Field dominance? converting progressive to 10 bit uncomp for beta output

Hi,
I shot my film on an HVX 200 720p60 format. So the field dominance of my timeline is set to none.
I am now trying to convert this footage to 4:3 SD letterboxed by putting the QT file of the completed film into a timeline with settings 720x486, 10 bit uncompressed, 29.97. I'm looking to output the film to a beta sp master and I don't know what field dominance to set it to.
Thanks

Do you have a capture card? Not to be snide or anything, just asking. Because the cards have, in their interfaces (AJA control Panel for example) options for full screen and letterbox.
Shane

Similar Messages

Upper field dominance on progressive footage?

I shot footage at 1080p, 30 fps. In my FCP sequence the clip properties say there is an upper field dominance...
Upon outputting my HD footage to SD DVD it looks rather crummy, and there is a green horizontal line on the top and bottom of the screen. Is this why?
Finally, what is the best, and fastest, way to correct this, if it is, indeed, the problem...
Thanks for your help...

If it is progressive, the field dom setting is irrelevant.
johnlll81 wrote:
Upon outputting my HD footage to SD DVD it looks rather crummy, and there is a green horizontal line on the top and bottom of the screen. Is this why?
Because 1080 isn't a multiple of 480 (NTSC) or 576 (PAL) lines. You have a remnant of a line left over with incomplete information. What's the intended delivery method? You certainly won't see those lines on a TV set.
If it's intended for viewing on the web, use the crop controls in Compressor.

Need Some Help! Upper field dominance on progressive footage?

I am re-posting this because I am in a time crunch and need to try and find a solution...
I shot footage at 1080p, 30 fps. In my FCP sequence the clip properties say there is an upper field dominance...
Upon outputting my HD footage to SD DVD it looks rather crummy, and there is a green horizontal line on the top and bottom of the screen. Is this why?
Finally, what is the best, and fastest, way to correct this, if it is, indeed, the problem...
Thanks for your help...

If it is progressive, the field dom setting is irrelevant.
johnlll81 wrote:
Upon outputting my HD footage to SD DVD it looks rather crummy, and there is a green horizontal line on the top and bottom of the screen. Is this why?
Because 1080 isn't a multiple of 480 (NTSC) or 576 (PAL) lines. You have a remnant of a line left over with incomplete information. What's the intended delivery method? You certainly won't see those lines on a TV set.
If it's intended for viewing on the web, use the crop controls in Compressor.

Best Bit Rate for Better sound

I’m new to the iTunes/iPod thing. A friend told me that he re-sets the bit rate from the default of 128 kpbs to the top of 320 kbps for better quality. [He plays everything off of his computer which is wired to speakers throughout his house and does not travel or drive much so hardly uses his iPod.] I played around a tad with the various rates on the same album and found that a fairly short one used 34.9 MB at 128 kbps, 52.1 MB at 192 kbps, 60.8 MB at 224 kbps and 86.6 MB at 340 kbps. Another friend told me that he noticed a big difference when he played a song off his iPod through his several thousand dollar system if it was imported at 128 kbps. While hard disc space is cheap and I would simply opt for the higher quality setting, the iPods are not so big when one almost triples the file size.
I tried to figure out what the max bit rates in the CDs are so that could guide the max import rate, but I could not and that question may make no sense at all anyway.
What is the max that a human can notice the difference at and what have folks found to be the best balance between sound quality and storage space?
Thanks for your help.
PC Windows XP

Monty, this is really going to be up to your ears to decide. All I can tell you is my experience during the 2+ years of owning an iPod. I initially thought AAC @ 128 was satisfactory. I then started experimenting with various bitrates, but kept the AAC format. I decided that 192 was a discernible improvement over the 128. Not to go into a lot of detail, but I, quite by accident, had one album download at 256 & thought, "Wow, this is unbelievably better sound, even over inexpensive computer speakers." At that point, I started importing everything in AAC @ 256 VBR which I feel is pretty darn close to CD quality sound. I have a 60GB iPod that I'm willing to sacrifice some capacity in order to ensure the best audio quality I can. This is also why I do not buy frequently from the iTunes store as I do not feel the 128 downloads are the best quality. I buy & my own CD's, now, to insure good quality. I will by the occasional song from the store when I do not care to buy the whole CD. Hope this helps!

