I just solved that problem and in case someone else encounters the same issue here's how I solved it. For some reason when you place a slug in from of a Title and cross dissolve between them, it will give that green hueish effect. What you need to do is substitute the slug with an empty text. FCP will automatically place a black background and then you can apply the Cross disolve and have a clean effect.

It just dawned on me that I am doing all the NTSC specifications on my project for TV showing, but what if I send my Final Copy on a DVD to be shown in a festival? Do I need to change the NTSC specifications (mainly the titles with Gaussian Blur and opacity of 80% white, etc. etc.) or should I leave all the changes and send as is?

It will all depend on what format a specific festival might require. Contact the festival's organization to determine what they want.

How full is the FireWire drive? Do you have any programs running that reguarly accesses the internet (mail, weather updates, sytem clock is sync to net etc.)? What OS and version of FCP are you using? You may want to try trashing the FCP's preferences.

You don't necessarily need Cinema Tools to edit 24p. Cinema Tools is used to generate an EDL for cutting the negative. Are you going to film and have a film negative you have to match frame back from the FCP edit?

you are right, I needn't film, just DV is ok.

And if I haven't 24P camcorder but I still wanna film look, how other way I can do expect change Gamma? such as when I using PD150(PAL), how to simulate film look without 24P camcorder

You would use a software tool, such as Magic Bullet or CineLook, during post-production.

After Effects also has a Gamma tool that will let you adjust the curves. MB is my favorite, but the rendering can be slow. It renders at about 3 to 10 seconds per frame on my 450 Dual Processor machine.

I usually use FCP 3 way color correct, it's a better way for me. some friends in Apple company, they would lend the newest Mac Computer to me. So I don't care performance of my computer :-)

Thanks for everybody help!

I would like to add another hard drive to my G4 running FCP 2. I already have a master and a slave installed on the original hard drive connector ribbon (I don't know the technical name), so as I see it I have three options. Well two really, since the cost of an external firewire raid is prohibitivie.

Option 1. Get a PCI/ATA card and connect some more hard drives internally.

Option 2. Get some external firewire hard drives.

For discussion assume 60gb 7200 rpm with 2mb buffer.

Of the two, which will offer faster render times? With the cost of the adaptor card, both options are comparable in price.

Has anybody tried the ATA hardware raid that sonnet (i think?) now has?

Cheers, Jeremiah

The RAID card would allow you to add additional drives, but is the costliest solution. You would also get a performance boost from the RAID card. FireWire is nice but if you don't need portability it is the next costliest solution. You could add larger internal drives too. What Mac G4 do you have? That can effect things also. Are you thinking about upgrading soon?

I am thinking of upgrading soon. I am using a G4 - 400mhz AGP graphics with FCP 2. I am thinking about a zif upgrade either a 800 or 1ghz (the reviews I have read about the dual processor upgrades were not confidence inspiring). Ram is not maxed but since max ram for an app is 999MB and this machine is dedicated to final cut, 1 GB ram is enough.

I have a B&W G3 that I use for surfing, word, excel, photoshop. This dinosaur has an ATA 100 PCI card installed that I was thinking about putting in the G4. However, the idea of portability is intriguing. I also have a Pismo powerbook that is getting the most use latley.

Is an external Firewire drive (theoretical 400mbps) faster than an internal ATA 100 IDE drive?

I would get a FireWire drive to add portability to the system, especially if they are not networked. The ATA/IDE 100 7200rpm is faster than a FireWire drive. However, none of your machines are real speed demons so the slight difference would not be readily apparent. I would also get a better video card, it will free up the processor and make the computer seem much faster. OS 10.2 with the Quartz Extreme can hog a lot of processor power rendering and displaying fonts and shadows. A newer video card will relieve the processor of those duties.

Just thought I'd let you guys know about a lovely little mixer I picked up for an incredible price recently.

It's made by Eurorack, and the model number is the MX 602A. I was suspicious of the price ($79 at Promax, and can be found for less on the web) but having tried it for a month, it's working beautifully.

