|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 18th, 2006, 02:12 PM | #16 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,065
|
Man, it just gets better by the second...
Quote:
Same question for PPro 2 - I had no idea about the quality loss. How does/will FCP handle these various questions (native HDV, quality loss, etc)? What would you use for narrative film work? What diference does all this mean when considering a film out vs normal DVD, or HD-DVD? THanks for all the knowlege - john evilgeniusentertainment.com |
|
September 18th, 2006, 02:54 PM | #17 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
|
Quote:
You can also use an external package like MPEGStream Clip to batch convert the .mpeg files explicitly. |
|
September 18th, 2006, 11:30 PM | #18 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 109
|
re re editing HDV
If this is the case then all the argument from the official NLE marketing is bull...
As Avid suggests for Xpro and MC "Edit native HDV" this is all about editing native... without any loss and bla bla. As I use the JVC HD101 I am limited in Avid Xpro, as well MC and cannot change resol. in my timeline. As far as now I went native HDV and I really had no problems with quality losses. We work on short and long projects, one of our documentaries was projected with an HD projector on a big screen and the resulting screen was really amazing. I will try to transcode into DNxHD110 for a doc that we work now. I want to test the difference with CC etc. As soon as I will get my macbook with FCP I will come back for advises for that environment. For Paolo: I shot the first footage of the sea nomads of east Sulawesi with your TC3. I really liked the results same did my Japanese partner. I will definetely use the same set up again when I will go there on the 15th of November for the final movie. So "Grazie caro Paolo". If you have any other suggestions I would like to know and try them too. I can send you frames from the first shooting at an e-mail adress if you are interested to see. Everything within sea and sky... looks really great. |
September 19th, 2006, 02:47 AM | #19 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
|
Quote:
I'll soon be taking hold of FCP on an iMac - I guess I'll be following the workflows (which I may need to come back to for confirmation if ok with you folks!) posted here rather than anticipating native HDV editing on a rumoured update. Not too concerned about time saving if the results are not as I would've hoped. From the footage/shorts posted on these threads would I be correct in stating that they all have been edited non-natively? ...and by the way - how do I link Black Magic and or AIC into FCP - are these plug ins I could get hold of or are they part of the package anyhow? Many thanks for the help. dave. |
|
September 19th, 2006, 02:50 AM | #20 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 343
|
I know what you mean about the marketing spin, Panos. Avid (and others) make a big deal about native HDV support yet they don't actually fully support HDV1 (I notice they changed their marketing text after a barrage of complaints on the Avid forums); they make a big deal out of working 'native' and then they make a lot of noise about DNx being the best thing since sliced bread. Of course, they keep pretty quiet about uncompressed HD in MC and AXPro marketing because - if you want that - you have to buy Symphony or DS Nitris (around £60,000) when FCP will support it as is and the extra hardware you'd need is far cheaper. I think FCP plus the Blackmagic hardware and a SATAII array is a wonderfully cheap solution for uncompressed HD by the way.
As to the whole native thing, it is great to have native support for ingest of material and ease of workflow. In the case of Avid Xpress Pro, it means that you can ingest your material via firewire and then transcode to DNx without needing MC Adrenaline and the HD board (oh, and an HDSDI converter for the HDV camera or deck). Native HDV also keeps data rates and storage requirements low and means much cheaper kit, so it can make a lot of sense if you get the results you need this way. However, many (and by no means all) people working with DV for broadcast choose to work on an uncompressed timeline for finishing to avoid fx/titles/cc re-compression and output to, say, DigiBeta for online, and the underlying motivation to work uncompressed for HDV material is even greater. DNx stands up over re-compression far better than HDV and also DVCPro HD but - especially on the 8-bit variants - it does eventually fall apart. It all depends on your needs, of course. |
September 19th, 2006, 03:02 AM | #21 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 343
|
... and, on the subject of Liquid and PP2.0 I think it would be pretty snobbish for anyone to say they were firmly in the consumer camp. They are both good products, IMHO. With HDV, I believe both offer the option to work uncompressed HD and PP2.0 also supports Cineform as a compromise. You'd need extra hardware and fast storage for uncompressed HD, of course. I'm not experienced with either application so can anyone confirm this?
|
September 19th, 2006, 03:06 AM | #22 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Quote:
PS: Yes Premiere clips the signal, something Liquid and FCP need not do.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
September 19th, 2006, 03:10 AM | #23 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
|
Michael - Would I be right in suggesting that I wouldn't have the facilities to use the Blackmagic hardware/SATAII array via in iMac? I was investigating the possibility of using an HD connect box but because this mac does not have a card slot facility this would be out of the question - same apply to the black magic hw?
Time saves/workflows/native aside I'm really looking at which method will give me the best results from HDV footage using FCP on an iMac - it may be the extra hardware is not suitable for this or at this time it might be a little expensive but certainly worth considering in the near future. Many thanks. |
September 19th, 2006, 09:08 AM | #24 | ||
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
|
Quote:
Who knows, the final result of HDV-to-HDV rendering can be pretty good. The only way to find out is to cut a bit of footage and then compare pixel-by-pixel the resulting frames. Quote:
And regarding TC3, you are very welcome (don't know how to say it in Greek :), I'm glad that it works for you and I'd love to get some still or any other material that you shot. Take care. |
||
September 19th, 2006, 06:02 PM | #25 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Quote:
With FCP, all processing is done with uncompressed 4:4:4 video. There's no need to decode HDV until the point it is processed in some way. It's just data in a file. In most cases, FX are RT and so renders are not needed. And, after being decoded and processed, FCP will not use a rendered file unless you want to use it. And, renders are only for a faster playing PREVIEW. It has nothing to do with final quality. The only compression or recode is when you EXPORT -- and that's going to be true even if you work with uncompressed. The same is true of Liquid. Avid, Premiere, and Vegas users, however, can benefit from an Intermediate codec. But, these can be "nearly lossless" codecs and so far more efficient than uncompressed. In short, your iMac is perfect -- unless you need many HDV streams. Then a Mac Pro will offer more CPU power.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
September 19th, 2006, 06:23 PM | #26 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
|
Quote:
Interesting stuff, isn't it :) ? |
|
September 20th, 2006, 06:05 PM | #27 |
New Boot
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Espinho Portugal
Posts: 21
|
I know this is probably not the place for this, but here it goes, i also edit with APP and Matrox RTX100, i'm thinking in upgrading to RTX2 and APP2 to edit in HDV (i have a JVC HD100), is it a waste of many in buying a video card would it be better to use just APP2 or another NLE like FCP or AVID? Thak you guys.
Luís Ventura Santos |
September 21st, 2006, 10:40 AM | #28 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 695
|
Luis,
I had the same question before the RTX2 was out, I still own a RTX100 Extreme myself. I choose to testout the Cineform codec which gave me near real-time editing with High quality conversion from m2t to AVI to be used in PPro 2.0. I capture everything in HDV now-a-days even if it's for SD-DVD purpose, and don't really miss the RTX100. After I finished and converted some old projects, I will sell the card. |
September 21st, 2006, 04:26 PM | #29 |
New Boot
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Espinho Portugal
Posts: 21
|
Marc,
thank you for your help, as i understand you are going to keep only APP2, about FCP you don't have any expirience. Luís |
September 21st, 2006, 10:27 PM | #30 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Quote:
But, Liquid is so much better for HDV that I haven't used FCP for months. FCP is a decade behind Liquid for editing MPEG-2. Steve Mullem "ProHD Handbook" www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|