Thom Obarski
Forum Replies Created
-
We have the radeon1900XT in all of our machines at our shop. All running mac-pro 2.66 quadcores and they work great.
As for whether you want the NVIDIA or the Radeon, I’d go with the Radeon. If you work in FCP’s Color at all you’ll want the Radeon, the code for color almost insists upon it and you’ll get weird playback splitting with the NVIDIAs.
Maya works fine for us using the radeon’s.
Shake seems to prefer the NVIDIA, but not the GeForce, the Quadro line; but you’ll be just fine with the Radeon (and will save some bucks too).
~T“This is post, you can’t fix it after this.”
-
It is 23.98fps material, it was shot at 23.98, however the codec is 1080p30 when it gets written to the p2 cards, which then is pulled back to p24 when logged and transfered thru fcp.
In fact that was one of the bugs that got fixed between 6.0 and 6.0.1 was this auto pullback, this is how the workflow is supposed to happen. I’ve done 3 features now using this workflow w/ the 1080p material (and 2 more using the 720p workflow) and the only thing that is weird is the gamma out from AE.
“This is post, you can’t fix it after this.”
-
That’s how it’s supposed to come into the system, it was shot 30p but the system automaticlly brings it in @ 23.98 b/c it has to be finished as HD material going out @ 23.98. Talked to Panasonic Tech, that’s how this codec’s workflow is supposed to be done.
That’s not my problem either, I was wondering about color profiles in AE not my frame rate in FCP.
“This is post, you can’t fix it after this.”
-
One other thing, if you do upres during capture to 720, that will also allow for a very clean upres on the output all the way up to HDCam 1080p 10bit, i’ve had some very nice results with that.
-
Yes that is true, you have the hardware doing algorithms and accurate pixels and everything else that it is doing. So quality is def. much better, I thought the essance of the original question was is there technically any difference in running with one workflow over the other, which i tried to answer yes, you get all these added benefits plus additional quality at the pixel/subpixel level.
~T
-
Did you capture in FCP or use another application?
If done in FCP did you try running the DV-NTSC 24p (23.98) easy setup first?
If all else fails have you tried the remove advance pulldown from the tools menu?Worst case scenario it was shot 24p but you could go back and recapture & edit @ 29.97, you already have the quality bump of having shot 24p, just deliver like video.
Hope that helps
~Thom -
I’m not familiar with kona2, but at out shop we have several systems, some with kona3, some with blackmagic breakout boxes. When you upconvert thru your capture card you are basiclly doing the same thing as scaling it up in FCP, however you are having the hardware do it, which means you get:
1. Captured footage already at the size you need
2. Zero software goofs
3. Zero render time down the line, imagine any complicated things you do to your footage having to render on top of a software upscale.
4. Your footage will already be in the right color space/pixel size aspect for laying off to HD your final output.The quality may not look that different, but try looking in zoomed at 100% or more (or on an hd monitor) there are some subtle pixel differences, and as i mentioned before you’re already in the correct color space and everything for final deliverable of HD material.
Hope that helped.
~Thom -
I know this doesn’t solve your hardware problem, but would it make any difference exporting 720×486 and then bringing it into your editing program as an anamorphic clip, letting the software read it as a “squished file”?
Just tossing ideas out there.
~Thom
-
yeah it makes sense, and it’s a great idea if it weren’t for the steadicam constantly roving, my open ground and leaf cover is almost always at a different angle or depth than what i need, starting the new workflow like that is gonna be like finding a needle in a haystack, oh well three cheers for getting paid a day rate! lol
On a side note, i know it’s hard to tell with this compression, but how do the other 4 look to you? Not too obvious?
Thanks.
~T
-
Ok here’s what i got,
The Before: Before
And the After: After
As you can see most of it i’ve gotten pretty well, just that last bit, maybe it’s because the steadicam is moving; and while i have a good track the scale isn’t catching as well. In fact now that I’m writting this I’m thinking I’m gonna try tracking with a scale point closer to the ground.
Thanks!