[Videovideo]

excuse me I meant changing seq settings from lower to none yielded positive results. all the best regards!

[Videovideo]

After 5 days of testing I just turned in the dvd and client is happy. But I did not deliver to them a dvd without some combing and thin ghost/aura around their bodies.

I have made tests of every possible variation with *no* difference between them. The only visible change I see is when I set sequence settings to none from lower. But I do not have a fancy playback monitor. I am playing back on mbp and crappy TV from the 90’s. When I played back on friends plasma tv the image looked horrible.

The tests are made in compressor and burned to dvd.

So,

What is clear to me is this:
-the sequence’s field dominance setting must be set to none.

What is unclear to me is this -i.e.these changes don’t make a dif:

– collapsing multicam edit, changing a and b clips (captured at reg ntsc settings) from lower to none in sequence set to none looks exactly the same as a and b clips set (captured at reg ntsc settings) to lower in sequence set to none

– footage captured as progressive that has a lower field in sequence set to none looks the same as the above mentioned tests

It’s been fun, thanks Cow– you all have been a lifeline during this project.

Old standby brightness/contrast fixed gain on shooter’s work.

xo
VV

[Videovideo]

Thanks, still not working.

when i look at the field dominance of the footage captured at reguklar dv ntsc settings in the Browser– it is set to lower.

when i look at the field dominance of the footage capture settings as progressive in the Browser– it is set to lower. If it was true progressive footage, wouldn’t it default to “none” ?

Good suggestion re: anamorphic- and I was really hoping this would be the trick– I have seen the results from adjusting the clip setting in the browser for anamorphic but did not see much difference when changing the clip in the browser from lower to none. There was also no change in render status in the tl when I changed the field dominance of the clips. I did not do a dvd test though.

Again, when working with footage that is set to lower in a sequence that is changed to none– I do see results– less comb. FCP manual does confirm that clip and seq settings should match– but I did not see a visible difference in the canvas or my tv monitor when I make this adjustment.

Is it worth it to change each clip? I did a multi cam edit– and tried to change the field dominance from lower to none of the multiclip clip produced in the browser, but it would not change from lower. I changed the clips cam a and b in the browser to none which produced the multicam clip- but this did not update in the timeline. I tried to select all clips in tl and change the field dominance but this did not work. Will I have to change each clip in this timeline individually?

In terms of the black and shifting, I have added the brightness/ciontrast filter and will know the results tonight as I am not by my computer at the moment.

thanks for reading.

[Videovideo]

i will try the cbr thanks and thanks for your continued research, all.

i have cross dissoves and other transitions so —
this means I should set seq to none.

but should i be using reg capture dv ntsc or the progressive setting?
i would like to use the regular ntsc as this is what i edited to, and it was orig captured cpture now (shoot me) and bacth capture is not working with multicam edit so I have read.

it apears as if ther is not much difference when burning the test dvds– still small combing on **movement** of dancers bodies close up cam. there is a thin line aroud their bodies. am i looking too closely.

[Videovideo]

Thank you kindly for your posts. I am still working on this, it has been days now. It is Due. Baffled- what is going on.

I wish I had my own in-house post supervisor.

The person who shot this said he shot it 30p– progressive. He noted to not capture with regular dv ntsc settings but to change capture settings from interlaced to progressive. He also noted to change the QT settings in the sequence to progressive.

Can you please explain why it sounds as if I am working in interlaced?

When I place either footage captured as a regular capture preset dv ntsc interlaced and place on timeline with upper or lower fields, and then change settings to none- or– when I duplicate a sequnce with the cut, make offline, and reconnect with the new progressive captured footage both starkly reveal that the “none” setting in sequence perfects the image so there is no comb effect. I have zoomed in to 200, 400, 800 percent on both the interlaced and progressive footage sequences set to “none” and compared pixels. It looks as if I am achieving the same effect on either timeline. What does this mean.

Additional issues:

1. this is a 2 cam dance project shot in a theater. There is much black in the image. The black looks squishy/pixley (not fully pixilated) ***almost*** like there is a small mosaic filter on the image, which can be seen especially in the black. I read somewhere to add a 1/2 pixel vertical radial blur to the image– but this did nto help at all.

2. when playing close attention to the black it is as if the picture shifts/ twitters/jumps up and down– does this have something to do with upper or lower fields.

2. DVDSP– so the extreme comb is gone from either the prog or interlaced captures– the images looks ok– however– there is “ghosting” a little around the dancers bodies. As there is excess luma in the image if I put a filer on this — would this help?

At this point I do not care about the progressive “look.” The goal now is to burn this DVD and move onto the next project. the footage does look progressive– it has that specific “flimic” quality. Thus I am assuming I am having to treat it as such to bun this dvd. Additionally, the comb effect I am seeing is something I have not encountered with ye olde 29.97 dv ntsc footage I have captured a-plenty.

The reason for progressive is that it retains a filmic look and is easy to play on a computer, is that correct? DVD player on my mbp defauts to “deinterlace” I have to uncheck this in order to view the video properly. If I do not uncheck this, the DVDs look like they have the comb effect. How will this be communicated to the viewer of the video if they put into their computer? There must be a simple way for someone to put this intheir comuter and not see the combing.

I attempted to apply the deinterlace filter to the sequence and it reveals the comb jagged look.

Expoting a ref mov from fcp and Burnng in idvd from either the progressive or interlaced footage it is quite jagged. The menus are cool but does not seem like the compresion is correct although I read idvd uses the same type of engine as compressor.

Thanks.

VV

[Videovideo]

Don,

Thank youfor your help but i am stillhaving troubles. I captured using easy set up standard dv ntsc interlaced. I changed seq settings to none, reconnected the media to the standard dvntsc interlaced capture, rendered at full. Exported using compressor current settings. then created in dvdsp. stillhaving the combing effect when played back on my computer.

I am moving media to a faster drive, this is the only thing I can think is the problem.

As my origional post notes, I have tried multiple variations. After looking at the steps I have taken,do you see any holes or steps i am missing? Thanks so much.

VV

[Videovideo]

got it to burn followed your instructions and stillthe combing effect.

this is the field dom to none, orig interrlaced capture ntsc, qt settoings interlaced

would having the mpeg on my external hd affect tthis?

i am using low consumer data maxtor drive for my capture scratch and mov/mpeg exports.

thanks for your continued assistance.

[Videovideo]

Hey Tom,

Thanks. I need more help. When I follow your instructions and bring this mpeg into dvdsp i see the asset but when i simulate, build/format and burn — the simulation and brned disk is a grey box– that is the image on the dvd. DVDs have always been the drama in my post experience. Please I am meeting with client today. Thanks. Also in fcp the qt setting is at interlaced should i change to progressive. Thanks.

vv

[Videovideo]

sorry I knw this is not correct to do but this might be more suited for FCP forum. Thanks.

[Videovideo]

Thank you, Walter, Mark, David, and Craig.

Much food for thought…. as I sob into my side of green bean casserole…

vv