3 Questions about using the SLUG for unsqueezed Video at DVinfo.net

Carlton Bright · December 4th, 2009, 02:01 PM

Hello,
I recently heard about the amazing and helpful Stereo3D Toolbox filter, and am presently trying out the downloaded trial version.
Outputting Side by Side utilizes a "Slug" and I have had a few glitches which probably have simple solutions. I videotaped the procedure which shows the glitches I ran into.
if anyone has run acsss these ,or if anyone can point out what I am doing incorrectly I would be greatful.
thanks in Advance,
Carlton Bright

The 2 minute video is at:

YouTube - GLITCHES with the unsqueezed side by side SLUG technique.mov

Tim Dashwood · December 4th, 2009, 04:05 PM

Hi Carlton.

Thank you for the informative video.

The "LEFT" and "RIGHT" default images are set for 1920x1080 square pixels, not 1440x1080 non-square pixels. Therefore they won't line up unless the slug is 3840x1080.

I realized you were working with 1440x1080 as soon as you mentioned "FX1" and "2880" width. I am working on building in some catch-all code to avoid this issue with HDV footage and unsqueeze the pixels into square 1920 for processing.

The other thing that is happening is that interlaced HDV has not been processing properly through the image wells. The image well inputs only process properly if the source media is set as progressive. Otherwise FCP sends 1 field at a time, which has the effect of processing frames as 1920x540.
I have been working on a v1.1 update that has fixed this problem and I will be releasing it as soon as I've finished debugging.

In the meantime the simple solution has been to set your source clips' field dominance to "none."

The other thing I would like to address is the processing speed of outputting a 2880x1080 or 3840x1080 sequence through FCP and the plugin architecture. Frame sizes that large put a huge hit on the processor, RAM and graphics card and will therefore take a long time to render.
I have written an app to do this outside of FCP with QT. It is quicker and more efficient. I have a functioning version right now (no UI yet) that you are welcome to test with your setup. Just send me an email so I can email it to you.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Carlton Bright · December 4th, 2009, 05:11 PM

Ah, Thanks for the reply and information.
and since I only saw 3840 mentioned in this forum, (never 2880) I did try
that frame size and eliminated the Left /Right centering problem, but then found
clips were small, and simply sat in their respective sides with black bordering on
all sides. What you described here shines some light on this, and
I will go through the info you just sent, thanks again.

BTW- another set of cameras I use are the small CANON sp-780,s
that output 1280x720, H.264 clips.
The glitch with using these clips with the Toolbox is that the RIGHT clip aways shows up
zoomed in nearly twice as big as the left clip, but the good news is they utilize the same real estate within the clip.
I know these glitches are explainable ,and I deeply appreciate the Tutorials
and this forum.
Carlton

Carlton Bright · December 4th, 2009, 05:55 PM

Hi Tim,
Thanks for offering that new QT app you made, and I will send my e-mail to you.
As you can probably see, I am in the very process of learning the advanced "techspeak" aspects of stereoptical alignment, Apps, etc..
For the last few years, I have outputted 3-D simply visually with an ad hoc mix of tools and filters native to FCP. and still considered
the footage as "studio testing", mainly because the 3-D output was all side-by-side "free-viewing"
That is why this STEREO 3D Toolbox is so valuable and attractive, The concern about percesion and consistancy will be a thing of the past , for the most part, and video work be suitable for general public viewing, so thanks for all effort and expertise you are putting into this.

I will be asking some very basic (i.e. dumb) questions here, and its a bit awkward, but here it goes.
You wrote:
"I have written an app to do this outside of FCP with QT. It is quicker and more efficient."

The basic (or dumb) question is:
How do you get the Sequence you have been working on, out of FCP, and to the QT app you wrote, when the sequence is still sitting in the timeline of FCP?
The assumption is that this new App will be a new and additional option in the "Settings" of the QUICKTIME MOVIE selection of the OUTPUT on the file pulldown menu..
is that correct?
Thanks Again,
Carlton

Tim Dashwood · December 4th, 2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlton Bright

How do you get the Sequence you have been working on, out of FCP, and to the QT app you wrote, when the sequence is still sitting in the timeline of FCP?

You would still have to render and export full resolution left and right MOV files that you have already lined up in Stereo3D Toolbox, but the net time used in rendering will be much much less working at 1440x1080 (or 1920x1080) instead of double the horizontal resolution. The other benefit is that you can make a side by side reference quicktime almost instantly.

