Mike Barber
June 3rd, 2009, 08:24 PM
OK, this is not the very first time I have heard this, but it is the first time I heard this from people I would have expected to know better... either that, or I have my head farther up my own butt than I am aware of!
I'm in a meeting and a producer proceeds to tell me, with a rather authoritative tone of voice, that "QuickTime is not frame-accurate," which is why my methodology of using Final Cut Pro to check a QT movie of a client edit against a batch of frame sequences to make sure things match is ultimately flawed.
Wait, the full statement is actually "QuickTime is not frame-accurate, unless it is not compressed."
Ignoring for now the fact that I am not using timecode to match things, but rather matching the frames visually to make sure when the client's paperwork says "shot 575 cut-in = frame 26," that the first frame of shot 575 in their edit matches frame 26 of the DPX sequence they sent for that shot... ugh, pardon me while I hit my head repeatedly on my desk...
Does this statement make sense to anyone? Where on earth could they be coming from to make such an outlandish comment? The producer claims that "QuickTime drops frames." When I pointed out that there is drop-frame timecode and non drop-frame timecode and that may be the confusion, the producer said that wasn't what they were talking about. Then Producer cites some anecdotes of this behaviour in her own experience... something about advancing a QT frame by frame and the counter will change but the picture will freeze... which to me sounds like someone looking at footage that has not had the redundant frames for a 3:2 pulldown removed...
And AFAIK, timecode and codec are mutually exclusive; that one has no impact on the other. Am I wrong in this understanding? WTF is she talking about, "unless it's not compressed"???
Argh!
I'm in a meeting and a producer proceeds to tell me, with a rather authoritative tone of voice, that "QuickTime is not frame-accurate," which is why my methodology of using Final Cut Pro to check a QT movie of a client edit against a batch of frame sequences to make sure things match is ultimately flawed.
Wait, the full statement is actually "QuickTime is not frame-accurate, unless it is not compressed."
Ignoring for now the fact that I am not using timecode to match things, but rather matching the frames visually to make sure when the client's paperwork says "shot 575 cut-in = frame 26," that the first frame of shot 575 in their edit matches frame 26 of the DPX sequence they sent for that shot... ugh, pardon me while I hit my head repeatedly on my desk...
Does this statement make sense to anyone? Where on earth could they be coming from to make such an outlandish comment? The producer claims that "QuickTime drops frames." When I pointed out that there is drop-frame timecode and non drop-frame timecode and that may be the confusion, the producer said that wasn't what they were talking about. Then Producer cites some anecdotes of this behaviour in her own experience... something about advancing a QT frame by frame and the counter will change but the picture will freeze... which to me sounds like someone looking at footage that has not had the redundant frames for a 3:2 pulldown removed...
And AFAIK, timecode and codec are mutually exclusive; that one has no impact on the other. Am I wrong in this understanding? WTF is she talking about, "unless it's not compressed"???
Argh!