NLE Mac / Final Cut questions from 2003

Gary Chavez · March 21st, 2003, 04:00 PM

when dumping to my Beta SP deck, it will only record the first frame of each edit. and thats if i use the up arrow in the canvas window. what sup?

gracejames · March 21st, 2003, 04:36 PM

Thanks for the advice guys. This is definately an option.
Appreciate it.

--james

Wolf Dresp · March 22nd, 2003, 01:13 PM

Hi Jeff,
I just read your post and I myself wanted to ask something relating to your question. I'll do this at the end of my answer to your question.
The only way I had no problems capturing from the XL-1 is the following:
Capture your video material in MacOS 9.2.2 with FCP 2.0.2. Then you will have no problems. Regardless to all the other tricks people told me this works. It makes no difference if your working on a G3 Powerbook, a G3 iMac, a G4 AGP Graphics or a new G4 2x 1MHz. I tried them all with all variations of FCP and MacOS versions 9.2.x up to 10.2.4.
FCP 3 and 3.0.2 on MacOS X Jaguar does capture but sets the captured material offline and you can't find a file on your hard disk afterwords.
FCP 3 and 3.0.2 in MacOS 9.2.2 does not capture, shows time breaks after two minutes or so. There is no help.
Having captured your video material and saved it as a new project, you can then switch to FCP 3.0.2 in MacOS 9.2.2 or MacOS X Jaguar open and save your project and you're out of trouble. You can now cut your film as usual. Only problem is you have to renew this process, if you have forgotten some video material and must capturenew material. You can't open your project on FCP 9.2.2, because of compatability problems between FCP 2 and 3.
So you have to start a new Project as described before. Afterwords you can import the captured material into your first project by "Import", "Drag and Drop" or "Copy and Paste".
Apple has a real problem with Canon and the XL-1. What I described is a repeatable bug and a heavy one. You can't change completely to MacOS Classic and Jaguar, because the described method does not work in Classic mode. FCP 2.0.2 does not work in the Classic mode. You need Mac OS 9.2.2. The problem appeared with FCP 3, did not change in FCP 3.0.2 regardless which system version you have. There are so many video companies out there using Canon's XL-1 or XL-1s and the Macintosh, I can't understand Apple's attitude.
I myself wanted to know from this american list, if somebody had heard of Apple's reactions to user complaints.
In Germany not so many people work with the XL-1 and the Macintosh and the clerks at Apple Germany did not answer my requests.

Best Regards
Wolf

Mike Finnerty · March 22nd, 2003, 11:37 PM

Yeah, it looks like I'll have to do the tedious frame by frame animation.

Oh well. Thanks for the replies guys!

Jeff Donald · March 23rd, 2003, 09:59 PM

A final beta version of FCP 4 was recently released and the stage seems to be set for the introduction of FCP 4 and DVDSP 2. Yes, recent rumors have a new version of DVDSP being announced. It is said to offer much tighter integration with FCP 4.

FCP 4 is rumored to include hundreds of real time effects, support for DV50 and FireWire 800, 24 fps editing, and it will run only on OS X. Shake may also play a support role in FCP.

I would expect some exciting news from Apple at NAB.

David Crompton · March 24th, 2003, 12:54 AM

This is a problem I have wondered about for quite some time. When creating smaller frames within the screen the edges can often appear fine on my monitor but distorted or "bent" on the tv screen preventing me from getting nice square boxes. Can someone enlighten me as to what the source of this problem is?

Felix Jones · March 24th, 2003, 03:15 PM

Hi there,

I recently switched from PC to mac. Does the Mac version of Premiere 6.5 have realtime preview like the PC version. If so where can I enable it. Maybe I'm just blind...... ?

Michael Westphal · March 24th, 2003, 10:25 PM

A bump on both would be excellent, IF the features are there. I'm actually very happy with FCP 3 except for a few bugs, but a new version of DVDSP would be most welcome -- especially if it have a better more controllable encoder. Of course, better compositing and text features in FCP would be great.

Thanks for the heads-up. Are you headed to NAB?

Brian Young · March 26th, 2003, 04:13 PM

Ok please excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I just realized when I open a project in Premiere I open a 720x480 Project, and I just noticed after cutting and pasting a frame into photoshop from the capture window....that the frame is actually 640x480, but when I drop it into the timeline it streches to 720x480? Thought this was strange.

Now my question is why do I find the standard NTSC Frame size as 640x480??? I always thought it was 720x480? It seams that PAL has always been at 720x576. Can somebody clear this up for me?

Thanks
Brian

Boyd Ostroff · March 26th, 2003, 05:03 PM

It's all about the pixel aspect ratio. On a computer monitor it's 1.0, for digital video it's .9

720 x .9 = 648 actually. I imagine Photoshop and FCP are doing this conversion for you when you cut and paste.

John Locke · March 26th, 2003, 06:05 PM

=mud?

Has anyone seen how footage shot in frame mode on an XL1 that was softened with a Tiffen black diffusion/fx filter looks after its been run through Magic Bullet?

