Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE LIVETYPE:HomeLiveType ForumFinal CutFinal Cut Tutorials

horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?

COW Forums : Apple LiveType

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
mark palmoshorrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 7, 2008 at 12:45:49 pm

Hello all

I have uploaded a screen grab to illustrate what i mean

http://www.finalcutpro.tv/FCPtext–vs-livetype.jpg

The top text is the basic FCP text, the bottom is a livetype project text imported into FCP.

There is a massive quality difference... what could be causing that?

The livetype project is at

http://www.finalcutpro.tv/LiveType.ipr

Its an HD livetype project the FCP sequence is also HD 1080 50i

Thanks
Mark.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

mark in Chapel HillRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 8, 2008 at 1:58:59 am

Yeah, that's a common problem, although the moderators of this forum are reluctant to admit. I've yet to make them look crisp, but here's some tips to make it look as good as possible:

in LT:
edit-properties- field dominance - chose lower
use bold or outline with the same color as font

IN FCP:
click on clip - modify-alpha type - select black

view on monitor, not computer

Good luck

FCP 4.5 /
OS 10.4.9 /
1Ghz G4 powerbook + 1 G ram /
LaCie External drive FW 400 150 GB /
playback deck: Pan dv2500


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Mark PalmosRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 9, 2008 at 6:48:27 am

Thanks for the input Mark,
I had already changed over to the basic FCP text... when I get a chance I will check all the settings you suggest.

I was really shocked at how bad the Livetype text was, and will be very suprised if Livetype requires all that tweaking before text looks as good as the basic text editor in FCP.

thanks again mate
Mark.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Sjon UeckertRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 9, 2008 at 8:37:41 am

Well, I presume I am that moderator that is reluctant, but the trouble is, I have reason to be reluctant. I don't seem to be having that problem, and I have used LT for everything from tv to feature films and in almost every conceivable format.

So, now that we're through the snippy part (there is a rumor around that I can be somewhat of a grouch), lets look at the problem. You (meaning Mark) say you are working in High Def. There is a big difference between Hi Def and Hi Def. True Hi Def is 1920 X 1080 and uses square pixels (1.0) If you are working in HDV (1440 X 1080) or DVCProHD (1280 X 1080) you are working with rectangular pixels (1.33 and I can't recall the exact ration of the other one). If you are working in DV you are also using a rectangular pixel (.9) where the pixel is wide rather than tall. HDV stretches the pixel horizontally to make a true 1920 width using less pixels. DV does the same except it stretches vertically to shrink the image to 640 X 480. So my question is, what codec are you using and what is the pixel ratio in LT set to?

Also, do the settings in LT conform EXACTLY to the sequence settings in FCP. Another point - if you are working in HD, DO NOT set the field dominance to lower, set it to upper. If you are working in true High Def (HDTV 1920 X 1080, set it to None).

And finally (and this one is the one most of you don't seem to get) did you render the clip in FCP? Your clip looks unrendered. You have to render the clip because you are using the Animation codec in LT and whatever codec you have in your sequence for FCP (and it is not animation). Don't waste your time rendering in LT, just save the project, drag the icon that will then appear at the top of the LT Canvas window onto your timeline and then render in FCP.

And smile, be happy.

Sjon





Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

mark in Chapel HillRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 10, 2008 at 2:40:13 pm

Hey Sjon:
This is the other Mark. Sorry if I provoked the grumpiness (if that was grumpy, you have some very sensitive friends), but that was the best little LT tutorial I've seen yet on all the different settings you need to be aware of when using this product.
Inherent in this forum, or any forum, is that we come to it in crisis (never a good mood) and try to imagine search words to find our answers in other posts. PLUS, most of us, I think, just want to get the words up on the screen and be done with it. We're not designers, we're tv producers and filmmakers trying to do everything ourselves (shoot, edit, raise money, do the laundry) and then suddenly, we crash into the realization that titling ain't that simple. LT makes it look simple - all I need to do is type and pick a color! But as you've pointed out, there's more to it.
What I never found in this forum, or even the LT help pages, (and perhaps I failed to use the right terms)is a bullet point type tutorial that says, "If you are using a (fill in the blank) timeline, here are the settings you need to change in LT." Just like you did in your last post.
I just came from a filmmaker's workshop with about 25 people in it and EVERYONE talked about how they couldn't get their titles in LT to look good. Of course, if you're a conspiracy theorist, you could say it was designed so us newbies would have to hire someone like you, a true professional. But, unfortunately, FCP and LT has encouraged the masses to get into film and tv and they want their titles, NOW (slam fist on desk).
So, unfortunately, you are dealing with the fact that the LT help pages aren't providing good solutions to our problems. But thanks for all your assistance and hope you give some thought to that tutorial.


