[Weston Jones]

Greetings,

Thanks for the responses. I think alex’s suggestion is a good one for speeding up render time, however 1) it would be a very annoying process to individually create proxy’s for all of my shots in AE (over 100). Partially my fault because my comps weren’t very organized in AE. Also, this process would still not allow to send an XML to FCP because it’s still referring to dynamic linking files (as you said).

I’m not exactly sure about the DPX workflow, not familiar with this process.

Either way we finished the project. Essentially it was a total cluster f*uck. 🙂 We ended up splitting up the project and rendering on 4 different computers. Took a long time, probably total 80-100 hours for 20 minutes, and crashed a lot (the FX work was not very complicated, a key and a few layers, some minor animation). The final video files we took into FCP and recut each shot with the razor blade to send to Color. Ran into some audio sync problems here, had to trip each shot a frame (ohh yah vay!)

Basically I would urge others to not use dynamic linking on 4k R3D files. I don’t think the technology can handle such a large/uncompressed video file. Transcoding to pro res would have been better for sure.

In the future I would instead edit the sequence in PPro or FCP, and then import the sequence into AE. Precompose each clip in AE sequence to work on individually. Then just export out of AE.

Dynamic linking is cool, just doesn’t quite seem up to par yet. Thanks for the help!

[Weston Jones]

Rafael to the rescue again!

However same problem, deleting the constant frames folder didn’t work. I’ve also trashed my preferences. 🙁

[Weston Jones]

Ok I get it, sweet!

God damn shooting on tape! I just get anal, feel like FCP is always out to get me in this workflow. The COW saves again!

Take care,
Ben

[Weston Jones]

Oh!

The only step I’m confused about is how to pan/scan the image once the footage has been scaled…at 133 percent, wont I be loosing resolution?

[Weston Jones]

Hum dinger….

Well, when I take this footage:

And drop it into this sequence:

I get this result:

Here are the setting of the clip in the motion tab, if I change aspect to “0”, it just stretches the horizontal rez

strange…am I missing something here? THANKS!

[Weston Jones]

Same result. When I copy the footage into the new sequence it is unstretched. I noticed that the aspect ratio of the footage is set to 33.33 in the motion tab, removing the distort attribute sets this to zero, but stretches the image horozontally.

The vertical resolution on the clips matches the new sequence, but not the horizontal (black bars on the side). Can I adjust the sequence settings so that the vertical resolution matches but not the horizontal? Then my footage will remain unstretched but be cropped on the top/bottom, which is what im after.

Thanks for the quick replies!

[Weston Jones]

Clicking anamorphic definitely makes the footage 16:9, however selecting all my footage and checking the boxes next to “Basic Motion + Distort” in the Edit > Remove Attributes menu doesn’t affect my footage at all…it remains as it was, stretched in 16:9.

Thanks for the help!

[Weston Jones]

Well I just exported my native resolution (1280×720) and the artifact is gone. The previous render (and when I view it in FCP) has been at 50 rez, 720×405. Strange. I guess when I need to render smaller sizes I can just encode from a loseless full render and it should be fine. But still this is lame. I’ve had similar problems with text when rendering smaller sizes too. FCP always does funny little things like this, no?

[Weston Jones]

Correction, the artifact is visible within FCP. damn you fcp.

[Weston Jones]

Tru…still helpful tho.

Yeah I’m gonna just do photoJPEG at 75% being that I don’t need 444 compression. Dang I could have saved many a hard drives if I would have know this earlier! 🙂