FCP vs Media 100 Colour Space

I have a client who will not digitise material into FCP because he says that the colour space in his Media 100 system is far superior.
He is editing DV material via firewire to FCP and component analogue to Media 100, (yes I know the perils of going in via analogue from DV to a DV codec... but he insists...)
DV vs analogue arguments aside, is the colour space in Media 100 superior?
Actually, what is colour space? I get the concept, (just,) in Photoshop but is there a difference for editing systems.
I was once told that the DV encoding system was better in Avids than in FCP, but I'm unsure of the quality of my source information... So now I'm wondering if there is a difference on all edit systems.
Finally, if there is / isn't a difference in the DV codec, does it make a difference for uncompressed material.
Many thanks,
LEE

Here are some things to be aware of:
Media 100 picture size is either 640 x 480 or 720 x 486. DV picture size is 720 x 480. Those numbers don't convert easily. There will be jittery motions during pans and when people move. The only way to combat this is to make FCP use the D1 picture size of 720 x 486. My experience is this never looks good.
Everything that will be recompressed will have to go through the P6000 board of the Media 100. This takes FOREVER! It takes me 5 hours to encode a 1 hour DVD on my Media 100, which has 2 1GHz processors. My 700 MHz iMac at home encodes a 1 hour DVD in less time. The P6000 hardware slows encoding to other formats way down.
There is a difference from one codec to the next. But capturing in one Codec 1 and converting to Codec 2 to try to make up for poor quality of Codec 2 will not help. Codec 2's quality problems will still be there. It's the nature of Codec 2. Graeme is right in saying that it will ruin picture quality. On top of Codec 2's problems, you're adding a generation. It's like transferring from DV to Beta, and then recording Beta to VHS because the Beta quality is better than VHS, even when your final output is intended to be VHS. It makes more sense to go DV to VHS in the first place.
Unless you intend to edit on Media 100, there is no point in digitizing to it. Save the hassle, the time, the money, and the quality by keeping everything native DV. Have your client read these posts if he still won't budge. We are experienced in this field.
By the way, before anyone says anything about me comparing DV to VHS, that is not my intention. I threw obvious formats out there to show workflow orders and to give an analogy. DV is a very good codec. I will tell you that I like M100 better, but DV is not that far behind. I use DV at home, and I am very happy with the results. In fact, I was debating between M100 and FCP at home for my side business of wedding videos, and have decided to go the FCP route due to quality and cost efficiency. DV is not VHS quality. It is far beyond VHS. DV is far beyond DVD quality. I feel DV is above even Beta SP.

