Ignore or not to ignore field dominance in inspector?

Created DVSD and 8bit movies in FC lower field dominant,(this of course can be checked by clip or movie properties,) however when brought into Compressor, inspector often gets it wrong. Changing native field dominance back to lower in inspector causes jumps in cuts down stream (as MPEG video on DVD.) Is inspector blowin smoke or just causing fires? What's the real story? Why would FC movie properties show lower field and Comp inspector show upper?
Thanks for any insight!

Can have many possible errors.
- wrong field grabbing (happend on early panasonic SD Progressive Cameras)
- wrong field setting in FCP
- wrong field setting when exporting
- wrong field setting when compressing
The only way you can be sure is to check your final product on a crt TV.
Most Softwareplayer will compensate the errors.
If you have a "field shift" meaning that on files is carried over half a frame to the next frame, then it is most likely that something with the import went wrong. This mostly happens if you transfer material from some kind of player via Firewire to DV and then capture it in FCP.
First thing try setting the Clip properties of the imported clips in FCP and use the default settings in the timeline.
Message was edited by: vex3d

Similar Messages

  • Make BC Forms ignore spam? Add extra field!

    Hey Guys, I have recently found this article:
    http://nfriedly.com/techblog/2009/11/how-to-build-a-spam-free-contact-forms-without-captch as/
    Why not implement something like this in the current BC forms?
    Basically:
    - add extra field to any  form created
    - make that field hidden
    - turn off autofill(so it doesnt get automatically filled in by client)
    - randomize the name/class of the field
    if the field gets submitted -> ignore the entry, if not submit the field.
    Spam is a HUGE problem with current websites that I work on. I get spam every day through forms that dont have CAPTCHA's.
    Problem with CAPTCHA is that they are UGLY I cant always fit it in with the design of the website.
    Thoughts?

    You need both and you can change the colour of captcha etc. Also BC has honeypot on any new form. Make a new form and view the HTML. You will see a security module in there. Copy that module and Place it in any forms you have issues with spam.
    BC also used Akismet for comments and another set of improvements for them are coming in Mondays release too.

  • Custom timer job not applicable ignoring job definition

    We have created custom timer job in share point 2010.but we are getting error
    job definition "Job defination name", id ed6b4720-67c3-4bbc-aa46-e98a2aa67202 not applicable, ignoring
    We are unable to find out error for the same in share point log.
    Its webapplication level timer job . and farm architecture is 2 WFE and 1 application server.

    Hi Raj,
    Please check if it helps
    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/sharepoint/en-US/ef1fc6cc-f8ae-4ca5-a32b-0bedbf3bdb94/errorjob-definition-customtimerjob-id-not-applicable-ignoring?forum=sharepointdevelopmentprevious
    Please remember to click 'Mark as Answer' on the answer if it helps you

  • Ignoring request not on consumer URL or redirect URL

    Hello,
    I have configured SAML for SSO for the destination site and it works fine for the page configured as Source Site Redirect URI. Attempt to access any other resource in the web application gives an error as : SAMLServletAuthenticationFilter: Ignoring request not on consumer URL or redirect URL.
    Relevant entries in web.xml and weblogic.xml are as below.
    Thanks for your time and help.
    Hiren
    web.xml*_
    <login-config>
              <auth-method>CLIENT-CERT</auth-method>
         </login-config>
    <!-- SAML SSO Start -->
    <security-constraint>
              <web-resource-collection>
                   <web-resource-name>Advisor</web-resource-name>
                   <description>These pages are only accessible by authorized users.</description>
    <url-pattern>*</url-pattern>
    <http-method>GET</http-method>
    <http-method>POST</http-method>
              </web-resource-collection>
              <auth-constraint>
                   <description>These are the roles who have access.</description>
                   <role-name>ssorole</role-name>
              </auth-constraint>
         </security-constraint>
         <security-role>
              <description>These are the roles who have access.</description>
              <role-name>ssorole</role-name>
         </security-role>
    weblogic.xml+_
    <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
    <weblogic-web-app xmlns="http://www.bea.com/ns/weblogic/90"
         xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
         <security-role-assignment>
              <role-name>ssorole</role-name>     
              <externally-defined/>
         </security-role-assignment>
         <context-root>Advisor</context-root>
    </weblogic-web-app>

    Hi David,
    I am currently not passing any group information in the SAML Assertion. I haven't tried SAML 2. I found this in one of the FAQs for UCM SSO 'only SAML v1.1 based SSO solution is certified to work with UCM 11.1.1.4'. Using SAML v1.1 if you want to use the groups information you have to configure the 'Enable Virtual users' option in the SAML Destination Site. Also, you need to configure the SAML Authentication Provider along with the SAML Identity Assertion Provider.
    Section 5.7 in the below link will give you some information about it.
    http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E14571_01/web.1111/e13707.pdf
    HTH,
    Shyam

  • [svn:osmf:] 14613: Fix for FM-256: Since progressive subclips are not supported, ignore subclip params for progressive files.

    Revision: 14613
    Revision: 14613
    Author:   [email protected]
    Date:     2010-03-05 14:49:05 -0800 (Fri, 05 Mar 2010)
    Log Message:
    Fix for FM-256: Since progressive subclips are not supported, ignore subclip params for progressive files.  Also document this lack of support on StreamingURLResource.
    Ticket Links:
        http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FM-256
    Modified Paths:
        osmf/trunk/framework/OSMF/org/osmf/net/NetStreamUtils.as
        osmf/trunk/framework/OSMF/org/osmf/net/StreamingURLResource.as
        osmf/trunk/framework/OSMFTest/org/osmf/net/TestNetStreamUtils.as

    Hi Experts,
    After i tried a few times, i can successfully start prepare with upgrade asistant monitor - Administrator >> Start Prepare,
    Thanks

  • HT5096 Suggestion - At No 6, after "...section is not checked." add "If you do not see "Ignore ownership on this volume", make sure that you have unlocked the lock at bottom right (it's ok for the techies of the world but many of us need as much info as p

    Suggestion - At No 6, after "...section is not checked"., add "If you do not see Ignore ownership on this volume, make sure that you unlocked the lock at bottom right." - it's OK for the techies of the world but many of us need as much info as possible.   