It's essentially a six-channel mixer, two channels set up for mike or line (XLR or 1/4" input with gain control and phantom power) and two stereo channels (dual 1/4" inputs). There's also stereo tape sends and and aux send, which can also be used as inputs as needed. It's solidly built, the controls feel good, and while it is fairly stripped down it still has some handy features such as 3 bands of EQ per channel, aux sends, a main and "control room" output etc. The level indicators are pretty skimpy...LED's, and only four of them, but if you are mixing sources into the computer you have the levels in your system to work with.

I have used it in a live presentation setting and also on my desktop, where I mix the computer audio output with my DV deck and dub rack, and the sound is clean.

If anyone is interested in more info, check it out here (http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=MX602A&lang=eng).

Sadly for me, in checking out that link I also came across their next model up, the 802, which adds inputs and more LED's for level--and it's only $20 more! Oh well.

Thanks for the heads-up on this economical mixer, Charles.

There are always mixed reviews on the Behringer line. "Too much noise and cross-talk," some claim; "For most applications you'll never notice," counter others. "It's cheaper to get a higher-end mixer used on eBay," says one; "No, right now it's just as cheap to get new gear as it is to get used gear," says another. There have also been charges that an inordinate number of Behringer products get sent for service with slow turnaround times. John Amstadter, Behringer Rep Midwest, had this to say: "As for reliability - I have sold thousands of Behringer units and have had returns running less than 2% failure rate. Most of the failures were related to shipping damage and not to any specific product. Behringer repair is backed up by Samson Technology and generally there is only a 5 day turn around. Problems should be addressed through Samson Customer Service. "

Behringer is alleged to have produced their equipment from stolen or reverse-engineered designs from other audio equipment manufacturers (Aphex, Mackie) using low-cost labor in China, then exploited stringent European libel law to prevent court rulings to this effect from being publicized. (In any case, that would seem to be nothing but good news for the end-consumer looking for a good deal.) In fairness to them, Behringer's customer service had this to say about the matter:

Subject: Re: Advice on Behringer MIC2200 Mic Pre
Date: 1999/04/12
Author: m.leidel <m.leidel@behringer.de>

It is always amazing how facts are twisted or how people come up with stories. I respect your personal opinion but let us clarify some things.

1.) The Aphex case many years ago was mainly about a dispute about Aphex's patent and Uli Behringer's own patent application. Our circuitry was very different since it was amplitude independent which is great to get harmonics even at low levels. The case was settled outcourt.
2.) We never had any dispute with dbx.
3.) Mackie. If you really look at the legal documents than you will find out that Mackie lost the case on all copyright and patent infrindgement.

We have now sued Mackie for various things which we cannot and don't want to dislose here. This is not our style.

We make great equipment at great prices. Some competitors don't like it and they think to defame us here on the net is their way of competition. They also prefer to hide their names rather than showing their identity.

This is OK for us.

Best regards
Michael Leidel
Behringer Customer Support Manager
Then came the reply:

Subject: Behringer lies
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:22:27 GMT
From: marvin_caesar@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro

This message is prompted by replies made by Michael Liedel, customer support manager of Behringer, regarding Ulrich Behringer's history of theft and lies. Inasmuch as Aphex was the first company targeted by Behringer and inasmuch as I was directly and personally involved during the entire episode, everything that is contained in this message is the truth as I know it.

Liedel stated that "the Aphex case was mainly about a dispute about Aphex's patent and Uli Behringer's own patent application". That is a lie. The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right down to the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The front panel was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual, being so blatant a copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy to call our distributor in Germany for service. When it became clear to us that Behringer was going to be more than a garage operation, we first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he stop and then filed a patent suit.

To suggest that Behringer had a patent filing himself is also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to delay justice. It took six years to get the court to finally issue an judgment of patent infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing products. Behringer then told the world that he 'discovered' that it was better to not generate harmonics- that was after he 'invented' his own harmonic generator which just happened to be a copy of the Aural Exciter.