Converting Standard Oracle Report to XML for excel output

I have gone through the steps of copying a concurrent program for a standard report to a new program, changed the output format to xml, ran the new concurrent job, saved the output as a .xml, then using the xml publisher template builder for word (Oracle Patch 5887917) tried to modify record information so each record will be on the same line in an Excel format. I tried de-normalising the hierarchy using the ../.. syntax to traverse up the hierarchy but only the data at the lowest level displays. Has anyone else run into this issue or have any ideas on how I can fix it.
Here is the xml when I insert a table and convert the table to text just so you can see the hierarchy I'm trying to de-normalise; these are all the fields but not in the order I would want them displayed...
Source
List G Location Id
for-each G_SOURCE SOURCE
G Location Id
for-each LIST_G_LOCATION_ID
List G Exp Receipts
Location Code1
for-each G_LOCATION_ID
G Exp Receipts
for-each LIST_G_EXP_RECEIPTS
Number Release Line
List G Exp Lines
for-each G_EXP_RECEIPTS NUMBER_RELEASE_LINE
G Exp Lines
for-each LIST_G_EXP_LINES
Unit
Product Number
Item Description
Quantity Received
Quantity Billed
Ordered
Due
P Date
List G Exp Shipments
C Flex Item Disp
for-each G_EXP_LINES UNIT
PRODUCT_NUMBER
ITEM_DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY_RECEIVED
QUANTITY_BILLED
ORDERED
DUE
P_DATE
G Exp Shipments
for-each LIST_G_EXP_SHIPMENTS
Invoice Num
Invoice Amount
Invoice Date
for-each G_EXP_SHIPMENTS INVOICE_NUM
INVOICE_AMOUNT
INVOICE_DATE end G_EXP_SHIPMENTS
end LIST_G_EXP_SHIPMENTS
C_FLEX_ITEM_DISP end G_EXP_LINES
end LIST_G_EXP_LINES
end G_EXP_RECEIPTS
end LIST_G_EXP_RECEIPTS
LOCATION_CODE1 end G_LOCATION_ID
end LIST_G_LOCATION_ID
end G_SOURCE
Here is the text from Word before I convert it into a table when I try to de-normalise it...
for-each G_EXP_SHIPMENTS ../../ P_DATE
../../../../../../../../ SOURCE
../../../../ NUMBER_RELEASE_LINE
../C_FLEX_ITEM_DISP
../../PRODUCT_NUMBER
../../ITEM_DESCRIPTION
../../UNIT
../../ORDERED
../../QUANTITY_RECEIVED
../../QUANTITY_BILLED
../../DUE
INVOICE_NUM
INVOICE_DATE
INVOICE_AMOUNT
../../../../../../LOCATION_CODE1 end G_EXP_SHIPMENTS

OK, figured it out... when you double click on the field to add the ../, you actually need to click on Add Help Text and add the ../ here

Progressive Field Dominance vs Lower Field Dominance

I am putting a project together in FCP 5.1.4 Most assets are NTSC QT clips with lower field dominance. I have some PAL assets with Progressive field dominance. I am using a slow-PAL conversion method outlined here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/49306/2006/02/marchcreat.html
I just want to make sure my workflow is appropriate.
If I use Cinema Tools to convert frame rate to 23.98 and then Compressor to change aspect ratio, and finally FCP to add frames back in to arrive at 29.97 NTSC . . .
DO I NEED TO change the progressive field dominance to lower field dominance at ay point?
I will ultimately be outputting to DVD which may be viewed on either computer or video monitor.

From my rudimentary knowledge I believe that as opposed to upper or lower field dominance, the source asset was recorded as "progressive scan", which I assume means NO field dominance.
What I do not understand is, if I import assets into a FCP sequence that has a lower field dominance, then what happens to these assets in the timeline when I export them out of FCP to either mpeg2 for inclusion in a DVDStudioPro. Or as a compressed quicktime for a streaming video on the web.
I am concerned that progressive scan assets mixed with lower field dominance may cause weird interlacing artifacts when I ultimately playback the end project.
Don't know whether I'm overthinking this, but want to avoid hours of work in the wrong direction.
Help?

HDV to DVD-Change Field Dominance Or Not?

A search I did recently pointed to this article:
[http://www.larryjordan.biz/articles/bkhdvconvert.html]
The author claims that when exporting an HDV sequence from FCP to Compressor, he changed the default field dominance from Upper to Lower, resulting in a better quality DVD, smoother motion, etc.
There wasn't anything wrong with my HDV exports using the default upper dominance, but I decided to try it, just looking to squeeze out any improvement I could.
The results were terrible; awfully jerky motion, dot crawl across the top of the image, etc., so I went back to using the default.
But then I thought, I wonder if the improvement the author saw was because he exported an HDV Quicktime Movie first, then put that into Compressor and switched the field dominance . . .
I usually export my HDV timeline right out of FCP to best quality DVD in Compressor, without the in between step. Just wondering if anyone else has tried it the way it's mentioned in the article, and if it's made a difference for them.