FCP 4.5 /
OS 10.4.9 /
1Ghz G4 powerbook + 1 G ram /
LaCie External drive FW 400 150 GB /
playback deck: Pan dv2500


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

mark in Chapel Hillone more thing
by on Feb 11, 2008 at 3:29:38 am

I still can't produce clean, sharp titles. And I've tried everything.

FCP 4.5 /
OS 10.4.9 /
1Ghz G4 powerbook + 1 G ram /
LaCie External drive FW 400 150 GB /
playback deck: Pan dv2500


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Sjon UeckertRe: one more thing
by on Feb 11, 2008 at 8:16:30 am

I don't know what you have your FCP preferences set to (Mark Palmos) but that image you posted shows a window that is not set to HD. I tried it on my system and duplicated your image, but my window (set at HD) was much wider than yours, and even unrendered, the text from LT was as good as the text from FCP. I could see the difference because the buttoms on the bottom of the window were cut off in my image and all were visible in yours. As for Mark in Chapel Hill, try cleaning your screen. Actually if you are working in interlace rather than progressive, you will see jagged edges on a computer monitor and yet the text will be fine on an NTSC monitor.

Sjon





Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

mark palmosRe: one more thing
by on Feb 11, 2008 at 10:47:38 am

Hi Sjon
The project is HD, 1080 50i
What makes you think my project is not HD?
The viewers are that shape because thats how I have them, but they are at 100% so the quality should be perfect.
WRT interlace, the FCP text is far better on the same screen, but I will fiddle with the settings that you and mark suggested later today or tomorrow.
thanks for the input
Mark


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

mark in Chapel HillRe: one more thing
by on Feb 11, 2008 at 6:36:54 pm

"As for Mark in Chapel Hill, try cleaning your screen. ."


Okay, Sjon, you prove your point about being grumpy. I was trying to be helpful and you come back with an insult. What you fail to understand, and I don't know why this is so hard for you, is that many intelligent, albeit inexperienced, people aren't getting why titles look good in LT, and even in the viewer of FCP, but not after bringing them in the timeline (ON THE SAME COMPUTER MONITOR) and after rendering. And you know what, it has that same dish water look on my television (NTSC monitor).

I'm sure it's a failure on my part to use the correct settings, but it's not because I'm stupid.

BTW: I'm using the DV codec in a 60i timeline.


FCP 4.5 /
OS 10.4.9 /
1Ghz G4 powerbook + 1 G ram /
LaCie External drive FW 400 150 GB /
playback deck: Pan dv2500


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Dave GardnerRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Jul 18, 2008 at 4:06:34 am

Sjon,

What about the advice given earlier in this thread to change alpha type to black? Is that necessary or helpful in achieving better quality livetype titles in an HDV timeline?

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director/Writer
Visions West
Compelling Documentaries for Broadcast, Business & Communities
<http://www.visions-west.com>

Main Office:
760 Wycliffe Drive
Colorado Springs,


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Sjon UeckertRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Jul 18, 2008 at 7:28:24 pm

Well, this monster has raised it's ugly head again. I am not sure what you mean by changing alpha type to black. LT uses the animation codec which uses a 256 shade gray scale to produce its alpha channel. I have posted a copy of Mark's project up a few posts) and his screenshot is ragged whereas mine (with no changes) is quite elegant.

I have a difficulty in working through this problem because I can't duplicate it. I just finished two features and used LT in titling both of them. Both were NTSC HD projects and have played on theater screens, as well as on the IFC channel. and the titles were pristine. I make sure that HD projects are set to upper and SD projects are set to lower and I make sure that my render is set to normal and not draft. (These are all in the project settings).

