FORUMS: list search recent posts

first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jacob Brown
first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 11, 2014 at 11:30:22 pm

I don't do a lot of corporate work. In fact this was my first time. The gig was to basically go to a fancy party thrown by a lux swiss watch company, shoot some red carpet interviews, a lot of atmosphere and scene. Then edit together a cool sizzle real feeling recap video, incorporating some pre-existing high-impact footage, whole thing set to music.

I had a cameraman, 3 cameras, sound person and an editor. So we had BlackMagic footage at 24fps, 5D footage at 60fps, both 16:9, and then the preexisting footage at 25fps and 2.35:1.

The editor offered to try using FCPX but I figured let him use the NLE he preferred. We finished shooting at 11pm. He had rough cut to me by 3am. Looked great. Gave him notes. Woke up again at 6am, more notes. Had a low res export to the client by 830am.

All fine.

However I noticed some wonky interlaced looking stuff going on and some stretched aspect ratios etc.

Total nightmare. Getting all the frame rates and aspects to work in the old system was near on impossible.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08:56 am

So you didn't use FCP X? The post title seems a bit off.


Return to posts index

Jacob Brown
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 12:10:30 am

Wish I had.

I guess my point was that every single thing that tripped us up were things that are no-brainers in FCPX. And being used to FCPX at this point I didnt anticipate a single one of them.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 12:17:10 am

Why did you shoot two frame rates? But even so there shouldn't have been interlaced weirdness or aspect issues. Sounds like the editor might not have been familiar with his app of choice either.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 12:30:01 am

It seems like the problem was not the NLE but pre production planning that failed to set a common frame rate and aspect ratio with the cameras available.

Needing an NLE to fix basic pre problems seems like a strange "fix it in post" attitude that just give editors and post people the shits. But hey I'm a realist and have to deal with these issue on a daily basis long after the camera crew has moved on so I am glad NLEs in the past few years like X & Pr are better able to deal with this sort of unfortunately increasingly common problem.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 12:51:03 am

[Jacob Brown] "Total nightmare. Getting all the frame rates and aspects to work in the old system was near on impossible."

There's no reason getting that footage to mix properly should've been difficult on any 'pro' NLE. Even FCP 7, which hasn't been updated in 5 years, should handle it okay.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 6:57:26 am

In 7 your only option would be to conform the 25 to 24 in cinema tools, and then edit it all in a 720p60 sequence. A perfectly viable option.

X would handle the frame rates better. It could add correct pulldown so you could mix the rates in a interlaced 1080 sequence, and you could also conform the 25 to 24 in the app directly without cinema tools.

Either app should handle the aspects just fine.


Return to posts index

Bobby Mosca
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 1:18:01 am

So which NLE did he use?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 1:33:51 am

[Bobby Mosca] "So which NLE did he use?"

Sounds like the nightmare was FCP7. Confusing subject title.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 12:48:10 am

[Jacob Brown] "However I noticed some wonky interlaced looking stuff going on and some stretched aspect ratios etc."

Don't know if FCPX would have been any better.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 6:29:46 am

[Gary Huff] "Don't know if FCPX would have been any better."

Why do you believe that?

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 7:01:41 am

Exactly. X is superb at mixing frame rates. 7 is a dog. Drop the 24 and the 60 in a 1080i sequence. Perfect. The 24 gets interlaced pulldown and the 60p becomes 60fields.

One of my main reasons for moving on from 7. If you're still using 7 it might be time to move to something that can at least add pulldown and handle different codecs.


Return to posts index


Alejandro Arriaga
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 11:49:39 am

...seems like the editor didn't sleep.

Never love a filmmaker...


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 1:20:40 pm

[Bret Williams] "In 7 your only option would be to conform the 25 to 24 in cinema tools ..."

[Bret Williams] "X is superb at mixing frame rates. 7 is a dog."

Bret,

As I am currently dealing with frame rate conversions for a project cut on X, I will just say that while X seems to have some improvements there is no way I would recommend anything but external frame rate conversions (we'll be using Teranex). I was actually surprised at how poor the quality was in X.

(X may be better at 24 to 60i interlace cadence, I can't speak to that, but 30p to 23.98p is about equal to what you get in 7.)

Also, you forget that 7 can be used in conjunction with Compressor (as well as Cinema Tools). So there are "options" other than Cinema Tools (again, with various caveats.)