Wow, this thread was way back there;
Anyway, I use a Sony V1U, and shoot 1080i60, and I had been getting acceptable results, but was just looking for a bit more detail.
After reading the article, I sent a finished project to Compressor both ways; 1st with the default upper field dominance, and then again changing it to lower, as the article recommended. The default upper file looked pretty good, but the 2nd time with it on lower looked terrible; all kinds of motion displacement.
I've been using the default since, and have not tried it the other way since that first time. When I get time, I'd like to try exporting a QuickTime movie first, then put that into Compressor with the switched lower dominance to see if there's any improvement that way. I usually just export directly to Compressor from the timeline.
I appreciate the comments, and I'm always interested in any setting changes that might squeeze out some more detail when going from HDV to DVD.

PAL FIELD DOMINANCE

Hi working in NTSC , I don't know about PAL, so here is my question:
What is field dominance in pal ( upper or Lower)
Thanks for your time
See ya!

Just checking archives and found a post from G Nattress
"DV PAL, DV NTSC, DV50, DVCproHD all lower,
HDV upper,
PAL uncompressed SD upper,
NTSC uncompressed SD is lower - I'd check the easy presets in FCP to be sure, although it could be hardware dependent on what you're capturing with.
Not sure on DVD field order, but compressor usually gets it right if you tell it what the source is.
Graeme"
Question answered!

Field dominance setting for progressive footage?

I'm still not sure about this subject.
I film with a Canon HF100. This is shooting progressive footage. I use a Imac, therefor the footage will be imported from a achvd to .mov files.
When I import it in FCE it will give automatically a fielddominance of upper odd. I heard I had to change it to fielddominace none. By mistake I edited a project without changing from Upper odd to none and there was nothing wrong with the project.
1. Is this true?
2. And why do I have to change it? What's the (technical) reason (try to understand it) and why doens't this go automatically?
Thank you!!

1) yes
2) ... field-dominance is a matter with interlaced footage ... in the older days, the many lines of a frame were splitted into two fields: even and odd lines. and funny as engineers often like to be, the odd lines (1,3,5,7,9, ... = don't neccessarily have to be the first (=dominant) field (.dv for instance: 'first' field is the even one 2,4,6,...)
progessive has no fields = no field dominance
but ..
some cams read out the chip progressive, but record the p frame as two identically i-fields! ... phewwww
summary:
if it works, don't change it ...

Field Dominance and De-interlacing: what settings to use?

I've been trying to read about, and understand, the issues of deinterlacing and field dominance/order, but I'm having problems and don't yet see what the clear solution is.
I'm shooting DV footage with a consumer grade camcorder:
Capture Preset: DV NTSC 48 kHz
Sequence Preset: DV NTSC 48kHz
720x480 NTSC DV
QT Video Compressor: DV/DVCPRO-NTSC
The problems are "teeth and vertical lines" in the quick movements and transitions, but fixing one (by changing the "Field Dominance" setting in the Sequence) makes the other slightly worse, it seems.
Or, maybe I should be using the de-interlacing filter on everything? I haven't found clear instructions about what destination material this should be used for...
I'd be grateful if someone could look at this web page containing examples of what I mean:
http://www.karma-lab.com/images-pub/apple-q/fielddom_nt.html
Picture 1: NTSC DV frame, from sequence set to "Lower (Even)"
Picture 2: NTSC DV frame, from sequence set to "None"
Picture 3: frame from "Cross Zoom" transition in "Lower (Even)" sequence
Picture 4: frame from "Cross Zoom" transition in "None" sequence
Questions:
1) What are the correct settings? it would seem to be "None", because otherwise my transitions all have "teeth" and look like somebody is viewing it cross-eyed, even at full speed you can see the teeth in the transitions. But if I set it to none, then it seems that quick movements of the people in the videos get slightly more "teeth" to them...
2) I am producing web video (quicktime/flash video movies). Not for TV or broadcast. Am I supposed to throw the de-interlacing filter on everything?
with "lower", it's jerky (half the frames missing, I guess) but the "teeth" go away
with "flicker-free", it's not jerky, but it gets a little fuzzy looking, and I want to keep things "crisp"...
I need less advice on the theory, and more advice on "set it like this for what you are doing." I've read some really technical explanations, and I understand why interlacing exists etc., but not exactly what I should be doing to get the optimal results for my needs, i.e. simply good-looking web video with decent motion and transitions, shot from a consumer level DV camcorder.
Thanks for reading!
G4 Dual 800 QuickSilver / PBook G4 Titanium Mac OS X (10.3.9)

