FORUMS: list search recent posts

Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...

COW Forums : AJA Video Systems

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
CATWALK
Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...
on Nov 30, 2007 at 3:06:58 am


Hi!

I'm working on Final Cut Studio 2, MacPro 4x3GHz, 8GB RAM, ATI X1900, GF7300, actually Matrox MXO (no feell in love). 2x30" ACD and 23"ACD for HD monitoring. I'm doing short fashion films.

I'm just now switching from HDV (Sony FX1:( to XDCAM EX, but also started to use VERY nice Panasonic AG-HSC1U which uses AVC HD format (which is transcoded in FCP6 to ProRes422 during importing).

I'm not satisfied with my Matrox MXO so I was thinking about switching to AJA io.

I've heard it's not possible to use ACD 23" as a HD monitor connected via simple cable HDMI to DVI, can you confirm it? Do I need separate HDMI to DVI converter? Which brand?

I would like to work with ProRes422 timelines (FCP6 converts in almost real time my AVC HD video to ProRes422, not 422HQ) so I'll stay in just standard quality ProRes422.

Is it worth to invest in AJA io in my scenario or just use (again almost in real time) transcoded XDCAM EX videos to ProRes422?

What about latency between canvas window and AJA io output?
I've found Matrox MXO latency just slowing down to much my editing flow if I see my videos delayed by let's say half a second in fast regular scrub-joggle situations (of course during normal playback I get the right sync ("BTW almost in sync because MXO has 1frame delay)).

Any ideas how to improve my workflow would by very appreciated.
I like the fact AJA io is portable unit.

regards
ARTI


http://www.catwalk.pl





Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...
on Nov 30, 2007 at 8:19:40 pm

you do not need the I/O. I don't know why you don't like the Matrox MXO - for your application, it should be working just fine.

Bob Zelin


Return to posts index

CATWALK
Re: Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...
on Dec 1, 2007 at 9:45:06 pm


Hi Bob,

I feel uncomfortable with MXO especially when using jog wheel, shuttle wheel. While my canvas window shows every move instantly, the MXO output lags fraction of a second behind, I think the delay it's close to 0.5 sec... (when working with just 2 monitors, the same situation when working with MacBookPro).

Also I don't like 1 frame delay between canvas and MXO output (it's confirmed by MATROX).
OK 1 frame off it's not a huge value but I feel bad looking at picture and concentrating on the lips. It's not a professional approach.

regards
ARTI



Return to posts index


szumlins
Re: Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...
on Dec 3, 2007 at 2:26:11 pm

Lets not forget that the MXO is sapping a good portion of your video cards resources to handle that canvas and if you have 2x 30" displays, you are already hurting. Couple this with the fact that almost everything in FCP 6 uses fxPlug for effects, RT, and transitions, I can see why the MXO would be painful.

The immediate benefit to the ioHD is going to be the ability to ingest ProRes or ProResHQ in realtime from a signal, free up your video card for more processing, and give you the ability to output to an HDMI monitor. You can also purchase an HDP if you want to continue using the 23" Apple monitor as your preview.

In all honesty, I don't agree with Bob saying you don't need an AJA product. The ioHD might be overkill for your use, but if you don't need up/cross convert or 4 channels of analog audio in, a Kona LHe card would work splendidly for what you want to do.


Return to posts index

Ed Dooley
Re: Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...
on Dec 3, 2007 at 3:24:16 pm

Don't know about IOHD latency, but since no one else answered that part, I'll throw this in. The IO family originally had a 7 frame latency, then new software brought it down to 4-5 frames. I believe I read that the IOHD still has latency but it's down to (again, I think, but not sure) 2 frames. There is an offset selection in the IOHD manual, but I didn't see anything written about selecting a frame number (and the image shows it set to 0). I think it's a fact of life with FW, although it's gotten almost to zero. I'm surprised Matrox hasn't reduced it in the MXO (might be worth a deeper look).
Ed

[CATWALK] "What about latency between canvas window and AJA io output?
I've found Matrox MXO latency just slowing down to much my editing flow if I see my videos delayed by let's say half a second in fast regular scrub-joggle situations (of course during normal playback I get the right sync ("BTW almost in sync because MXO has 1frame delay))."




Return to posts index

gary adcock
Re: Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...
on Dec 3, 2007 at 6:00:09 pm

[Ed Dooley] " The IO family originally had a 7 frame latency, then new software brought it down to 4-5 frames."

Wow Ed.
that was a long time ago it's been down to 2 frames since the 3.1 version of the original Io's drivers. ( or a couple of years now)


"I believe I read that the IOHD still has latency but it's down to (again, I think, but not sure) 2 frames"

2 frames is the current standard and there is a reason for it being 2 frames, since most of the HD world lays audio down 2 frames offset to the video (especially true for Panny tape and HDV)



gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Inside look at the IoHD




Return to posts index


JeremyG
Re: Do I really need AJA io in my workflow...
on Dec 3, 2007 at 6:02:41 pm

[Ed Dooley] " I believe I read that the IOHD still has latency but it's down to (again, I think, but not sure) 2 frames."

That's what I am finding for most of the work that I have done with the ioHD. It seems to be about right.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

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