After the infringement was proven in court (not out of court as Liedel stated), the next step was to establish damages. That took another two years through the delay tactics that Behringer continued to use. The court finally caught on to his games. On the night before the last hearing, Behringer claimed to have a cold and asked for another delay. I had flown from LA to Frankfurt and the judge denied the request. At the hearing the lawyer for Behringer was admonished by the judge and told to agree to pay an amount which would be acceptable to us. If that agreement was not reached within a short time, the judge would force the settlement amount and also force Behringer to pay all court fees and our legal costs. Behringer paid 800,000DM. That amount was small compared to the benefit he received, but at least the world knows that he was found guilty of patent infringement and that he had to pay a significant, albeit insufficient, sum.

Behringer's attack on our products was not limited to the Aural Exciter. He tried to copy our 612 gate. He could not get our VCA so he used the VCA that we had used previously. We had to use a heat spreader on our new VCA which was not necessary on the previous design. Behringer glued a useless piece of metal on his VCA's showing that he either did not understand what was going on in the unit, only making a poor copy of it, or he simply tried to copy as exactly as possible. He also copied our manual--page for page, illustration for illustration. The court immediately issued an order for him to stop and reimbursed us for our legal fees.

I cannot comment directly on his raids on other companies' products, but based on my experience I know that he used similar tactics. He not only screws other manufacturers, but I have direct knowledge of him screwing a supplier. He has set up distributors and, after the distributor has done all the hard work, hired one individual from that distributor to set up his own distribution.

The mistake I naively made was thinking that once people knew who this miscreant was, they would never want to do business with him or buy his products. People turn a blind eye when there is a possibility to make a quick buck or buy a product which, on the surface looks like the original, but is cheaper.

I have absolutely no illusions that this message will change anybody's business methods or purchasing decisions. I just hope that those who are ethically challenged do not complain too loudly if they ever get ripped off. I also hope that people who do have some sense of right and wrong get a little twinge whenever they see a Behringer product in a rack. Especially now that they know the truth.
It has been put forth that the Chinese manufacturing facility for Behringer is ISO-9000 certified and is a much more sophisticated operation than just cheap labor.

So, if anyone else has reviews of their Behringer gear, it'd be good to hear. I'm interested in whether the SNRs are good enough for 16 bit DV work (i.e. not much worse than 96 dB SNR).

Yeah, I got one a couple of months ago. Very happy with it. Especially for the price. I can take it out when I'm shooting, where there's going to be power, and use it in the field.

I have a quick question for any one who owns a 602 or 802 or is familiar with a mixer such as the above. If I was to use a mixer like these (say, the 602) in the field, how would I get the sound into my camera? I know to go in through the mic-in on my GL2, but what kind of outputs does the mixer have (ie: XLR, 1/4, 1/8, RCA)? Also, if I wanted to get this audio directly into my computer what kind of card (PCI) would I need and what type of software would I use to capture the audio? Thanks to all! I am a little less familiar with the audio world than the video world ;-)

I have been reading the audio section of my final cut express manual and can't seem to understand the concept of 'db' with regard to the audio.

Could somebody please help explain this concept in simple terms. I have tried looking on the web and that really hasn't helped - it goes into algorithms etc etc. Or is it just a complex concept anyway... rather than just asssigning a certain number to a certain volume of sound (which would be the logical way to me).

The output on these mixers is 2 1/4" balanced (TRS) or unbalanced (TS) jacks (meaning it does either, just depending on the cable you plug in). If you're doing a really long cable run from the mixer to the camera, you may want TRS to XLR cables and an XLR-PRO or similar at the camera side, but most of the time we just run 6 or 10 feet of unbalanced cable and it works fine. Dual 1/4" TS to 1/8" stereo miniplug into the GL2 mic jack, and you're good to go.