What are the correct settings?
Since you mention that you've shot your material on a consumer-grade camcorder, that would mean that Field Dominance – in your FCP Sequence Settings – should be set to Lower. If you use None – and I'm sparing you the tech talk here – then you're basically rendering out at a reduced quality (as the last pic in your link demonstrates)
I am producing web video (quicktime/flash video movies). Not for TV or broadcast. Am I supposed to throw the de-interlacing filter on everything? with "lower", it's jerky (half the frames missing, I guess) but the "teeth" go away with "flicker-free", it's not jerky, but it gets a little fuzzy looking, and I want to keep things "crisp"...
If you really want to keep things crisp, you best quality option - within the Final Cut Studio suite of tools - is to Export Using Compressor, with the Deinterlace option in Compressor 2.x's Frame Controls to Better (Motion Adaptive) while setting your Output Fields to be Progressive (presuming that you'll exporting to QuickTime first, then converting to Flash. Having said that, this type of conversion can take a long time to process and may not be suitable if you're under a serious time constraint.
Otherwise, the speediest option is indeed to slap a Deinterlace filter onto everything (or nest your sequence then place the filter on the nest) but the quality isn't always what folks would like.

Which Field Dominance setting in Compressor?

Hello,
Which Field Dominance setting should I choose in Compressor, given that I shot on DV in progressive mode, and have rendered and exported to uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:2? (The Field Dominance alternatives in Compressor are: "Top First", "Bottom First", "Progressive", and "Automatic".)
I am confused by this because in FCP, I believe that the correct Field Dominance setting is "Lower (Even)" (not "Progressive"), since in DV format, images are stored one field after another, even if pairs of fields were captured simultaneously, i.e. even if the camera was used in "progressive mode".
But precisely because pairs of fields were captured simultaneously when I shot in progressive mode, I suspect that the correct Field Dominance setting in Compressor is "Progressive". But perhaps I'm wrong(?).
Would someone please enlighten me?
Thanks.
Robert

For 1080i50, you should leave field dominance at Upper. The sequence field dominance (field order is a more accurate term) should be the same as that of the source footage. Stick to that rule and you'll be OK. For progressive sources it's None. For interlaced HD format sources, it's Upper. For SD interlaced sources it's Lower.
Now, in the case of 1080p25...it's progressive, but it can be carried on a 1080i50 timeline with no ill effects EXCEPT that transitions, moving titles, and perhaps certain other effects will render with the normal interlacing of the sequence format. The fix is to change the sequence field dom setting to None. Hope that makes sense.

Understanding Seq. Settings as Related to Frame Rate and Field Dominance

Hello All, I pondered just how to ask this question and have studied the FCP manual, especially Vol. 4
Pages 361 on. My HD project is a mix of stills and live video. The video was shot on a HV20, green
screen, captured thru an Intensity Card as Prores. (DV Matte Blast does the keying rather well).
The sequence settings are 1080i with an editing time base of 29.97, this matches the live footage. We
are getting close to the question! I noticed that I can change the field dominance to NONE, and add
my video to the timeline and still have a gray bar and good playback. I know Final Cut is doing a lot of
tricks in the background, but I would like to be sure that my sequence settings are not going to come
back and bite me
Is the net effect producing, on output, a progressive image? When I output to a QT movie I can choose
29.97 or 30 FPS. This project is not for broadcast, it will be played back off a computer, or Apple TV
in a museum setting.
I know that this is my mission, and any help in a better understanding production path is appreciated.
Thank you, Tom

Well, I was recommended to do that when using in animation.
I am very new on the AEP and FCP, so some of my friends who works on AE on PCs (I am in Brazil at the moment and few have MACs to help me)and AVID told me to change the frame rate in the composition to 60, render the 2 fields starting with lower (for TV purposes) and do the final render in 30 Frames. The reason is that the 2 fields would blend perfectly and the animation would not be shaking at the end.
Is that another simple way to do that?
I just did a test to see the final result on the DVD: got the movie with no compression and save it with DV-NTSC compression and imported to IDVD. The lines have disapeared when viewing on the play mode.

