Tom Brooks
Forum Replies Created
-
Ha ha. Duh, shoulda thought of that.
-
You’ve exhausted my ideas for now. Your answers point to something about the particular JPEG format or file that is causing the incompatibility. Maybe one of those tricky file header mixups that happen from time to time, especially between Macs and PCs.
Try opening the jpeg in Apple Preview and simply save (still as a JPG) with a new name and see if that opens. You could set up an automated process to do that on hundreds of files very quickly. Preview is often a good fixer.
-
Is it on an accessible media drive? Is it extremely large-check manual for max size limit? Are you sure it’s not CMYK?
-
I will Google that. Although our vision is limited, the combination of human vision with human thought takes us much further. The ability to use 240fps to bring fast action down to the level we can see at any given moment might make it more than a waste of film. Maybe an alternate angle shot at high speed, accessed through a gestural touch pad or other yet-to-be-invented interface?
-
BTW, I came across this post which answered a lot of my questions: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/267/656#662
Go Tim!
-
Wow. That’s good to know. I have one of their boxes. When I bought it the sales guy was very informed and helpful, too. They recommended a Highpoint card then also.
-
You know, these are interesting times. I suppose a wide-screen movie shot at 240fps would yield what might be called “hyperreality.” On one hand, it would put more information on the screen. On the other, it may not look at all like the world we perceive with our own two eyes. Another example of this is the shallow depth of field that is so valued in our business at this time. I never look at a scene and think, “Gee, her face is nice and sharp, but the trees behind her are very blurry.” And yet, something is telling me that the shallow depth of field looks natural and the same scene with sharpness everywhere looks unnatural or hyperreal.
I’m sure there’s a lot of research on related topic already out there. Let’s say the first big 240fps film comes out in the next few years. Will it be the marketing campaign that convinces us it looks “real,” or will it be our own visual senses?
-
So true, Dave. The other aspects are more powerful. Frame rate is really a pretty subtle thing compared to blatantly VISUAL cues.
-
I think what you’re looking for is a way to have 60i play at 60 fields per second in a 24p timeline. That’s not going to happen, but you could output your 24p with 2:3:2:3 pulldown added and then recapture the result as 29.97i, leaving the pulldown intact. Then edit the “cheap” looking 29.97i into it. The completed 29.97i sequence will have the look of 24p during those segments and the look of 60i during those. Enhance the cheapness in the other ways mentioned. Output to tape or DVD is no problem. Output to web, deinterlaced, may defeat some of your plan.
-
I’m at a loss as to the supposed frame rate change. I suggest you look at the item properties for the clips from the Canon and see what frame rate is listed for each one. This could help solve your mysteries.
My guess is that they are indeed ingested in their native frame rates and when they were dropped into your sequence Final Cut roughly conformed the clips to the sequence timebase. This can result in motion jerkiness in some instances and not in others. But it can work.