    Wrong forum. Post to Time Machine feedback.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Hdv sequence present - field dominance

    Hi,
    I captured HDV footage in FCE using the easy setup: HDV - Apple Intermediate Codec 1080i50. The footage was shot in PAL with a Sony HVR - 1P.
    Now when I define sequences using the preset: Apple Intermediate Codec 1440x1080i50 and add the captured footage, I get a message about matching sequence and clip settings.
    Turns out the clips have Field Dominance set to None and the sequence to Upper (Odd).
    What do I need to go with? Keep it as Upper (Odd) or match clip and go with None.
    I also dont understand why sequence preset has it set to that? I know its to do with interlacing and PAL starts at the first line. But I haven't had to do anything before with this when editing DV.
    thanks

    Clip properties
    Vid Rate: 25fps
    Frame Size: 1440 x 1080
    Compressor: Apple Intermediate Codec
    Data Rate: 2.8 MB/sec
    Pixel Aspect: HD (1440x1080)
    Anamorphic:
    Field Dominance: None
    Audio: 1 Stereo
    Aud Rate: 48.0 KHz
    Aud Format: 16-bit Integer
    Sequence properties with easy setup -> Apple Intermediate Codec 1440x1080i50
    Vid Rate: 25fps
    Frame Size: 1440 x 1080
    Compressor: Apple Intermediate Codec
    Data Rate:
    Pixel Aspect: HD (1440x1080)
    Anamorphic:
    Field Dominance: Upper (Odd)
    Audio: 2 Outputs
    Aud Rate: 48.0 KHz
    Aud Format: 32 - bit Floating Point
    Ignore the PAL in my comment. The footage was shot in HDV and the setting on the camera was 1080i and 25fps.

  • Automatic Duck and Field Dominance

    Hello,
    Here I go again with the field dominance issue:
    I am trying to import a sequence from FCP into After Effects using Automatic Duck xml import plug-in. (Highly recommend this for all FCP users who finish in AE!)
    When I import the xml into AE, even if I have assigned FIELD DOMINANCE: NONE to both clips and sequence in FCP5, the footage get interpreted as LOWER FIELDS in AE.
    It makes a huge difference, but I can't figure out how to import the footage into AE so that the footage can be interpreted as frames rather than fields
    Thanks in advance.

    You need to edit or ignore AE's interpretation rules.txt file, it is installed near the After Effects application. The user guide used to explain this, this information must have made its way out of the use guide.
    I recommend you force AE to ignore the interpretation rules file. Rename it with the ¬ character in front of the name (¬ is Option-L), any file or folder whose name starts with ¬ is ignored by AE.

  • Is there any way I can see field dominance?

    I have been working on a project shot in HDV1080i50. Now I need to make a 14by9 PAL master in DigiBeta format. So I create an umcompressed PAL sequence and drop the final AIC 1080i50 version of the program into it.
    Sending the uncompressed file off to be printed to DigiBeta the bureau says the fields are reversed. My problem is that I can't find any way to see the final project to see if I have got the field dominance right. Does anyone know of a tool that would let me look at the fields in the final Uncompressed print I generate. (when I play it on the computer screen it appears to play fine since computer monitors don't do interlaced)
    thanks,
    Paul Shard
    Dual 1GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.3)   1.75GB ATI9800, FCStudio

    Hi Paul,
    I've been battling these same issues, making DVD's from HDV footage, I didn't go via AIC, or out to a bureau, though.
    I found that, the uncompressed codec, when dropped into compressor, is defaulted to a different field dominance than a DV codec, even though they were both lower field dominant in the FCP sequence.
    I needed to manually change the dominance of the uncompressed movie, to lower, before I created an MPEG 2.
    Can you tell the bureau to do the same ? That your footage is correct (lower first) but that they are not treating the uncompressed file as such.
    What are they using, once you have given the file to them - compressor ?
    The shift field filter is right. But the whole thing is quite confusing, and I found the default field dominance in compressor was different, if I printed an uncompressed file out, or exported directly from FCP to compressor (which is very slow, but does not require the uncompressed file).
    However, regardless of the default compressor set, lower field dominance was correct, and the saved movie was correct for lower field.
    Hope this helps.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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?

  • Basic Field Dominance question

    In Tom Wolsky's FCE HD3.5 Editing Workshop book (xlnt), he mentions setting Field Dominance to None when working in 24p, but I'm unclear what this does and whether it applies to my situation:
    I'm shooting 24p HDV on Canon HV20, exporting to QT movie, burn in iDVD. DVD to be played on generic DVD players - not going to Sundance.
    Also, if I should be setting Field Dominance to None, when should this be done - before rendering, before exporting to QT, or ???

    Most consumer cameras don't shoot true 24p. They shoot pseudo 24p recorded at 29.97. The material is still interlaced with a pulldown cadence. Pull the canvas up to 100% and step through the video at a point where there is some motion. If the HV20 uses the normal 2:3:2:3 pulldown you'll see a cadence of two frames without interlacing, then three frames with interlacing, then two without and so on. That's how movies are mashed onto television; four frames of film are spread over five frames or 10 fields of video. Changing the sequence field dominance to none doesn't affect the captured material in any way; it only affects how anything that needs to be rendered in the sequence is rendered. It should render it without interlacing.

Maybe you are looking for