally, and the 16:9 one with black bars on the top and bottom. If you play them back on a 16:9 TV, it will show the 16:9 one fullscreen, and the 4:3 one with black bars on the sides.
–the Fiddler