Brian Young · March 27th, 2003, 12:38 PM

So If I capture from an analog source at 640x480 it is the same as coming from a digital source at 720x480 because the pixels will get stretched? Also if my analog camera captures 700+ lines of resolution do all those lines just create a better looking image at 640x480 or does anything over 525 lines or so just get discarded?

Thanks,
Brian

Bill Ravens · March 27th, 2003, 03:33 PM

1-anything over 525 lines gets lost in the translation
2-the "correct" way to import an image from Photoshop is to create the image with the pallet set to 720x480. Then save the image as 640x480 (introducing some horizontal compression distortion into the saved image)
When the image is imported, if the PAR is set to .909, everything will come out in the right proportion. Reverse the procedure for going from frame to image.

Michiel van der Zeeuw · March 28th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Hello

Had a discussion with a friend the other day about DV compression in edit systems like FCP and Avid Xpress. I though that once your source material is recorded on DV (using the standard DV 1:5 compression), the quality of all copies will remain the same. So it doesn't matter if you make a dub of a tape or edit it in FCP and dump it back to DV tape, whatever goes back to a DV master still has the quality of the original camera tape.
My friend however stated that when you run a copy of a DV-tape (either from an edit system or tape to tape), every copy applies the 1:5 DV-compression. Hence, his pov is that when you're editing DV, it always is best to make your final online in a tape to tape suite, editing directly from the original camera tapes.
I find this hard to believe, because if the 1:5 theory is true, this would mean that second and third generation DV-copies would be of worse quality than those of VHS...which is of course not the case.
The reason for needing to know all this, is that we are doing a DV-based project, editing on several different computers but in the end mastering all that material in a Media 100-suite. I proposed to dump the edits from the different computers to DV sub-masters for finl edit in M100, and at that moment the discusion started...
Looking forward to your comments!
Thanks in advance,
Michiel

Curtis T. Stoeber · March 30th, 2003, 03:19 AM

DV transfers the data intact through firewire to the computer and back without alteration. You can edit all you want without recompressing the file. However if you apply effects or dissolves or something that actually CHANGES the video image then it must be rendered and recompressed. I have rendered and recompressed DV video any times over just for fun and I didn't notice much, if any, loss.

March 21st, 2003, 04:00 PM	#256
Gary Chavez Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Antonio Posts: 355	Freeze Frame when dumping to my Beta SP deck, it will only record the first frame of each edit. and thats if i use the up arrow in the canvas window. what sup?

March 22nd, 2003, 01:13 PM	#258
Wolf Dresp Tourist Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 2	capturing from XL-1 to FCX Hi Jeff, I just read your post and I myself wanted to ask something relating to your question. I'll do this at the end of my answer to your question. The only way I had no problems capturing from the XL-1 is the following: Capture your video material in MacOS 9.2.2 with FCP 2.0.2. Then you will have no problems. Regardless to all the other tricks people told me this works. It makes no difference if your working on a G3 Powerbook, a G3 iMac, a G4 AGP Graphics or a new G4 2x 1MHz. I tried them all with all variations of FCP and MacOS versions 9.2.x up to 10.2.4. FCP 3 and 3.0.2 on MacOS X Jaguar does capture but sets the captured material offline and you can't find a file on your hard disk afterwords. FCP 3 and 3.0.2 in MacOS 9.2.2 does not capture, shows time breaks after two minutes or so. There is no help. Having captured your video material and saved it as a new project, you can then switch to FCP 3.0.2 in MacOS 9.2.2 or MacOS X Jaguar open and save your project and you're out of trouble. You can now cut your film as usual. Only problem is you have to renew this process, if you have forgotten some video material and must capturenew material. You can't open your project on FCP 9.2.2, because of compatability problems between FCP 2 and 3. So you have to start a new Project as described before. Afterwords you can import the captured material into your first project by "Import", "Drag and Drop" or "Copy and Paste". Apple has a real problem with Canon and the XL-1. What I described is a repeatable bug and a heavy one. You can't change completely to MacOS Classic and Jaguar, because the described method does not work in Classic mode. FCP 2.0.2 does not work in the Classic mode. You need Mac OS 9.2.2. The problem appeared with FCP 3, did not change in FCP 3.0.2 regardless which system version you have. There are so many video companies out there using Canon's XL-1 or XL-1s and the Macintosh, I can't understand Apple's attitude. I myself wanted to know from this american list, if somebody had heard of Apple's reactions to user complaints. In Germany not so many people work with the XL-1 and the Macintosh and the clerks at Apple Germany did not answer my requests. Best Regards Wolf __________________ Wolf D

March 22nd, 2003, 11:37 PM	#259
Mike Finnerty Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Boston, MA, USA Posts: 40	Yeah, it looks like I'll have to do the tedious frame by frame animation. Oh well. Thanks for the replies guys! __________________ Mike mfinnerty@mac.com

March 23rd, 2003, 09:59 PM	#260
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	NAB Rumors A final beta version of FCP 4 was recently released and the stage seems to be set for the introduction of FCP 4 and DVDSP 2. Yes, recent rumors have a new version of DVDSP being announced. It is said to offer much tighter integration with FCP 4. FCP 4 is rumored to include hundreds of real time effects, support for DV50 and FireWire 800, 24 fps editing, and it will run only on OS X. Shake may also play a support role in FCP. I would expect some exciting news from Apple at NAB. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 24th, 2003, 12:54 AM	#261
David Crompton New Boot Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Vancouver Posts: 17	Distortion in frame edges This is a problem I have wondered about for quite some time. When creating smaller frames within the screen the edges can often appear fine on my monitor but distorted or "bent" on the tv screen preventing me from getting nice square boxes. Can someone enlighten me as to what the source of this problem is?