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 2:15:53 pm

I haven't mentioned "conversions" have I? Neither app can do that. And either app can use compressor of course. I was pointing out the options the editor had. Running all your footage through compressor on an overnight edit isn't usually one of them.

Conforming is not converting. The best thing for him to do is conform the 25 to 24 and use it in a sequence e that can mix (not convert) the frame rates of 24 and 60. That's 2 things that FCP X can do that 7 cannot. Conform frame rates in the app with a click and properly mix frame rates ( by adding interlaced pulldown).

Truth is, even if the editor had worked in a 30p timeline (where neither rate would have proper cadence) it should have looked ok in either app. I'm not sure what he did to have "interlacing issues."


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 2:41:42 pm

[Bret Williams] "Conforming is not converting."

[Bret Williams] "Drop the 24 and the 60 in a 1080i sequence. Perfect. The 24 gets interlaced pulldown and the 60p becomes 60fields."

Bret,

I'm understanding from your second statement 24 frames playing as 1 second in a 1080i60 sequence. If that is correct, it is frame-rate conversion, not conforming. If not, then I have misunderstood you.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 2:55:03 pm

Adding pulldown, to me at least, is neither converting nor conforming. You aren't adding frames. You aren't interpolating the image. It plays and looks like the 24p it was shot at. It's just a pattern of repeating the necessary frames in a smooth pattern across 60 fieds. I've never heard that called a conversion because it doesn't require any fancy software or a terranex to do it. Every modern NLE has been able to so this for years. Except FCP legacy of course, which would just repeat every 4th frame. Which even that doesn't look all bad. But there's no common denominator for 25 in a 30 or 60. So a simple answer would be to slow it down ( conform) it to 24. Then the proper pulldown could be applied.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 3:07:07 pm

[Bret Williams] "Adding pulldown, to me at least, is neither converting nor conforming."

Bret,

Ah, I see.

I call this frame-rate conversion because it is representing one frame rate inside another, but I see your point. Strictly speaking, however, it can misleading to call this "adding pull-down" since, for example, if you represent 24p inside of 60i you haven't changed the speed at all, you've just added a specific interlace cadence. (The issue would become apparent if you tried to explain to your sound team that you "pulled down" the footage, but they don't have to).

I'd say that neither "conversion" nor "pull-down" is a precise way to refer to this process, and I lament the state of the language.

[Bret Williams] "Every modern NLE has been able to so this for years. Except FCP legacy of course, which would just repeat every 4th frame."

Actually FCP will add proper interlace cadence to 23.98 sequences on playout to hardware (ie realtime). It has always been a frustration to me that the software would do this properly in playback but could not do it properly via timelines. I always took it as another instance of lazy engineering ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:53:51 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I lament the state of the language."

These are cool website, for programmers making an NLE and not so much for editors, but they are still pretty cool:

http://lurkertech.com/lg/video-systems/

http://lurkertech.com/lg/fields/

I think this gives us a glimpse of what conform means and why programmers use that term. I found "interleaving" to be particularly interesting, where video (YUV) and graphics (RGB) mingle for programmers.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:00:45 pm

[Richard Herd] "These are cool website"

Richard,

Thanks - I think I've visited those sites before.

Thing is, they are perpetuating vagaries in the "3:2 pulldown" language - they discuss in good detail the 3:2 field cadences and why it is necessary and it's implications, but they don't discuss the speed difference (slow-down) part of the process.

"The lurkers guess that it's called 3:2 pulldown because the pattern of fields you get contains sequences of 3 fields followed by 2. Or perhaps it's called that because 3 of the 5 video frames do not end up coinciding with the start of a film frame and 2 do."

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:16:43 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "they are perpetuating vagaries in the "3:2 pulldown" language"

Where are the vagaries originating? We can agree it isn't reality itself, right; it just is. So in some way SMPTE and lurker (one of the QuickTime developers before AVFoundation) had to make decisions. It's always bothered me that Legacy reports 23.98 when 24M should be 23.976 as AE and PP and X do (don't know Avid; we broke up in 2003). I don't know if they are calculating 23.976 and rounding up on the browser display, or if it really is 23.98 having rounded up somewhere else. What say ye?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:26:58 pm

[Richard Herd] "Where are the vagaries originating?"

Richard,

I think much is to be blamed on the ad hoc development of video tape in the first instance, and film to video in the second. In essence, it seems to me it was kind of an oral culture in spite of the highly technical engineering challenges.

