|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 17th, 2007, 06:12 PM
|
#16 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Posts: 1,382
|
Anton,
Didn't realize that in the compressor. I will take a look, thanks. |
|
|
|
December 18th, 2007, 01:55 AM
|
#17 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: austin, tx
Posts: 300
|
it's only in the latest version of compressor (FCS 2), it's hidden under the frame controls>(de)interlacing options, the last one is reverse telecine.
|
|
|
|
|
December 18th, 2007, 04:14 PM
|
#18 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 105
|
Its really not to bad with the new version of compressor... I just made a dropplet app that removes the pull down. So once I capture (1080i60), a couple key strokes with quicksilver and away it goes... Really painless.
These are the hoops you have to jump through when you try and make a sub 1k camera play with the big boys... :) worth it, IMHO |
|
|
|
|
December 18th, 2007, 04:32 PM
|
#19 | |
|
New Boot
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrison, AR
Posts: 17
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 18th, 2007, 04:59 PM
|
#20 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 105
|
You can create dropplets in the new compressor that are little application.
I'm headed out for the moment, but when I get back tonight I will do a screen cast capturing my workflow... hopefully it will help clear a lot of things up, stay tuned. |
|
|
|
|
December 18th, 2007, 11:20 PM
|
#21 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 105
|
Ok, as promised... here is a video detailing my PF24 work flow:
http://thatsawesome.tv/PF24.mov (11:37 - 214mb) Disclaimers: - I am not a professional, so some things may not be 100% accurate - I did this on the fly, please don't mind my ramblings |
|
|
|
|
December 21st, 2007, 06:36 PM
|
#22 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 658
|
Scott,
Thanks very much for that tutorial about Droplets in Compressor. It gives me a 4x3 rather than 16x9 (maybe I need to go back and re watch) so I set the size to be 1920x1080 and it looks great, but I notice that diagonal lines are very jagged and the file size is 5x more (this happens with pro Res) I am almost tempted to use the deinterlace in Qt Pro (under Window>Movie Properties...Video) It's immediate & you lose a bit of Res perhaps, but same file size But you have me thinking, There has to be a better way with Compressor Thanks again for the info, J |
|
|
|
|
December 21st, 2007, 07:52 PM
|
#23 | |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
It only looks 4x3 in Quicktime, because Quicktime is not correcting for the pixel aspect ratio. If you bring the Pro Res footage into a 1080p23.98 sequence in FCP 6.0 you will see a 1920x1080 frame. Remember HDVs native resolution in SQUARE pixels is 1440x1080, which has an aspect ratio of 1.333333, or, 4x3. Final Cut will automatically do pixel aspect ratio conversion to the proper 16x9 aspect ratio. Similarly, within Quicktime -> Item Properties -> video Track -> View Options there is a 'view at' where you can set the "display" pixels. This will basically do what FCP does with the pixel aspect ratio conversion. So rather than making up 480 pixels that arent there (1920 - 1440) within compressor and bloating your Pro Res output by that amount, keep the same number of pixels and change the pixel aspect ratio in Compressor to HDV, o redit the final output movie to be 1920x1080 VIEWABLE within the item properties for the video track. HTH. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 21st, 2007, 08:19 PM
|
#24 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 105
|
Quote:
I see no jagged edges in my footage, but I am keeping the pixel aspect as HDV. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 21st, 2007, 11:29 PM
|
#25 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: austin, tx
Posts: 300
|
its been awhile, bit I had done some testing with outputing back to 1440x1080 vs outputing to 1920x1080, and the file sizes were more or less identical, sharpness didnt seem to be different either
|
|
|
|
|
December 21st, 2007, 11:32 PM
|
#26 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 658
|
Quote:
I looks great - beautiful workflow Thanks, J |
|
|
|
|
|
December 21st, 2007, 11:40 PM
|
#27 | |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 22nd, 2007, 10:33 PM
|
#28 | |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 5
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 02:04 PM
|
#29 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 388
|
Thank you, Scott, the tutorial is very helpful. I have one newbie question:
Do you apply this workflow to individual clips before editing or can you build your entire movie and then go through the reverse telecine process? It seems like it would be burdensome to do this with individual clips and then edit. Bob |
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 02:37 PM
|
#30 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 105
|
Quote:
I always just convert all my captured footage first and then do my edits in a 24P timeline. My guess (I'm just thinking out loud) is that if you were working in a 1080i60 timeline with the captured footage, did all your cuts, etc... and then converted your footage, I think your edits would be messed up because your removing (or combining?) those interlaced frames. I really don't know... I would think you would want to work in a timeline the same as your output. Were you talking about exporting a ref movie and then running that through compressor to remove the pulldown? I'll have to try this and see, or maybe someone with more experience can clear this up. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