March 21st, 2003, 04:36 PM	#257
gracejames New Boot Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 8	Thanks for the advice guys. This is definately an option. Appreciate it. --james

March 24th, 2003, 03:15 PM	#262
Felix Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Auckland, NZ. Posts: 60	Realtime preview on premiere? Hi there, I recently switched from PC to mac. Does the Mac version of Premiere 6.5 have realtime preview like the PC version. If so where can I enable it. Maybe I'm just blind...... ?

March 24th, 2003, 10:25 PM	#263
Michael Westphal Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 166	Most Excellent A bump on both would be excellent, IF the features are there. I'm actually very happy with FCP 3 except for a few bugs, but a new version of DVDSP would be most welcome -- especially if it have a better more controllable encoder. Of course, better compositing and text features in FCP would be great. Thanks for the heads-up. Are you headed to NAB? __________________ Michael A Westphal

March 26th, 2003, 04:13 PM	#264
Brian Young New Boot Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: los angeles, California Posts: 11	640x480 or 720x480 NTSC Ok please excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I just realized when I open a project in Premiere I open a 720x480 Project, and I just noticed after cutting and pasting a frame into photoshop from the capture window....that the frame is actually 640x480, but when I drop it into the timeline it streches to 720x480? Thought this was strange. Now my question is why do I find the standard NTSC Frame size as 640x480??? I always thought it was 720x480? It seams that PAL has always been at 720x576. Can somebody clear this up for me? Thanks Brian

March 26th, 2003, 05:03 PM	#265
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,801	It's all about the pixel aspect ratio. On a computer monitor it's 1.0, for digital video it's .9 720 x .9 = 648 actually. I imagine Photoshop and FCP are doing this conversion for you when you cut and paste.

March 26th, 2003, 06:05 PM	#266
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	XL1 Frame mode+Black Diffusion Filter+Magic Bullet =mud? Has anyone seen how footage shot in frame mode on an XL1 that was softened with a Tiffen black diffusion/fx filter looks after its been run through Magic Bullet? __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

March 27th, 2003, 12:38 PM	#267
Brian Young New Boot Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: los angeles, California Posts: 11	So If I capture from an analog source at 640x480 it is the same as coming from a digital source at 720x480 because the pixels will get stretched? Also if my analog camera captures 700+ lines of resolution do all those lines just create a better looking image at 640x480 or does anything over 525 lines or so just get discarded? Thanks, Brian

March 27th, 2003, 03:33 PM	#268
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	1-anything over 525 lines gets lost in the translation 2-the "correct" way to import an image from Photoshop is to create the image with the pallet set to 720x480. Then save the image as 640x480 (introducing some horizontal compression distortion into the saved image) When the image is imported, if the PAR is set to .909, everything will come out in the right proportion. Reverse the procedure for going from frame to image.

March 28th, 2003, 04:04 AM	#269
Michiel van der Zeeuw Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 27	DV compression Hello Had a discussion with a friend the other day about DV compression in edit systems like FCP and Avid Xpress. I though that once your source material is recorded on DV (using the standard DV 1:5 compression), the quality of all copies will remain the same. So it doesn't matter if you make a dub of a tape or edit it in FCP and dump it back to DV tape, whatever goes back to a DV master still has the quality of the original camera tape. My friend however stated that when you run a copy of a DV-tape (either from an edit system or tape to tape), every copy applies the 1:5 DV-compression. Hence, his pov is that when you're editing DV, it always is best to make your final online in a tape to tape suite, editing directly from the original camera tapes. I find this hard to believe, because if the 1:5 theory is true, this would mean that second and third generation DV-copies would be of worse quality than those of VHS...which is of course not the case. The reason for needing to know all this, is that we are doing a DV-based project, editing on several different computers but in the end mastering all that material in a Media 100-suite. I proposed to dump the edits from the different computers to DV sub-masters for finl edit in M100, and at that moment the discusion started... Looking forward to your comments! Thanks in advance, Michiel

March 30th, 2003, 03:19 AM	#270
Curtis T. Stoeber Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Lakewood Colorado USA Posts: 150	DV transfers the data intact through firewire to the computer and back without alteration. You can edit all you want without recompressing the file. However if you apply effects or dissolves or something that actually CHANGES the video image then it must be rendered and recompressed. I have rendered and recompressed DV video any times over just for fun and I didn't notice much, if any, loss.