|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 28th, 2006, 10:02 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 198
|
Quote:
Another thing we did was go direct from the HVX into the television using S-video and watched some footage. Now that looks good. So good i think i drooled a little bit. And I just have a crappy Sanyo TV in my office. |
|
|
|
|
February 28th, 2006, 01:14 PM
|
#17 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
__________________
Matt Irwin DP / matt.irwincine.com |
|
|
|
|
|
February 28th, 2006, 01:39 PM
|
#18 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: St.Louis, USA
Posts: 145
|
That was really. Awesome. Can't wait to get my Hvx200.
You get good clarity even the noise level is high. Is H stands for Heaven? |
|
|
|
|
February 28th, 2006, 01:43 PM
|
#19 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
There isn't for the mac. These would be 3rd party encoders. They are machines that are specifically built to encode. Usually offering much more in depth bit rate variation. You have a slow scene. Reduce the bit rate. You have an intense action scene. Raise the bit rate. Basically it's all customizable. When you use Compressor you pick a bit rate and that's it. The whole thing is encoded at the same bit rate. These 3 party systems are extremely expensive. I've heard upwards of $200,000. But this is what Hollywood uses. This is all what I've been told.
__________________
www.motivitypictures.com |
|
|
|
|
|
February 28th, 2006, 01:45 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 198
|
Quote:
DVDComposer. An MPEG-2 video encoding system that's $50,000. When i went straight into the T.V with my Xl2, the footage looked so good, but everytime I converted to Mpeg 2, there were tons of digital artifacts, especially on cross fades and fade to black transitions. I could even see pixelation on any type of movement. I even dragged every slider there was to top quality and used the highest bit rate possible, it still didn't seem to matter. It may not be that big of a deal, but it drove me nuts that i couldn't get what i saw on tape to look like that on DVD. I am a perfectionist. I know Sony has proprietary mpeg2 encoding software that they use to make all the hollywood DVD's on, and that's why they look so good. (I know it's film) but the arrested development DVD disk series wasn't done on film and it looks so good on DVD. I always wondered if they used the xl2 on that show. All in all, i like what i am seeing using compressor with HVX footage. |
|
|
|
|
|
February 28th, 2006, 03:20 PM
|
#21 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: St.Louis, USA
Posts: 145
|
My assumption is since the footage was shot in 2/3" ccd chips or film the quality should be good even after compression.
What if, you create a 3d composite using Maya and Shake and compress it using existing codec h.264 you still have the quality maintained like a film. When i create any object and during rendering i specify what quality i needed it to be either HD,super 16 or 35mm and when i compress it using h.264 the actual file size will be much more less and still the film/HD quality will be maintained. I think its more towards the pixel size of the chip used in the camera which directly correlates to how much color info you can gather. Just my 2 cents here. |
|
|
|
|
March 1st, 2006, 07:38 AM
|
#22 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 198
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