For computer recording, there are lots of pro level audio cards that will do. Personally I love the M-Audio cards, the Audiophile 24/96 is a stereo in card that would do just what you want. Purchased new, the Audiophile comes with decent recording software, or you can go out and purchase something better like Sonic Foundry Sound Forge or Vegas (with Vegas, you get a multitrack audio recorder and killer NLE all in one!).

http://www.m-audio.com
http://www.sonicfoundry.com

The decibel scale is foremost a relative scale whereby any physical magnitude must be compared with a reference. The notion of absolute dB simply means that there is a reference that has been agreed upon in advance.--William M. Hartmann, Signals, Sound, and Sensation

So dB is a log of ratios. You take the intensity of your sound, divide it by the intensity of a reference sound, then take the log of that ratio. "Hm," you say. I just want to know how loud a sound is. What am I supposed to use as my reference?

That's where it starts to get a bit complicated, especially once you start talking about VU meters, which is probably your actual aim. I could begin to go into the math here, but instead, you might appreciate these links which already say everything I might have repeated:

A thread from The Recording Website Audio Forums Archives. The third post down begins a "For Dummies"-type comprehensive discussion of dB. (http://www.recordingwebsite.com/archives/3/5280.html)
Excerpt from Producing Great Sound for Digital Video, by Jay Rose (PDF) (http://www.dplay.com/book/pgs2e/pgs2eSamp.pdf)

Hi All,

I'm working on a segment of my movie (music documentary) and I'm having a bit of difficulty. First of all my setup is: PD150 (shot on and for edit deck) with a 15" LCD G4 Imac (800mhz) running Final Cut Pro 3.0.4.

The section is a slowed motion montage over music, using footage shot at a concert. The band uses really bright lights and much of the footage i'm using is really blown out at times (love the look). Anyways, I'm looking for ways to take some of the blown out footage and turn the bright white light into more interesting colors. I've tried using color correctors, but they just turn my footage "pink" or "sky blue" and i'm looking for more vivid colors.

Is there anything I can do? I tried creating slugs of the colors I wanted, then superimposing it ove the image, but it just made things look like tinted black/white. HELP ME PLEASE!!! I have access to After Effects if needed, although I've never used it before.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Ethan

Hello Ethan,
Just to be clear, are you trying to change the color of the actual lights or of areas of "blown-out" reflected light (i.e. lit areas as opposed to the lights themselves)?

Hi y'all,

Being a bit of a fledgling and ready to jump into an FCP system of my own (I've been using the company's for two years - OS9 version 1) I have two questions that you may have answers for:

1) Is there big difference in render times between a dual 1.25 and a dual 1.42 G system... both with 1.5 G RAM? Is it worth the x-tra cash to get the 1.42 system? (I'm going to be editing docs)

and

2) I see a system I like that is touting "OS9 Boot/OSX". What does that mean?

I'm sure more questions will pop up...

Thanks,

drey

I'm helping an individual start up a production company and was wondering if any of you could provide some useful information on professional video cards. We'll be using either a high-end Dual Processor G4 tailored for digital editing or/and a Mac laptop. We'll be using Final Cut Pro 3 as our editing software. So, any suggestions...?

It would be quite helpful if you could give some pro/cons on the cards you suggest.

Thanks in advance.

Any of you Mac users ever see this (http://zchildress.com/illogicalnumbering.gif) start to happen?

It's happening with a couple of programs...nothing seems to be amiss except the order.

What format are you editing (DV, Betacam SP, HD)? There are no cards available for a PowerBook, no internal slots or expansion slots or bays. If you are going to originate on DV (or a derivative) then the built in FireWire port is all you need.

Were starting out on DV. I was under the impression that a higher quality videocard would capture footage at a higher quality (less compression?) However, I may be way off!

Thanks.

I'm out of town right now and don't have a copy of FCP on my laptop yet, so I'm doing this from memory. Someone check and see if FCP has a luminance key, as well as a chroma key. A simple luminance key set to the value of the blown highlights would allow you to key a layer of brightly colored video onto the highlights. Set the clip level of the key fairly high and your all set.

The key could be made very bright, solid colors or even have cycling colors.