Similar Messages

Trying to compare FCP with Media 100 for a Public Access studio

Hi all,
I am new here. I do most of the review of products for our Public Access studio. We have a couple of existing Media 100 systems and we are considering adding or upgrading our NLE capabilities. Our studio manager had a chance to look at FCP being used at our high school and she came back with a number of impressions that I wonder about and would like to vet with people who know more about FCP. So, any comments would be helpful.
The high school media person demo’d FCP for her and let her play with it a bit. After looking at it herself, she says she would definitely say Media 100 is easier to understand/use, especially if you've never used non-linear editing before. That is fairly typical of the people doing Public Access production in our town.
However, it looks to her like there are a lot of tools that come with FCP that Media 100 either doesn't have or are not easily found in it. For example, she feels FCP’s set up looks more complicated and confusing compared to Media 100’s, but in FCP you can have up to 99 video lines in a program, where with Media 100 we're just going back and forth between the a and b video lines. Plus you can have up to 99 Audio tracks on FCP as well, where our max at the moment is 8. Now as to when you would need 99 video or audio tracks, she is not sure, but it is definitely a capability that we don't have in Media 100.
Titling looked easier to her on Media 100. With FCP there were a lot of filters involved and hoops to jump through, plus she couldn't do a word with each letter a different color, for example, unless she did each letter on a different track.
The media person warned her that FCP is really large. Apparently the program itself takes up like 35 GB of space on the hard drive, and a typical 30 min. project comes in at over 100 GB! She couldn't believe it, but she was assured it’s true. Even with our longest programs, like like a School Committee meeting thqat went 3 1/2 hours, it would came in at a max of 30 GB on the Media 100. She got the impression this big difference was so because Final Cut renders everything you do, including rendering any edits you make on your footage as new files, and stores it all in a huge folder. She thinks with Media 100, you import the footage and use it as is - the only things it will render are screen freezes, transitions, and color effects. Is that sort of comparison correct (and fair), or is something being missed?
She says in her experience that something like iMovie is the most basic as far as what you can do, then Ulead would be a step above that- the editing is basically the same, but you have a few more options. Media 100 would be next as far as ease of use and understanding of the program. FCP seemed a little confusing even to her. Comments or insights?
G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Welcome to the family, maybe.
I switched from M100 about four years ago, I was never so glad to give that company the boot. A direct comparison just isn't possible but I'll try to answer some questions. There is a Media 100 forum on creativecow.net.
she says she would definitely say Media 100 is easier to understand/use, especially if you've never used non-linear editing before.< </div>
Yes, absolutely, M100 has always had an elegant and refined interface. However, the paradigm in FCP is not opaque. It's far more interesting, deeper, more complex. So, yes, it's a bit tougher to grasp. But don't sell your students/users short. They'll get it.
99 tracks is marketing BS. The serious work is done with nesting. How many public access pieces need more than 5 or 10 video tracks?
Titling in FCP depends on third party filters like Boris or tools like LiveType and Motion. The basic titling tools in FCP are lame and difficult to use, in my opinion, compared to the elegant titler in M100 (as long as you don't launch Graffiti).
The installation includes tens of gigs of animation, movie and music loop resources that you don't need to load. The suite includes Motion, LiveType, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and FCP.
If you're shooting DV, a 3-1/2 hour show is, umm, well, you look it up, DV is DV. But if you're capturing 3 hours from each of three cameras, that's a lot of DV.
Rendering depends on lots of things. M100's native codec handles lots of realtime stuff that FCP can't unless you've got a huge Macintosh. Previewing is not a big deal at lower rez in FCP, you get used to it. .
FCP is really scary. You can look at thousands of "I'm in way over my head, HELP!" posts here. But all those folks find they slip right into the Apple paradigm, the weirdly new workflow and start exploring the wide new world of serious editing that FCP opens up. You'll hate it for a few months because it's so dramatically different from M100. You'll love it, though.
If you want to continue the thread, give the rest of the disaffected former M100 users a few days to post their comments. There are many of us here. Then maybe start a new thread, one question at a time.
bogiesan

Comparing FCP and Media 100 file sizes

Hi again,
As suggested in the response to my prior question, one of the areas I could use help with for comparing FCP with our access studio's current Media 100 systems is the relative files sizes that can be expected with each. As I mentioned before, the feedback we got from our high school was that FCP seems to create very much larger working files than Media 100. Is that a fair comparison?
As an example, if you have an hour of material on DV, how much disk space do you expect it to take on each of the systems when you bring it in for editing?
(I suppose this gets back to what the normal working file formats are on both systems - I don't know)
It seemed to be suggested that in the course of editing that possibly FCP created a lot more files (e.g. more disk space) than Media 100. Again is that fair, and to what degree?
Thanks
Bob
G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Well, not knowing how Media 100 captures this footage
puts us at a disadvantage.
Me too
FCP captures DV at 13.64GB/hour. This is NATIVE
resolution...no compression whatsoever. A simple
file transfer.
OK, that is a helpful start.
Does Media 100 do this, or does it
capture it using one of it's codecs?
Not really knowing that is part of my problem. Media 100 started with analog video capture which must have used a codec, and which I think creates a proprietary compressed file format. I have to suspect that DV intake is converted to that same format. If I understand correctly the analog intake offers options for the compression level so the files sizes will vary, but my impression is that the common ones are considerably smaller than 13 GB/h.
The main issue I am trying to get a handle on is that the feedback we got from the high school was that "a typical 30 min. project comes in at over 100 GB". By comparison we input a 3 1/2 hour tape on the Media 100 and use on the order of 30 GB - something like 8 GB/hour or 4 GB for a half hour. Comparing against that report from the school for FCP there seems to be some sort of disconnect that I am trying to resolve. One hint was the thought that maybe the 100 GB included additional working files beyond the basic input files - working files generated during editing I suppose. By comparison Media 100 seems to generate a minimal amount of extra files.