If you are trying to do a crawl or roll, I strongly recommend that you use Boris FX in FCP and LT does not handle this well.

You might consider doing the title wrk in Motion if you can't get the results you want in LT.

Sjon





Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dave GardnerRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Jul 18, 2008 at 9:51:39 pm

Thanks, Sjon. I was referring to a post earlier in the thread that advised right-clicking on the livetype file in FCP and in properties changing alpa type to black. I notice in my project that the alpha type on all my livetype files is "straight." Don't know what that means. But would certainly like to give my titles the best shot at looking stellar. Sorry to hear Livetype is just not that great at crawls.

Also curious, why is the default in Livetype when you first choose HDV in project properties to have "none" for field dominance instead of "upper?" I just spent over an hour going through and changing all my titles in a 20:00 sequence to upper field dominance.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director/Writer
Visions West
Compelling Documentaries for Broadcast, Business & Communities
<http://www.visions-west.com>

Main Office:
760 Wycliffe Drive
Colorado Springs,


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Sjon UeckertRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Jul 18, 2008 at 9:59:16 pm

In FCP leave the alpha at straight. Also there is a big difference between HDV and HDTV (one is 1440 using an anamorphic pixel (1.3) and the other (HDTV) is 1920 using a square pixel). That might be some of the problem in this discussion. I work in HDTV which is full sized 1920 X1080. When working in HDV (a long GOP mpeg format) the pixels are squashed and when the picture is displayed at 1920, the pixels are stretched, which might make the edges somewhat jagged. HDTV is WYSIWYG. I stay as far away fromo HDV as possible. If your project is HDV, I would recommend upressing it to HDTV using your ProRes 422 codec (just set your sequence export to PreRes 422 at full size). This take it out of mpeg and makes each frame an "I" frame. This just might solve your problem.

As far as LT being bad at crawls and scrolls, I think the Boris is a lot faster. LT was designed to be a titling program, and at that it is quite good. As I said the titles are always pristine. One of my films - Before the Music Dies - is available on iTunes and you can see how well that came ot.

Sjon





Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chaz HubRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Nov 3, 2011 at 1:08:25 am

Thanks for the advice Sjorn! It worked the first time I tried it!!!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Sjon UeckertRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 11, 2008 at 8:22:31 pm

Okay Mark, I was kidding about wash your windows - maybe I should have included a ;-), but I thought you would get it. I understand that a number of people have a problem with antialiasing - usually caused by a mismatched setting. I took Mark Palmos' file and opened it and duplicated his setup. The result can be seen at:

http://www.sjon.org/xfer/LT/LT.html

By definition, the animation codec that LT uses has 256 shades of transparency which eliminated the blocking or aliasing I see in Mark's project. I still say some setting does not match. The version I loaded wasn't even rendered. My best guess is that his video format is set to 4:3 rather than 16:9, even though he has it set for HD.

Sjon



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mark PalmosRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 11, 2008 at 11:14:00 pm

[Sjon Ueckert] "My best guess is that his video format is set to 4:3 rather than 16:9"

Sjon,
erm
I do know the difference between 4.3 and 16x9! In FCP you can make the viewer any shape you want, this does not affect the aspect ratio of your project/timeline/output. But Im sure you know that... so i cant figure why you assume my project was 4x3. It was not!

I will check the livetype setting however, that might have been inconsistent with the FCP project. (motion does not seem to have this problem, not one I have noticed).

Speak soon
Mark.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

mark in Chapel HillRe: horrid quality compared to FCP basic text?
by on Feb 11, 2008 at 11:21:00 pm

Yeah, a :) would help since I'm already insecure about learning this program. I shouldn't be piggy backing on the other Mark's post, since we are working in different formats.

I'm usually an excellent troubleshooter but this one has me stumped. The Boris Efx (title crawl in FCP) looks great but LT doesn't, and I can't figure out why. Oh well, I'll just put it in the category of Incomprehensible along with Quantum Physics and Rules of Love.

FCP 4.5 /
OS 10.4.9 /
1Ghz G4 powerbook + 1 G ram /
LaCie External drive FW 400 150 GB /
playback deck: Pan dv2500


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]