And 24p in 29.97 comes to us from a very specific use case (film in NTSC video) - so principals that were developed there were never really thought of in broader terms of frame rate conversions until recently.

[Richard Herd] " I don't know if they are calculating 23.976 and rounding up on the browser display, ..."

Allan Tepper just posted an excellent (if somewhat wordy) listing of such issues on PVC:

http://provideocoalition.com/atepper/story/video-framerates-and-the-tower-o...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:38:13 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Allan Tepper just posted an excellent (if somewhat wordy) listing of such issues on PVC:

http://provideocoalition.com/atepper/story/video-framerates-and-the-tower-o.....
"


Well that's rather serendipitous.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:44:52 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:52:29 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well that's rather serendipitous."

I actually question one of his statements:

"I am the first to admit that even numbers like 23.976 and 29.97 are not exact either. They are actually simplifications of a more complex number, which would be the result of 30 ÷ 1/1.001 or 24 ÷ 1/1.001, whose results are very long and not feasible to be used in common speech or even writing."

I actually think that 23.976 and 29.97 are precise representations of whole number frame rates slowed down by 1/1000 - that is, I think 1/1000 is the correct fraction, not 1/1001 as he states.

?

Franz.

Edit: Wiki tells me this:

... designers adjusted the original 60 Hz field rate down by a factor of 1.001 (0.1%), to approximately 59.94 fields per second. (which still seems contradictory to me)

... and then this:

Dividing (4,500,000 / 286) lines per second by 262.5 lines per field gives approximately 59.94 fields per second.


... which seems more precise and yields 59.94005994005994

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Lines_and_refresh_rate

Question answered, doubt relieved, carry on.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 6:42:47 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I actually think that 23.976 and 29.97 are precise representations of whole number frame rates slowed down by 1/1000 - that is, I think 1/1000 is the correct fraction, not 1/1001 as he states."

That's because it isn't exactly 1000th of a second slower, it's actually a repeating fraction slower .001001001001.., (or 1/1001).


Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 6:46:21 pm

To add to that, 23.976 fps is actually 23.9760239760239... fps


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 6:55:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "To add to that, 23.976 fps is actually 23.9760239760239... fps"

But, what hasn't been clarified, is whether Apple uses a true 23.976 or actually rounds the media and not just the name to 23.98. If you look at the metadata properties of an Apple-generated file and an Adobe generated file, the info is expressed differently. With Adobe specifically, you must export/render as 23.976 and not 23.98.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 7:18:43 pm

[Oliver Peters] "With Adobe specifically, you must export/render as 23.976 and not 23.98."

If you render something at 23.98 (which means that you have an application that allows you type in a manual frame rate and the user enters 23.98 specifically, such as Ae) then FCP7 will render the file incorrectly as the frame rate is not 24000/1001.

Mostly, if you can choose from a drop down menu of 23.98, applications use the fraction. Ae lists 23.976 in drop down menus.

In FCPX, the tc is expressed as a fraction at least in the XML.

FCP7 seems to use the proper fraction, and not round to 23.98.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 11:52:51 pm

[Oliver Peters] "But, what hasn't been clarified, "

And also what does Conform actually do (the start of this whole thread).


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 13, 2014 at 12:00:10 am

[Richard Herd] "what does Conform actually do"

Depends on the context. As it relates to speed changes, conform was a function of Cinema Tools that altered the header info of a QT file, so that any QT-based NLE or media player would natively play that file at a different speed. If a file was recorded at 59.94fps for example, you could use CT to "conform" the file to 23.98fps, which altered only the header metadata. Inside FCP 7 and FCP X, this file will then natively play back at 23.98 as an over-cranked (slomo) clip, without rendering. In X (not a QT-based NLE) this has been superseded by using the Retime tool and selecting the automatic speed option.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 13, 2014 at 12:03:01 am

[Oliver Peters] "Depends on the context"

I guess, I was hoping for some math :)


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:36:12 pm

[Richard Herd] "What say ye?"

I don't know about ye, but I'd say 24000/1001 is correct enough.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 11:48:43 pm

Errata: Apparently X still rounds -- haven't touched it in a year. My previous post includes the false information that X uses 23.976.

Sorry.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:23:16 pm

[Bret Williams] ". It plays and looks like the 24p it was shot at."