The compression (5:1) is applied in the camera. You could capture as DV and edit uncompressed or run the DV signal through a transcoder and uprez and capture as uncompressed. Either method would require a capture card, probably a SCSI RAID 0 hard drive array, and a transcoder. What type of budget do you have for this? Depending on what you need in a card you'll spend $3,000 to $15,000. The SCSI RAID array will cost $1,500 for a fairly small array. How many hours of footage will you shoot? If you plan on having 50 hours of uncompressed footage on line figure on $6,000 to $10,000 for the drives. A decent transcoder will cost $3,000 to $4,000.

You might be able to rent a whole FCP system, with RAID, transcoder etc. A reasonable budget for purchase is between $15,000 to $30,000 for a complete system, monitors etc.

Open the window in question. Click on the desktop, go to the menu bar, choose view>show view options and look at how the view is being sorted (keep arranged by). Is it being sorted by size or, date? Have it sort by name and all should be good.

The rendering times would be about 10% faster, not a very significant difference. The OS 9/X signifies that it is a dual boot system. It will run both OS 9 software and OS X software. If you have a lot of older software it may be helpful. Most of the new systems only boot in OS X.

Very strange. The view by options for the folder shouldn't bear on how the folders are displayed in the open/close box. Just carried out a test and they still appear in their logical order, regardless what sorting order they appear in the folder. Some sorte of haxie are similar causing this maybe?

Jeff,

Thank you for the clarification in speeds.

I have older software (an adobe bundle with Photoshop 6.0) right now and FCP v.2 (with an upgrade to 3 on the way). Will I be left in the dust in the future if I go with the OS9 boot system?

In the future am I able to upgrade to a straight jaguar boot?

Sorry if this seems elementary- I just want to make sure that I spend the money wisely.

humbly...

The future of Apple, Macs and FCP is OS X. I would not pay for any upgrade until FCP 4 is released, probably around the first or second week of April (probably announced at NAB). You don't wan t to pay for two upgrades. Steve Jobs has said it and so have most of the Mac pundits, OS 9 is dead. Dual boot is only useful for a short while to maintain compatibility with old software, principally Quark 5. Photoshop 8 will be out around the first of the year and promises some exciting new features for photographers and video enthusiasts. Photoshop 7 had a lot of improvements for Web work so for many it isn't worth the upgrade. I would save my money and get the 1.25G dual processor and use the extra money for more memory or more hard drives.

The questions been asked a few times on this board for info on rostrum applications. I've previously mentioned how the app Still Life http://www.grantedsw.com/still-life/ looked promising, well version 2 looks really quite good. Using OpenGL to allow realtime rostrum effects should really be built into FCP IMHO, which is what Still Life uses.

I can think of a good use for Still Life as a way to quickly make animated backgrounds for iDVD.

Just thought I'd pass on the info.

I'd like to have a simulated clock or time code display superimposed over some video.

I have a font that looks like a digital readout. Now, I just need to find a way to get the numbers to move.

Does anyone know if there is an easier way than have many one second long graphics keyed over the background video?

Is there any type of effect that will generate a clock or counter in Final Cut?

Thanks for any info you can provide!

Mike, I did something like this on a recent hunting video. I shot some video of a digital stop watch, zoomed to fill the frame. Then I created a graphic in which to place the timer. The stop watch video was scaled and cropped to size and placed on top of the graphic which was placed on top of the hunt video.

This may not be what you are looking for, but it worked for me.

Just off the top of my head?

If you just have FCP you could do it all by hand. Output a series of stills, of set the font as a text effect in FCP, and each second swap the number +1. If you think about it you only need to do this for two sets of numbers. So, if you wanted something like this- 10:10:10:25 = H:M:S:F
One set going from 00 to 10 and another set going from 00 to 25 or 30 for NTSC.

Once you set up a series of still images with the numbers advancing +1 each sec. You can then just overlay another sequence over the top and posistion it where the next set of numbers would be, i.e. the first set is for the H, then the next overlayed would be for the M and so on.

For the frames repeat as as above.

Bit long-winded but can be quite quick and does allow for the look you're after.