Exporting Lower Third from FCP for Media 100 use

I'm exporting out a lower third for someone else to use in Media 100. It is set to alpha+RGB. The exported QT file has a black background that I assumed would be keyed out once brought in to Media 100 and layered over an interview, but it's all black. Is it something I'm doing wrong in FCP or on the other end in Media 100?
Power Mac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.7) Dual 2.7 GHZ 4 GB SDRAM

You need to use the Animation Codec with colors set to Millions+ (the "+" is your alpha channel) also, you should make sure your lower third is not rendered.
Patrick

Pixma Pro 100 Colour Space Questions

Hi
I Have a few questions related to Printing from lightroom I am new to this so bare with me.
1) I have a canon 7D I shoot in Raw 12-14 bit ? and most of my processing is done within lightroom so no need to export to photoshop however if i was to would this export as a 16bit file tiff or Jpeg ? If so if I was to after post processing in photoshop then back into lightroom this would only allow me to print in tiff or jpeg is this correct as a psd file/jpeg ?.
2) As I only edit in lightroom I can print directly in CR2 Raw format 12-14bit by using the canon print studio pro plugin ? or is this exported to the translator as a 16bit file ? and then use the paper manufactures ICC profile i.e (canon paper) for best results do I lose colour print quality by printing from Raw 12-14 bit rather than 16bit tiff/jpeg.
3) By using the Paper Manufactures ICC Profiles will the original raw file 12-14bit from 7Dcamera sRGB be translated to the printer by default from lightroom or is the colour space not needed as I havent converted to 16 Bit in post processing?
3) I havent had my monitor calibrated yet but intend to do so in the future, but until then I see no point in messing around with pro mode or sRGB or Adobe RGB or Pro photoRGB.
4) If I use lightrooms canon print studio pro pluggin is the colour space automatically translated from the settings in my camera or do I need to enable this in lightroom first ?.
5) I use a Mac running yosemite 10.10 and would like to know more about ICC profiles where to find the manufactures ICC Profiles how to download and where to store can you recommend a common website for learning how to do this on a mac ?.
6) As you can see I just want to print the best images from camera to printer without to much science involved however I am willing to learn but get confused with the different workspace post production softwares menu's for best results which i would prosume until i get my monitor calibrated proffesionally would be to print from Raw with the Manufactures ICC Profiles ?.
7) Are colour space and calibration settings all about printing what you have on the screen or is it mainly for extra colour depth in the print ?.
I can self calibrate my monitor to adobe RGB and have my camera shoot on adobe RGB -calibration with software but have been told i need colour monitoring devices correct ? if I was to do this and still just used the ICC paper profiles would the prints be any better ?.
My first prints were excellent very similar to what I see on the screen anyway but I checked lightrooms settings and these are on Pro photo RGB for external editing and is this the colour space for print studio pluggin also or is it just native Raw sRGB if I change the settings it says I will lose the maxium potential colour space.
sorry for the influx of questions :-)
Thomas
Solved!
Go to Solution.

You can not set the printer to match the monitor. You must set the monitor to match the printer. But the printer is already calibrated by the factory.
First, you must not let the printer set anything. Turn off every bit off control it has. You can do this with the Canon My Printer under the Printer Settings tab. Do you know how? I will guess, yes, for now but if you don't get back to me.
Second, you need to have your photo editor (like Photoshop or Lightroom) handle all the print settings and color matching. You know how to do this? I prefer Photoshop and I use AdobeRGB color space.
And lastly, it is essential you get some settings on your monitor that somewhat matches what the printer is printing. Your printer may be doing exactly what you are telling it to do and you have no idea it is, because your monitor is so far off. If you don't do this step, you can forget the other steps. However, there are only a few things that you need to be concerned with. You don't need any fancy extra add-on to do this. No additional software or gadgets, etc. No monkeys, no spiders, nothing!
Most people set their monitors too bright.
You must get the gray-scale very close. You need to get the brightness very close and you need the contrast very close.
After you do these things you can make adjustments to your prints by just looking at your screen. Because you know the monitor and printer are on the same level. One more point, you can NOT get a printer to print every color exactly the way you see it. It isn't possible as all colors and adjustments effect all others. My goal is to get the skin tones right. That is what people notice most. Remember you are dealing with two different disciplines here. One is colored light and the other is colored dyes. They are not the same thing.
For instance, I know my Pro-100 tends to print slightly darker than what I see on the monitor (typical). So, I automatically know to set it's prints 1/2 to one stop brighter in Photoshop, in my case. It also prints with a slightly warn tone. Most of the time, with portraits especially, this if OK but sometimes it is not. In that case I adjust the "temp" setting slightly cooler in PS.
All the Canon photo printers I have ever seen have this warm/magenta cast. Canon engineers must prefer this look. It can not be changed. You need to "fix" it in post.
Make sure you have the correct ICC profiles and you are using Canon brand ink and paper until you get good with the printer. Very, very important, otherwise you don't know if the printer is doing exactly what you are telling it to or not.
Important is, use the USB connection until everything is right. You are just adding another issue when you try to set up the printing and the wireless all at the same time. Just like using Canon branded products until it is a go. Use a real printer USB cable. Not just any old USB cable. Get everything right before you explore.
Good luck.
EOS 1Ds Mk III, EOS 1D Mk IV EF 50mm f1.2 L, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L,
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO
Photoshop CS6, ACR 8.7, Lightroom 5.7