When you add 3:2 pulldown to 24p in a 60i container, it only marginally looks like 24p, because you still introduce interlacing.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:29:34 pm

[Gary Huff] "When you add 3:2 pulldown to 24p in a 60i container, it only marginally looks like 24p, because you still introduce interlacing."

Brett,

This is particularly evident if there are any single frame edits in the 24p material.

The shift in the look from 24p to 60i is also generally accepted since we are so accustomed to seeing it (via decades of film to NTSC viewing).

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 7:11:14 pm

Where are you going to view material that's shot 24p in 24p except the web? Everything else is 60hz based and has to have some sort of pulldown (interlaced or otherwise) applied to it by the time it hits your screen. That's why a 120hz or 240hz TV is great for 24p. They are perfect multiples of 24 so there aren't any cadence issues. Each frame is displayed for the same duration. But you can't rely on someone having a 120hz or 240hz or greater system.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 7:34:28 pm

[Bret Williams] "Where are you going to view material that's shot 24p in 24p except the web?"

Bret,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package#Picture_MXF_files

(Note that 23.976 is deprecated in that standard.)

[Bret Williams] "Everything else is 60hz based and has to have some sort of pulldown (interlaced or otherwise) applied to it by the time it hits your screen."

I don't know what you mean by this. If you're referring to 59.94 Hz broadcast, then yes that is a standard. So is 50 Hz. So is 24p and 25p (and more if you look at that DCP link).

So "everything besides the web" is not "60Hz based".

I'm also confused by your conception of pulldown here - what do you mean that "everything .. has to have some sort of pulldown .. applied to it"? This is not true.

Examples:
- cam orig at 59.94i displayed on a 59.94i screen requires no pulldown.
- cam orig at 59.94i displayed on an NTSC screen requires no pulldown.
- cam orig at 50i displayed on a 50i screen requires no pulldown.
- cam orig at 25p displayed on a 50i screen requires field interpolation with no pulldown
- cam orig at 23.976 displayed on a 59.94 screen requires 3:2 field interpolation (commonly referred to as "3:2 pulldown" which I say is a misnomer)
- cam orig at 24 displayed on a 59.94 screen reuqires 3:2 pulldown (which I am arguing is a more precise application of the term)

How do you differentiate between those last two examples?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 7:54:53 pm

[Bret Williams] "Where are you going to view material that's shot 24p in 24p except the web? "

Well, not exactly. A lot of shows and spots are mastered as 24fps. In the pro world, many monitors support 23.976p or PsF viewing. You can author and distribute 24fps DVDs and these play fine. Granted the player adds the pulldown.

If you master 24fps media, you typically create converted NTSC, 1080i or 720p broadcast masters from the 24p master. Bottom line is that having a 24fps master gives you something that is the most malleable for scaling and format conversions. It's also the best format to encode, because you get a better image at low bitrates than anything interlaced or with higher frame rates.

Definitely interlaced should have died off a long time again, but unfortunately it didn't.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:14:26 pm

So I don't see where we disagree at all. The moment consumers are sporting $2500 24hz monitors that are only 22inches like in edit suites, then they'll have an outlet to watch all this 24p we create somewhere (other than the web) in all it's 24p goodness.

Why did I buy that flanders again? :)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:32:04 pm

[Bret Williams] "The moment consumers are sporting $2500 24hz monitors that are only 22inches like in edit suites,"

Panasonic 50" plasmas support it. Originally more than $2500, of course.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:33:06 pm

[Bret Williams] " The moment consumers are sporting $2500 24hz monitors ..."

... or paying a few dollars for a movie ticket.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:36:10 pm

Not the Hobbit! But that's a whole different discussion.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:38:15 pm

[Bret Williams] "Not the Hobbit! But that's a whole different discussion."

48fps - still based on 24, not 60. Cut in 24fps and assembled in the DI to the original 48.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 7:58:50 pm

Does everyWHERE else make more sense? And I was discussing 24p and NTSC standards because that's what the OP is discussing. Everything (everyWHERE) else meaning any where else you want to view your 24p is going to be a 60hz system and that 24p image will have to have some 3:2 (whatever you want to call it) added to it. The rest of the planet calls it pulldown, but you can call it what you want.