23.98 fps advanced pulldown removel with lower field dominance??

When ever I have captured 24p advanced material shot on a DVX100B, I have always used Final Cut Pro 5's advanced pulldown removel easy set up (2:3:3:2). I haven't run into any issues until now. When I try to capture 24p advanced material, for some reason Final Cut sets my field dominance as lower (even). I made sure I was using the capture pre-set for advanced pulldown removel (23.98) and I was. Is there any way to fix this? I tried trashing my preferences but that didn't help. This is progressive scan material so in the past Final Cut Pro has always set it to field dominance as "none". Also, because my 24pa material is having a lower field dominance and as 29.97fps, I have to render in my 24pa sequence which I have never had to do. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
PS: I'm using OSX 10.4.8 (the OS choice drop down menu hasn't been updated)
Update: I tried capturing a short clip (about 30 seconds) and it worked fine, but when I try capturing my clip, which is about 10 mins, I get it capured at 29.97 with lower field dominance.

Anyone ?

Will setting sequence field dominance to "NONE" effect resolution?

First, thanks all for the title help. It looks like i might have it licked. From this point however comes a new question.
The only way to keep my titles clear and free from flicker is to set the imported livetype .mov file's field dominance to "none" and place it in a sequence that also has a field dominance set to "none". Great. now i need to put the title sequence on my master time line (project time line of 1hr 20min) which exists in a sequence set to the standard field dominance of "Lower" and which is made up of an hour and a half worth of clips that are all set to "lower" as well.
My question(s) is this-
While i understand what field dominance is doing as an upper and lower, what does none do?
Currently the project (under the settings above) is rendering as i have changed the master sequence's FD setting to none. I haven't changed the individual clip settings to none due to my ignorance on the issue, only the title sequence has the same settings. Put another way- I'm currently rendering a sequence that has its field dominance set to "none". On this sequence, i have several clips that have their field dominance set to "lower", and one clip (my livetype title clip) has its field dominance set to "none". I've done all this in order to prevent flicker on my livetype scrolling titles.
Q: Should i do this?
Q: Will i suffer a loss of resolution on the clips that have a field dominance that is different from their sequence?
Q: Will keeping them different effect the export and eventual dvd burn of the project?

Your better off NOT making a movie from LiveType, but importing the LiveType project file and rendering in FCP. Leave your field dominance settings to match your clips. If you set to NONE, that is for Progressive scanned footage. You will lose clarity on your clips. But don't just ask and listen here... do it. Change the sequence from Lower to None and look very closely at a still frame. You will see that you have lost the "jaggies" but at the cost of edge clarity.

Why Would Upper Field Dominance Change The Quality Of My SD So Much?

I did a shoot in SD and edited it as such of course. The thing is when I was done, all of my slow motion looked echoy (a plague of mine if you're not familiar with my posts) and generally looked a bit lower quality then even SD usually gives. So I freaked out (finally) and found a guy on line that suggested changing the field dominance to Upper and to make sure that I have my Video Processing set to "Fastest Linear". Now this was a guy that has had this posted for a couple of years, so it wasn't like he actually told me this directly.
Well, it worked. The video looks good, slow motion is nice and smooth. Just for fun, plus the fact that I don't have a clue what I'm doing, I decided to see what it would look like leaving the processing the to Fastest and change the dominance to lower, and behold, the cruddy video plague of mine returned. It seems like everywhere else I look, people say not to do this, but it worked. Why? I do know what the dominance of upper and lower are, I'm just not smart enough to know why it worked and I want to learn this badly. For example, would I do this same dominance for HD?
Thanks again guys,
Crayton

I filmed it in SD on my Sony HDV-AU1 camera. What is killing me is if I choose upper then the footage looks fine, but then what I have done is add some jpeg images that I created in photoshop on a PC. they are simple images of text that say "Round 1" or "Round 2" in between the fights. I have them spin into view using one of the transitions in FCP, but when I get it to dvd, they look horrible, echoy, just like the footage looked like before I changed it to upper field. So as it looks now, I can't have both look good i guess. This doesn't make sense to me!! It is incredibly frustrating especially since I'm out of money and almost out of time on this project (it has to be done by next week). I keep re-doing the project, re-building it, re-setting it in one type of sequence after another and it's not looking good at all. what am I doing wrong?

Field dominance? converting progressive to 10 bit uncomp for beta output

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for