Outputting to Media 100

I'm sure this is simple, but I've just made the move to FCP from Media 100...so...how do I make FCP see my Media 100 card so I can output to tape (Beta)? I know I'll eventually need a card for this, but in the meantime, is there a solution? Thanks!
Karen
Power Mac G5/dual 2.0 Mac OS X (10.4.5)

Karen,
Sorry, but it doesn't work. There used to be a hack a long time ago, but both companies have tightened the leash a bit. The good news is that now you can install the software codecs for Media 100 on any Mac, including the one with the M100 hardware attached. This will enable you to export M100 encoded video files from Final Cut while importing or editing in M100. It's really weird, because we get used to M100 crashing or freaking out whenever we use M100 video in other apps, but this new software codec sets you free. Go to the downloads section of www.media100.com and get the codecs. Make sure you follow the instructions written there, though.

Convert Media 100 bin into FCP 4.5?

OK, this is a long shot but here it goes. I have an old project created on a Media 100. I now work with FCP 4.5. Put simply, I need to bring two media bins created in Media 100 into my FCP system so I can redigitize the media. This would save me a lot of time re-logging. I do not have access to the old Media 100 system. Is there any conversion program or method I can use to convert the bin into an EDL or import it directly into FCP? I have tried importing the bin, but of course it would not read the file.
Thanks for any help.

Thank you everyone for your responses. I figured it might be a hopeless cause but I thought I'd try anyway. I have tried to open the bins in word/text edit/etc but have come up empty. Actually, text edit opened it so that I could at least decipher some in/out points but it was such a gargled mess that it was useless.
When I was making the transfer to FCP and still had access to my Media 100, I was able to place the raw clips in a timeline and export an edl from Media 100. Then, importing the edl into FCP worked great. It just didn't bring in my tape #'s, but my timecode was good so it was no problem.
Gary, I'll email you the two bins. If you could make them into EDL's, I would owe you one. Thanks.

Media 100 QT/FCP transcoder

Does anyone know how I can read Media 100 files in Quicktime and FCP? I've tried the Media 100 site but my brain nearly broke because it's so useless - I couldn't find anything even remotely helpful!!
Using QT Pro 7.2.0
FCP 5.1.4
Thanks in advance x

budakhan wrote:
thank you for calling it a silly software, because that's just what it is. 2 video channels? whatever!
That's not really what I meant, Media 100 was elegantly cool with a mature interface and it was very fun to use. The 2-track paradigm was a stupid marketing decision but the rest of it was great stuff.
I thought we were just talking about their transcoding freebie, which, I guess, is not longer available. You have to download and enable a demo version of the entire product. I've done this at least tweice and M100 has never sent me the activation code for the trial, the lowly rats.
bogiesan

Export to Media 100?

We have a unit here on our campus that uses a Media 100 system and will not give it up. We have been asked to provide them exported Quicktimes per their requirements (Photo JPEG, 720 x 486, etc.) and when we do, they have issues with the results. I'm wondering if I can download and install a Media 100 codec and apply it on the export from Final Cut, will that work? I've done this when working with an Avid Media Composer, which had a proprietary Avid codec, and I could export files out of After Effects using this codec. And the results were always great.
Any suggestions or directions to Media 100 codecs would be appreciated.
BTW, I have no idea what flavor the Media 100 is. I know they've had it for awhile and it's component in. That's all I know. Thanks again!

We run Media 100 & FCP at our facility.
Jim is right, the M100 will "see" the files if you export them to the animation codec. However, it will want to re-process the files on import. This might not be a big deal for you. It's really just a waiting process. And not a great used of disk space.
But as you've alluded to, there are software codec versions for the M100 that will let you export directly to the proper codec with no need to process them once imported on the other end. I'd love to point you directly to the link. However, the M100 website is somewhat convoluted and further, you'll need a login account to access the download area anyway.
But point being: I'd go get these codecs, install them and export directly to M100. Per your description, you'd want to go to "Media 100 NTSC - 720". Like this:
I'll admit though: we've had some issues recently with these codecs. We have a Mac Pro that has them running fine. My 12" Powerbook uses them flawlessly. But we just tried to re-download them and install them on my friend's Mac Book Pro and they don't seem to work properly. We tried simply moving the known working QT components to his machine manually. Still - no luck. So, your mileage may vary. Post back if you have problems.
Again if none of this works, Jim's solution certainly will. Animation codec.