So, I agree with your list obviously. Pulldown doesn't need to be added to 25p in a 50i environment. Or 30p in a 60i environment. My point, is if you're working with 24p it's going to get displayed as some form of 3:2 pulldown/field interpolation/whatever to be shown anywhere but the web. The display devices at our disposal, and the broadcast standards are 60hz based. They're 60p. They're 60i. They're 120hz, or 240hz, or 600hz, etc. You're not going to see 24 perfect frames in a row until you're monitoring 24p on a 120hz TV. My flanders monitor has a 24hz mode, but not many consumer TVs do. Gary is worried about cutting on a field, but that's really beyond control. If you cut on the wrong frame in a 24p edit, that frame might end up as a single field when it's has pulldown applied later on.
And back to the OP, he was mixing 24,30, and 25. The best common denominator to mix 24 and 30 is simply a 60i sequence or a 30p sequence. And I'd just slow down the 25 to 24 so it plays nice too. That was the whole original point. There's not much point in going through hoops to make the 30p look like 24p for the sake of working in a 24p sequence, unless you're dying to make the 30p have a more film like look or you need it to match the look of the 24p. Since this was about a run and gun edit over night corporate presentation, I'd guess it's more about getting it done. Trying to convert 30 to 24 is the last thing I'd be trying in the middle of the night for a smile and wave video!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:05:30 pm

[Bret Williams] "My point, is if you're working with 24p it's going to get displayed as some form of 3:2 pulldown/field interpolation/whatever to be shown anywhere but the web. The display devices at our disposal, and the broadcast standards are 60hz based."

Actually many monitors (pro and consumer), as well as projection systems, support native 24fps playback without added pulldown cadences. Some do 23.976p and other 23.976psf. This is supported over SDI and HDMI.

I agree though, that in a corporate presentation environment, 720p/59.94 or 1080i/59.94 is probably the correct mastering format. That's simply because of all the other elements in the live presentation mix, like cameras, PowerPoint, etc.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:11:44 pm

[Bret Williams] "... any where else you want to view your 24p is going to be a 60hz system and that 24p image will have to have some 3:2 (whatever you want to call it) added to it. ... My point, is if you're working with 24p it's going to get displayed as some form of 3:2 pulldown/field interpolation/whatever to be shown anywhere but the web. ... The display devices at our disposal, and the broadcast standards are 60hz based."

Bret, these statements are not true.

(Even if I assume that you mean "computer monitor" when you say "web".)

I understand if you're trying to express that most options that you personally encounter are 60Hz based. There are many other options out there. In fact, you yourself have one:

[Bret Williams] "My flanders monitor has a 24hz mode, but not many consumer TVs do."

Also, you make it sound as if no one uses 50i and Europe doesn't exist.

[Bret Williams] "The rest of the planet calls it pulldown, but you can call it what you want."

Well, that's certainly something like the way things are. But, for example, how do you explain pull-up using your definitions? Does it mean de-interlacing to you?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 2:25:36 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "there is no way I would recommend anything but external frame rate conversions (we'll be using Teranex)"

You might want to compare Teranex output with Alchemist output. It has been a long time since I've done format conversion, but Alchemist was superior a few years ago and I'm not sure that BMD has actually changed Teranex.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 2:39:22 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jun 12, 2014 at 2:50:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Alchemist was superior a few years ago and I'm not sure that BMD has actually changed Teranex"

Walter,

I would agree, but it does depend on the material. For-A also has hardware units that do a good job. And there are budget considerations.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 3:59:36 pm

Look, this is your basic "candids" video done for millions of corporate events. It's a quick-turnaround gig, which typically involves getting footage late and editing overnight (if needed) to have a piece ready for the next morning. Something like Teranex is never an option. From the sounds of the issues, I would have to fault the circumstances, as I don't see much here that would be demonstrably better with any particular NLE. FCP 7, X, PPro, MC and Vegas could all have done the job successfully. X most likely would have been faster in organizing the clips, but that's probably about it.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:08:31 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's a quick-turnaround gig, which typically involves getting footage late and editing overnight (if needed) to have a piece ready for the next morning. Something like Teranex is never an option."

Oliver,

I was addressing Brett's general statements, not Jacob's (slightly vague) specifics.

[Bret Williams] "X is superb at mixing frame rates. 7 is a dog."

Franz.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:10:48 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I was addressing Brett's general statements, not Jacob's (slightly vague) specifics."

