|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 3rd, 2007, 12:23 PM | #16 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UT
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
Also, consider using a bit of anti-aliasing in the Nattress processing. I usually select '30' out of a possible 100 on the slider, and I set the tolerance at '40'. One other tidbit: For some reason Cinema Tools will conform the clip, and then when you open it in QT player, it usually shows up as a smallish-looking 640x360 clip. Don't be alarmed. Go to the QT View menu and click on "Actual size" and it should open up as an HD frame. Click "File/Save" and the file will open up at a normal large HD size after that. Annoying! |
|
March 3rd, 2007, 12:36 PM | #17 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Porto Alegre - Brazil
Posts: 40
|
Yes!!!! It works!
:))) Barlow, just a final question. If I want the clip a little bit more slow, what should I do? Thanks a lot, guys! You saved my life!!!!! LOL!!! |
March 3rd, 2007, 12:39 PM | #18 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UT
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
The reason I use the Nattress plug-in is because it renders FAST and gives me acceptable results. I've achieved phenomenal results from Compressor also, which has many of the same motion compensation/deinterlace/optical workflow/processing features that Shake users enjoy. The only problem was the insane render times on my dual 2.7 G5. An eight second 60i clip, converted to 720 60p at best quality with all the motion compensation features enabled took nearly two hours to render. And sometimes I had strange glitched picture anomolies where there were areas of insufficient contrast in the image. (moving overexposed areas) I've never had this problem with the Nattress filter and it would render the eight second clip (now 20 seconds of slowmo) in about one to two minutes. Cheers, B |
|
March 3rd, 2007, 12:42 PM | #19 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UT
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
Experiment! |
|
March 3rd, 2007, 12:48 PM | #20 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Porto Alegre - Brazil
Posts: 40
|
Cool, Barlow. I will try it.
When the commercial get ready, I will post it here. That is the best slow-mo I ever had. Without your help and the Nattress plug in I could not do it. Thanks a lot! |
March 6th, 2007, 12:01 PM | #21 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Porto Alegre - Brazil
Posts: 40
|
SlowMo using Shake
|
June 19th, 2007, 05:44 PM | #22 |
New Boot
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 9
|
Slow Mo and FCP2
Edited... slightly off topic and started a new thread:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=96988 Last edited by Alex Tosuni; June 20th, 2007 at 01:38 PM. |
June 21st, 2010, 04:42 PM | #23 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 157
|
Ok I'm resurrecting this old thread because I am having difficulty with this method. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Here is what I'm doing: 1) opening a hdv 1080 60i project. 2) right clicking the sequence icon in the project bin and going to settings 3) changing sequence settings to 59.94 (field dominance is automatically "none") and leaving the compressor setting at "1080i60" (tried uncompressed 10 bit and Apple ProRes but my machine seems to slow to handle them, end result was the same anyways) 4) capturing the 1080 60i footage and dropping it into the timeline 5) rendering it (do I need to get rid of the audio tracks at some point maybe?) 6) applying the nattress filter 7) rendering again 8) opening cinema tools and selecting "batch conform" 9) selecting the original "untitled" file from the folder it was captured to (is this the rendered file? I can't seem to find a way to save the rendered file separately) 10) conforming to 23.98 two new folders and a "conform.log" appear in the project folder. one folder is called "conformed 23.98" and is empty. the other folder is called "skipped" and contains the original "untitled" clip. the conform.log says "skipped--the movie has temporal compression untitled" I really need to figure out what I am doing wrong here, I'm half clueless about fcp as it is so bear with me... |
June 25th, 2010, 05:26 PM | #24 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 840
|
In the three years since this thread was active, I wonder if any software (other than AviSynth, which requires a degree in programming) has appeared to allow Windows users to convert 60i fields to 60 frames,
the way Natress does with FCP? |
June 29th, 2010, 12:38 PM | #25 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,048
|
Good afternoon,
I do slo mo all the time. One of the reasons I went with Vegas was that for slo mo you convert the 60 to 60 p, then you can change the play rate esaily; after that you can use the velocity envelope that does not just duplicate frames but interpolates the between frames. With the two it is pretty reasonable slo Motion. Nothing like all the stuuf from a few years ago. If you still want to use FCP then just render it to an avi or Mov file and select it.
__________________
DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen |
July 4th, 2010, 04:13 PM | #26 | |
New Boot
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 5
|
Another way in FCP
Quote:
I shoot my main project as 24F and my slow mo stuff on a separate tape as 60i. For the slow mo I typically set my shutter at 1/120th. I capture the 24F material as either HDV 24P or Pro Res 4:2:2 and create a timeline that corresponds. I bring the Slow Mo stuff in as 1080 60i HDV then send it to AE and follow the procedures outlined in the above link. If you're familiar with AE you can easily select just the parts of the clips you want at this stage (remember handles). And remember HDV is upper field first. When I bring this back into FCP it drops in seamlessly as 1080p 24FPS and looks stunning. I have never needed to drop it down to 720p. Hope this helps. |
|
January 4th, 2011, 12:54 AM | #27 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 157
|
don't have after effects unfortunately. anyone around used Barlow's method and can spot what I'm doing wrong?
Last edited by Cal Bickford; January 4th, 2011 at 01:43 AM. |
January 23rd, 2011, 06:44 PM | #28 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 157
|
Barlow very kindly responded to an email and explained what I needed to do so I will post his response below in case someone else is still interested in using this method:
"I think on step 3 you need to make it ProRes because HDV doesn't have a 1080 60p mode at all so what you will render will have interlace frames again. Essentially: 1--Make a 1080 59.94p ProRes timeline and drop an HDV 1080 60i clip into it. (the "skipped" error message from Cinema Tools about "temporal compression" means that the clip's timebase can't be changed because the clip isn't in an I-frame format and has frames that are dependent on adjacent frames due to the nature of the codec. (HDV Long GOP) 2--Apply the Nattress filter (with settings you've described) to the clip on the timeline. 3--After applying it on the timeline, you actually need to drop the clip into the droplet in the filters tab. (don't ask me why, it's how Nattress explained to do it 4--Render out as a 1080 60p ProRes clip. You should see each former interlace field as a standalone frame in 60 fps clip. 5--Bring the clip into Cinema tools and conform to 23.98 (for 40% slowmo) or 29.97 (50% slow) 6--Optional--I tend to think the result is a little aliased looking in 1080 so I think it looks better downconverted to 720p, so downconvert if desired." |
| ||||||
|
|