Carlton Bright · December 4th, 2009, 07:53 PM

Hmm,
Since an Unsqueezed, side by side media file is the end-product for dual 3-D projection, A "Doubled Horizontal Resolution" is something you simply cannot get around.
What am I not aware of, or not taking into account here?

December 4th, 2009, 02:01 PM	#1
Carlton Bright Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 101	3 Questions about using the SLUG for unsqueezed Video Hello, I recently heard about the amazing and helpful Stereo3D Toolbox filter, and am presently trying out the downloaded trial version. Outputting Side by Side utilizes a "Slug" and I have had a few glitches which probably have simple solutions. I videotaped the procedure which shows the glitches I ran into. if anyone has run acsss these ,or if anyone can point out what I am doing incorrectly I would be greatful. thanks in Advance, Carlton Bright The 2 minute video is at: YouTube - GLITCHES with the unsqueezed side by side SLUG technique.mov

December 4th, 2009, 04:05 PM	#2
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	Hi Carlton. Thank you for the informative video. The "LEFT" and "RIGHT" default images are set for 1920x1080 square pixels, not 1440x1080 non-square pixels. Therefore they won't line up unless the slug is 3840x1080. I realized you were working with 1440x1080 as soon as you mentioned "FX1" and "2880" width. I am working on building in some catch-all code to avoid this issue with HDV footage and unsqueeze the pixels into square 1920 for processing. The other thing that is happening is that interlaced HDV has not been processing properly through the image wells. The image well inputs only process properly if the source media is set as progressive. Otherwise FCP sends 1 field at a time, which has the effect of processing frames as 1920x540. I have been working on a v1.1 update that has fixed this problem and I will be releasing it as soon as I've finished debugging. In the meantime the simple solution has been to set your source clips' field dominance to "none." The other thing I would like to address is the processing speed of outputting a 2880x1080 or 3840x1080 sequence through FCP and the plugin architecture. Frame sizes that large put a huge hit on the processor, RAM and graphics card and will therefore take a long time to render. I have written an app to do this outside of FCP with QT. It is quicker and more efficient. I have a functioning version right now (no UI yet) that you are welcome to test with your setup. Just send me an email so I can email it to you. Thanks again for the feedback. __________________ Tim Dashwood

December 4th, 2009, 05:11 PM	#3
Carlton Bright Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 101	Ah, Thanks for the reply and information. and since I only saw 3840 mentioned in this forum, (never 2880) I did try that frame size and eliminated the Left /Right centering problem, but then found clips were small, and simply sat in their respective sides with black bordering on all sides. What you described here shines some light on this, and I will go through the info you just sent, thanks again. BTW- another set of cameras I use are the small CANON sp-780,s that output 1280x720, H.264 clips. The glitch with using these clips with the Toolbox is that the RIGHT clip aways shows up zoomed in nearly twice as big as the left clip, but the good news is they utilize the same real estate within the clip. I know these glitches are explainable ,and I deeply appreciate the Tutorials and this forum. Carlton

December 4th, 2009, 05:55 PM	#4
Carlton Bright Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 101	Hi Tim, Thanks for offering that new QT app you made, and I will send my e-mail to you. As you can probably see, I am in the very process of learning the advanced "techspeak" aspects of stereoptical alignment, Apps, etc.. For the last few years, I have outputted 3-D simply visually with an ad hoc mix of tools and filters native to FCP. and still considered the footage as "studio testing", mainly because the 3-D output was all side-by-side "free-viewing" That is why this STEREO 3D Toolbox is so valuable and attractive, The concern about percesion and consistancy will be a thing of the past , for the most part, and video work be suitable for general public viewing, so thanks for all effort and expertise you are putting into this. I will be asking some very basic (i.e. dumb) questions here, and its a bit awkward, but here it goes. You wrote: "I have written an app to do this outside of FCP with QT. It is quicker and more efficient." The basic (or dumb) question is: How do you get the Sequence you have been working on, out of FCP, and to the QT app you wrote, when the sequence is still sitting in the timeline of FCP? The assumption is that this new App will be a new and additional option in the "Settings" of the QUICKTIME MOVIE selection of the OUTPUT on the file pulldown menu.. is that correct? Thanks Again, Carlton

December 4th, 2009, 07:53 PM	#6
Carlton Bright Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 101	Hmm, Since an Unsqueezed, side by side media file is the end-product for dual 3-D projection, A "Doubled Horizontal Resolution" is something you simply cannot get around. What am I not aware of, or not taking into account here?