Understood. I agree with your assessment. My comment was addressing the original issue.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:32:29 pm

And 7 isn't a dog at mixing frame rates? It's practically incapable of doing so in an acceptable professional fashion. I mean there really aren't many variables here. You shouldn't try to put 30 in 24 in any system and expect pretty results. But you should be able to mix 24 in a 60i sequence just fine in any professional system. FCP legacy can't do it with proper pulldown. So you just get a repeated 4th frame. iMovie Pro adds pulldown. In FCP legacy if you put 60p into a 60i sequence you end up with every other frame being ignored. If you do the same in FCP X, each frame of the 60p will be matched up with a field. How is FCP legacy not pretty much useless at this? And "in a world" (say it like a hollywood trailer) where we're being thrown a mishmash of footage codecs and frame rates, I'm glad I've moved on to a system that can handle them properly.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:35:49 pm

[Bret Williams] "And "in a world" (say it like a hollywood trailer) where we're being thrown a mishmash of footage codecs and frame rates, I'm glad I've moved on to a system that can handle them properly."

That would be Premiere Pro CC. Right? ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:41:39 pm

I like Premiere CC just fine. But I let my CC expire. The more I think about the software renting concept the more it irks me. And now I seem to be collecting MotionVFX templates and plug-ins which are Motion/FCP X only of course.

However, just yesterday I got handed a rough project in that was done in Premiere. Very rough. But instead of starting from scratch I rented Premiere for the month ($29) just so I could export the xml and convert it to FCP X via 7toX. Adobe wins again.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 9:21:44 pm

[Bret Williams] "However, just yesterday I got handed a rough project in that was done in Premiere. Very rough. But instead of starting from scratch I rented Premiere for the month ($29) just so I could export the xml and convert it to FCP X via 7toX. Adobe wins again.
"


If you run into that again just send the PPro project file to me and I'll send you an XML back.


Return to posts index

Alan Okey
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 13, 2014 at 6:52:14 pm

[Walter Soyka] "You might want to compare Teranex output with Alchemist output. It has been a long time since I've done format conversion, but Alchemist was superior a few years ago and I'm not sure that BMD has actually changed Teranex."

We've actually done some blind tests recently at my workplace comparing NTSC to PAL conversion using Teranex and AmberFin, and everyone viewing the test preferred the AmberFin conversion in each example.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:40:59 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "(X may be better at 24 to 60i interlace cadence, I can't speak to that, but 30p to 23.98p is about equal to what you get in 7.)"

This is why 1080p59.94 will be a major help in post (whenever it gets adopted for broadcast).

29.97p and 23.98p will fit and playback without having to make new pixels.

720p59.94 is great at this.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:54:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "This is why 1080p59.94 will be a major help in post (whenever it gets adopted for broadcast)"

Jeremy,

Yes, but pretty sure it still isn't part of DCI spec.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:22:27 pm

[Charlie Austin] "
Why do you believe that?"


Because that level of incompetence can easily find a way to muck up anything in any NLE.

However, I didn't know we were comparing 7 to X, so that is a difference. He could have setup his timeline as 60i because he didn't know any better.

But even if the sequence is correct in X, all it takes is a Send to Compressor moment and rendering out as 60i, because the editor doesn't know the difference, to add interlacing.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:51:07 pm

[Gary Huff] "Because that level of incompetence can easily find a way to muck up anything in any NLE."

Agree. As i think we've determined, the software probably wasn't he issue... it's a wetware problem. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 4:56:39 pm

I really hope that they shot both 24p and 60p so the 60p could be used for slow motion.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:06:47 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I really hope that they shot both 24p and 60p so the 60p could be used for slow motion."

Yes. And the 25 was shot for just a bit of slow motion. But just a bit!

:)


Return to posts index

Jacob Brown
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 5:13:13 pm

haha funny. 25 was i think because it came from europe or something. 60 was indeed for slo-mo.

of course all problems avoidable with proper planning. but sometimes you're young and hungry and take a job at very last minute and it all just sort of happens without any planning.

anyway, glad everyone had fun replying to this one at least!


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
on Jun 12, 2014 at 8:17:42 pm

Well heck, if the 60 was for slomo, then I digress. Edit in a 24p sequence, with your 60 conformed to 24, and your 25 conformed to 24. Done. Why would there be any interlacing problems when you shouldn't be working interlaced? Just sounds like human error, not necessarily a problem with the NLE of choice. Just need to know what you're doing. But who does at 4am? All bets are off on those edits.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]