FORUMS: list search recent posts

Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Scott
Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 4:54:55 pm

Hi
Just wondering about investing in the Nattress Standards Converter, but see that Compressor 3 makes big claims about "optical flow technology to produce pristine standards conversions". I need to go from PAL to NTSC, anyone got any comments?
Thanks
David Scott



Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 5:01:49 pm

This technology is available in the current version of Compressor and has been for some time, but it is extremely slow. Supposedly this has been improved in v3. However they were talking about this being three times faster. Unfortunately Compressor was many, many more than three times slower than the Nattress software. Actual results cannot be tested until the product is released.

All the best,

Tom

Author: "Final Cut Pro 5 Editing Essentials" and "Final Cut Express 2 Editing Workshop" Class on Demand "Complete Training for FCP5" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy" DVDs


Return to posts index

David Battistella
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 5:05:23 pm



The Natress converters do a fine job and I have used them in the past with great results.

David



Peace and Love :)


Return to posts index


Jerry Hofmann
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 5:40:59 pm

Compressor has that new feature though of sending an instance of each batch to separate processors on your Mac... Don't know about statistics exactly, but do know that an h.264 encode can be 300% time if done with Compressor 3 on an octo mac... THAT's a major speed up from Compressor 2...

Nattress' converters are first rate however. and Compressor 3 is more than a month away...

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer

Author: "Jerry Hofmann on Final Cut Pro 4" Click here

Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D


Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 5:08:25 pm

The Nattress Converter is excellent.
Though Compressor 2 can do the job, it can literally take DAYS to render. Not really worth it unless you are talking about a couple of quick shots.
I did hear this will be improved in Compressor 3, but unless you have a top of the line Octo-core Mac Pro, I doubt it will be improved enough to be usable.




Return to posts index

alichek
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 5:25:38 pm

i got some nasty strobing when converting from NTSC to PAL with Compressor 2. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but Nattress Converter did the job without a glitch. not sure how well Compressor 3 will work, but I'm sure Nattress Converter will still be worth the money.



Return to posts index


Graeme Nattress
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 7:00:14 pm

My slightly biassed take is this:

If you want utterly pristine conversion, and can wait for literally days, Compressor does the best job.

If you want a pretty darn good conversion that renders about 40 times quicker (at last time I checked) then my conversion plugin is the way to go.

If you want 60i to 24p, I'd probably use mine no matter what as that mode looks great, as does 25p to 60i conversions.

Graeme

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index

alichek
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 24, 2007 at 10:46:22 pm


can you take a look at these?

http://maxf.net/~alichek/ConversionComp/

so far i feel i'm getting the better result going to PAL from NTSC from your converter than from Compressor (in general smoother motion, not the first project doing this). But it seems to work properly only with DV. I would like to make it work with higher quality image. Maybe it's a general FCP issue I think, because I cannot make render in Animation or None without completely ruining the picture.

btw., compressor switches to upper field first order when converting to pal uncompressed 4:2:2. is upper field first a default for PAL? should i be switching to that?

Thank you very much for your help.
Alec.



Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 25, 2007 at 12:28:40 am

PAL uncompressed is upper field first (PAL DV is lower, though)


Return to posts index


Graeme Nattress
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 25, 2007 at 12:40:37 am

Usually PAL is upper, but it's mostly capture card dependent on what it and the codec want. Aren't fields pesky and annoying :-)

For what it's worth, all HD is upper.

Graeme

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index

David Scott
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 25, 2007 at 9:29:22 am

Hi Everyone
Thanks for all your coments - Nattress it is!
David Scott



Return to posts index

Graeme Nattress
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 25, 2007 at 1:21:41 pm

Thanks! Remember that I always ask people to try the demo out for themselves and email me if they have any problems. I'm here to help (and pretty quick too if I'm not travelling).

Graeme

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index

LandofNid
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 25, 2007 at 12:22:07 pm

Wow! Alichek Thanks for posting that link that was very kind of you. There's nothing like side by side comparison.

-Nicholas Bierzonski
Editor/DVD Author/Java Boy
http://www.finalfocusvideo.com


Return to posts index

Bob Roberts
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Apr 25, 2007 at 4:34:09 pm

"slightly biased" -- that's funny.

Fortunately, you put out great products. So your favoritism is well founded. Keep up the good work!


Return to posts index

simon bergman Vázquez
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Nov 27, 2011 at 8:53:31 pm

Hello

How did you do the conversion, im trying to convert from NTSC 29,97 to Pal, the material is shoot in CANON D5, H264 compression.

I have exported all my material to Apple Pro Res, and now Im trying to do the conversion. But the ressults, are very bad. With frames that have spooky double images if I put the Nattress plugin on progressive, or a very bad interlaced material if I say to the plugin to export interlaced.

Could anybody help?

Simon


Return to posts index

Graeme Nattress
Re: Compressor 3 or Nattress Converter?
on Nov 27, 2011 at 9:05:42 pm

Canon 5D2 is progressive 30p and that doesn't convert very well to anything else. Your best bet is probably compressor, but don't be too disappointed if it doesn't come out totally best.

Graeme

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2020 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]