Which colour space for camera and LR

Thanks for the answers to my last post about sharpening and workflow.
My next question is about colour spaces. I use a Nikon D200 which lets me choose from sRGB or AdobeRGB...LR obviously has these plus ProPhoto RGB. I use a MacBook Pro and an HP deskjet printer (5850)...I bought this before I bought the camera, and although it is very good, when I eventually change it I will go for a better quality printer.
I AM NOT a pro photographer or photo-editor by any means, but I do want my pics to look the best they can. Can I get some advice please on the pros and cons of the colour spaces?
Cheers,
Nige

>sRGB should be good enough, but it's also good to hear you also shoot raw ... afterall, sRGB contains all of the color in most photographic images.
Actually sRGB encodes only about 90% of colors present in nature. adobeRGB about 97%. prophotoRGB a perfect 100%. Check this page for more info than you'd ever need: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?ColorCheckerRGB.html . That said, usually, because of the color management problem, stick to sRGB for exports that are consumed by other people.
>So..Michael...you said 'better inkjet printing'...I assume you mean a professional print lab or high level 'home' inkjet, rather than an average home printer like I have (perhaps one day!).
There are two answers to this. They might surprise you. Concerning home printing. Even the cheapest inkjets nowadays produce color outside of sRGB and even adobeRGB. You should print to these printers directly from Lightroom using actual color profiles meant for the printers and the paper you are using. Usually those are supplied with the drivers. This will give by far the best results and will give the deepest most saturated colors. This answer does not change when printing to even better printers. In fact, almost every current inkjet printer can now print colors that no display can actually show.
Second concerning lab prints. Be very very careful with this. Most labs, even the pro ones, do not color manage at all and their photo printers are tuned to approximate sRGB. Simply send them sRGB and you'll be fine. Some labs offer actual profiles that you can convert your images to in advance. (see http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2008/05/great-prints-from-labs.html for more info). This gives slightly better prints and will reproduce colors not in sRGB ( and not even in adobeRGB: http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2007/11/relevant-example-for-pprgb-vs-adobergb.html ). Due to variability in displays, you might even be able to see those colors on screen if you calibrate correctly. Some of the better labs might accept files in other profiles than sRGB or a lab specific profile. They will then do the conversion for you or have a color managed print workflow if they use inkjets. Make sure they know what they are doing which you usually can find out after talking for a few seconds.

After Effects rendering with Format MXF OP1a 1080i/25, XDCAM with colour space "HDTV (Rec. 709) 16-235" but after rendering the colour space is "30-217"

Hello!
I have a very annoying problem in After Effects. I'm making an Animation with the format "MXF OP1A, Codec XDCAMHD 50 PAL (4:2:2)" with 8-Bit and with the colour space "HDTV (Rec. 709) 16-235" but after rendering the colour space is not 16-235, it is 30-217 RGB. After I activate the colour space in After Effects, then it shows the right values, but after rendering the value for white is 217 and for black is 30. Hopefully someone can help me. Thanks in advance.
Bye

Thanks for your answer, but i don't know an Adobe Media Composer, you surely mean Adobe Media Encoder, or not? Anyway i do not find the option for colour space in Media Encoder, so i would be very thankful if you could tell me where to find it.

Colour space issues

Hi,
I'm trying to figure out what's going on with colour spaces once I export a video. I've made a video from srgb jpegs and everything looks fine in Premiere Elements, but as soon as I export it as a video (have trived several formats) the colours are dulled and the contrast reduced (a common colour space issue).
Does anyone know why this happens and if so how to avoid it?
Specifically in this case I'm exporting photos from Photoshop Lightroom to srgb jpegs which I then import to Premiere Elements 7. The original pictures as well as the jpegs look fine. The jpegs and the movie also looks fine inside Premiere, but as soon as I export it to an avi or quicktime file I get something like a 15% decrease of both contrast and saturation.