After Effects would be better for this but FCP is mor than capable.

I've done this in After Effects and I couldn't think of a way either than the tedious frame by frame animation.

I'm a broadcast journalist who isn't interested in the "Ken Burns effect" or sepia toned, slow motion editing. I'm interested in an editing system that is straight forward...my only need for a high quality "effect" is for dissolves.
Having said that, what can final cut pro offer me that i-movie can't? Are the transitions--ie dissolves more professional and the audio portion of the edit better and in what ways?

Thanks for any input

Hello Sharon,
iMovie is fine for many home videos or hobbyist applications. It's pretty capable within a very small largely avocational sphere. FCP is a full-bodied nle capable of handling nearly anything thrown at it.

Which one is right for you will depend largely on what you need to do. What are you editing? Where is it going? What type of media? etc. Since iMovie is free, give it a try first. The next intermediate step would be to Final Cut Express, in terms of cost. Then to Final Cut Pro or Avid DVExpress.

I'm editing for commercial broadcast. Again, I'm looking at straight-forward edits with some dissolves.

My advice: Just get FCP 3. You're going to need it's capabilities such as the broadcast-safe checker/corrector, the color correction facility, the audio editing facilities, etc., etc.

iMovie is not appropriate for your application.

Alternatively you could just hire a professional editor on a project basis if you don't want to dig into FCP for yourself.

If you don't want to spend the grand for FCP 3, FCP Express might be just the ticket. You can compare major differences ($700 savings) at the top of the page (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5929) If you need to work from Betacam the RS-422 control might be a big factor.

This thread seems to have gone cold quick.

I just tried for the first time to use iDVD 3 and have the same problems with text buttons for scene selections. Buttons that are vertically aligned work fine in preview, but after burned to dvd they are linked and effectively only select the first chapter marker.

Also I have one motion button and although I had touble getting it to show as scaled to fit the button in edit mode, it did scale in preview mode, BUT when burned to DVD the motion video is unscaled, showing only the upper left corner of the video.

I filed a bug report with Apple...

I had several long sessions with Apple support which were frustrating. Basically they said these problems were a non-issue as far as they were concerned (this may have changed since my initial calls). Re the buttons issue - the software seems to work fine if you don't use the "free" floating option. I also have consistently gotten clean burns . . . altho others have not. The chapter marks (exported from FCP) work great!

I appreciate hearing other users comments. Perhaps as more folks start to use iDVD3 more information will be available.

I've had similar problems with my external drive. I recently upgraded from FCP 3 in OS 9 to FCP 3 in OS X, and started having problems with the quality of the footage I was capturing from my XL-1 to my external 7200 RPM (80 gig IDE drive in a firewire case).

I never did solve the problem, but now I just capture to my 30 gig internal (non-system) drive, then use the media manager tool to move the captured footage to my external 80 gig. This method seems to work fine - I have no problems playing back footage from the drive, or saving render files to it or anything - just capture.

I suspect it has something to do with firewire drivers or something specific to OSX. It may even be some kind of bottlenecking, as my camera is also plugged in via firewire - but this should only occur if they were both plugged in to some kind of firewire hub, whcih they're not.

So anyway Jeff (three Jeff's, crazy) you may want to try this if you have say, 15 to 30 gigs free space on an internal drive for swapping.

Jeff Pelletier

Have any of you upgraded your Macs with a upgrade
processor like the Powerlogix? They have 1GHz single/dual
processors. I'm considering to upgrade. Wondered if there
were any kind of issues with FCP/Video?

thanks,
--james

To all you FCP users out there.

DO you capture audio and video seperately? I am wondering if, with three hard drives in my G4, if the performance of FCP would be improved If I choose to select physically different drives for audio and video. I know my G4-400 is no speed demon, however I just wanted to know if this tweek is worthwile or not. This machine is dedicated to FCP. No other software installed.

I don't think it would make any difference. I always keep the onboard audio as well as the seperate audio. It takes up more space, but I use that to help sync the new audio.