|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 4th, 2008, 12:55 AM
|
#16 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,896
|
With future portable 4:2:2 recorders, the EX1 offers 4:2:2 10 bit SDI. Imagine recording directly to a codec such as Cineform, unreal!
Not to mention compact flash is a heck of a lot cheaper than P2 or SxS. I'm not a fan of DVCPRO coming off the HVX200. Yes, I know it's intraframe, but it has a lot of macroblocking and noise in low levels. You have to crush the blacks. There are quite a few owners complaining about this. A coworker sold his HVX200 after owning it for one month. We performed a lot of tests and comparisions over that month. At that time, we actually ended up going with a couple JVC HD100 cameras. I'm not saying the HVX200 can not produce decent footage, it can. I just happen to like the cleaner higher rez look. Last edited by Steven Thomas; January 4th, 2008 at 11:05 AM. |
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 01:01 AM
|
#17 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Los Angeles CA USA
Posts: 507
|
Steven
Have to say that I agree with you. If you start out with a cleaner picture with more exposure latitude then you have more to clamp down on when you add your anti-pimple, anti-wrinkle diffusion effects/filters later on... :-) Sure am looking forward to those wavelet compression boxes. Funny, we have HD100 as well. How's the SDI out on those? Cheers Chris |
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 02:44 AM
|
#18 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,939
|
Chris as far as I know the only way to import ex footage into FCP is using version 6.02
phil |
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 08:25 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Wrangler
|
Quote:
-gb- |
|
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 08:56 AM
|
#20 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 3,841
|
Clip Browser only supports Intel but the XDCAM Transfer tool 2.1 works on G5 and can handle both .mp4 and .mxf XDCAM variants. It can work as a stand alone tool or an FCP6.0.2 plugin. It rewraps both the above as .mov.
If one has FCP 5.1.4 it does NOT have the XDCAM EX1 codec variants. Keep in mind that EX1 is 1920x1080 for example compared to 1440x1080. So I can imagine that FCP 5.1.4 might balk at importing any of the .mxf, .mp4, .mov clips posted here because, regardless of wrap, the codec isn't in that version of FCP. I've only taken a quick look at the Clip Browser on my Intel Mac (being a Mini it's not my post production box). On the Mac side (Windows version is a few more features and I have a Windows box to check that with) it primarily and fewer and transfer tool. I don't think it can rewrap (on the Mac version). Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 10:42 AM
|
#21 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Los Angeles CA USA
Posts: 507
|
Thanks gents
Can you explain why 2.1 and a PC driver doesn't see the mxf clips on my Intel PC either, then? P5 3GHz 2GBRAM WinXP SP2 Sony Clip Browser 2.1 PC Cheers Chris |
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 10:58 AM
|
#22 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 3,841
|
You may be confusing the two utilities. There's Clip Browser which I believe is 1.1 on Windows and 1.0 on Mac. There's the XDCAM Transfer Utility which is at 2.1.
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 11:20 AM
|
#23 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Los Angeles CA USA
Posts: 507
|
Aha!
On it. Thanks, Craig. |
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 02:57 PM
|
#24 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: new york, ny
Posts: 121
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 03:09 PM
|
#25 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 3,841
|
I meant to say greater control of depth of field. I left out a key word. Yes it's the ability to have a shallower depth of field.
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