One problem exporting to Quicktime from Premiere Elements has been discussed in the past, and it was found that PE does not correctly write atom data to the MOV header, so that when you play back the MOV file, it plays back in Apples color space on a PC, giving it a washed out look. The only computer where they will look correct is on an Apple computer. I've exported to Quicktime in other applications, and the results come out correctly when played on a PC.
And then, media players can make the video look too dark or too light, depending on which video renderer is used. In some video applications you have an option to select from 4 different types of video rendering for previewing playback. Some make the video look perfect while others make the video have less contrast. Then you may think that your video or images don't look right, and you start making color corrections.
On my computer Premiere Elements doesn't use the overlay mode, which is the mode that most closely resembles playback on my TV when the DVD player has black levels turned off. When editing in Premiere Elements, highlights look blown out. At one time I would compensate by changing the contrast and brightness. But after burning a DVD and playing it back on TV through the DVD player or in Windows Media Player, the video was too dark.
I've learned not to mess with the color too much in Premiere Elements. Not everyone will be able to play back your video and see it the way you intended.

Which colour space for different displays

Hi Everyone,
This might be a long winded question so please bear with me.
I have a pc with a wide gammut monitor which displays 94% adobe rgb and 100% srgb.
I have just purchased a surface pro 3 which I've just calibrated and it displays 74% adobe rgb and 98% srgb.
I want to use the same lightroom catalogue for both, likewise with photoshop.
I also will be uploading to flickr, Facebook and behance, and also printing.
My question is, what should I do in terms of setting the colour space?
Thanks
Stuart

OK, then you should be all set and ready to go. Just work in Adobe RGB throughout.
And yes, for web you need to convert to sRGB. But again, you must use a web browser with full color management, or it will not display correctly on a wide gamut display. I just have to stress this, because few browsers get it right. On Mac Safari is good, but on Windows the only option is Firefox. Other browsers may display correctly if the image has an embedded profile, but lots of sites strip the profile, and in that case it will not be color managed by the browser and appear oversaturated.
Firefox can be configured to assign sRGB to any untagged material, allowing the color management chain to operate so that it appears correctly on wide gamut displays. It is the only browser that can be configured this way, which is an absolute requirement.
Internet Explorer gets nothing right and is completely useless with wide gamut. Just ignore it.

Colour Space Change

Hi All
I'm grading 5 x 30min cooking shows. The conform was done in FCP at 10 bit uncompressed PAL.
Sent to Color - graded then sent back to FCP.
When it gets back to FCP it appears that the colour space has changed although the sequence settings are the same (10 bit uncompressed PAL).
Is there something I'm missing.
Thanks
Tim

Hi mr. Pillow
I have the problem to. But reinstal to 1.0.0. doesnt work - the problem is still here.
I'm working with uncompressed 10 bit QT (v. 7.2.0.) and when i open and save the some file in Color it makes some artefacts (looks like it doesnt work with 10 bit but convert to 8 bit :-((.
The some file and the some process made in the Combustion have no artefacts ...
Pleas Help!

Media 100 to Final Cut Pro

I need help, but don't we all.
We have a client who has hundreds of projects on Media 100 and wants us to access them once in a while to update the projects.
Ideally we would be able to open up with Media 100 project in Final Cut, but that is not happening.
Information you might want to know.
Client's computer.
Operating in OS9. Media 100 version 7.5.1
Our computers
Operating in OSX 10.4.11 with Final Cut 6.0.2
Anybody had this encounter before?

But I can definitely say that we NEED those media 100 files.
Probably not really if you examine the efficiencies of simply rebuilding the project from scratch in FCP. You can export an EDL but you're still going to have lots of cleanup work and several M100 effects were unique. If they had a competent designer/editor, he/she used all the coolest stuff M100 had to offer and those will be hard to replicate. But they're also horribly dated, stylistically speaking. Media 100 looks to 20the Century.
Can you explain more about that transcoding process? How and what you did.
M100 once supplied a free transcoding plugin for Quicktime. You could use M100 media without the hardware board but it was not realtime, render speed only.
We have brainstormed about getting another system and making a direct copy but it doesn't seem > logical to buy an OS 9.0 system that is 10 years behind. Something with a future in mind should be > done.
I shall gently suggest this is a dopey position for your accountants to take. You should be able to buy a used Media 100-equipped G3 or G4 for pennies on the dollar, less than your boss is going to spend taking these new clients to lunch once, even if you're not invited.
Can't help you with the current product line, though; I have no idea what Boris's current version of M100 software will do with legacy files but it's $900-1,600, about the cost of two lunch dates with this new client of yours.
bogiesan

FCP vs Media 100 Colour Space

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for