Is Apertures RAW quality different from brand to brand?

Ex. I own the Nikon D50. Has Apple put the same effort into making a quality RAW reader as with other camera brands, or is there no difference at all? From what I have read there was a huge quality difference in viewing RAW files when Aperture went from version 1.5 to 2.0, so what exactly is it with each camera that Aperture has to support to be able to import the RAW file? Ex. the Nikon D90 and D700 are not yet supported. Why? Does Apple have to build a unique RAW plugin for each and every camera brand and model in the world to make it work with Aperture?

So many questions, so little use of search function.....
DVDstudios wrote:
Ex. I own the Nikon D50. Has Apple put the same effort into making a quality RAW reader as with other camera brands, or is there no difference at all?
Each raw file is proprietary format of the camera manufacture. Each raw processors/developer sw is unique. Only manufacture's own sw will pickup in-camera settings. None of the 3rd party (Aperture, Lightroom/ACR, etc) will.
From what I have read there was a huge quality difference in viewing RAW files when Aperture went from version 1.5 to 2.0, so what exactly is it with each camera that Aperture has to support to be able to import the RAW file?
Better algorithm and rendering. In particular to Ap 1.5 vs 2.0, go to Aperture product page and you will find lots of details.
Ex. the Nikon D90 and D700 are not yet supported. Why? Does Apple have to build a unique RAW plugin for each and every camera brand and model in the world to make it work with Aperture?
All raw files are supported as function of Mac OS X, and not a function of Aperture. Just a way Apple chose to implement it. Adobe will update ACR to include new raw formats fairly quickly. Until ACR is updated, DNG is also not viable for D90. Clearly D700 is not an issue for this.
Just so you know, Nikon still does not have CaptureNX/ViewNX that support D90 released. They will update very soon. Meanwhile if you want to shoot raw, recommend you shoot raw+jpeg so that you can keep going for now.
Cheers

Similar Messages

Jpeg export quality differing from separate macs

I have noticed a discrepancy in the quality of jpeg images exported from iPhoto 9 on different Mac models...
I recently bought an estarling wireless photo frame. With it you can email the pictures to a gmail account and the frame will download them. As I was uploading photos from different Macs I noticed a difference in quality of the images on the frame. To test this I followed the exact same procedure from four different Mac models all with iPhoto 9 and 10.6.4: MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo, iMac Core Duo (older mac), MacBook Core 2 Duo, and a MacMini Core 2 Duo. The procedure I followed was to import photos from my Camera to an iPhoto Library. Crop them at a 5x3 aspect ratio. Choose a photo and File > Export. Choose JPEG, Maximum Quality, Custom Size dimension of 800px and export them to the desktop. I then send them to the frame. Comparing identical photos, what I noticed is that the photos from the MacBook Pro and the MacMini are very noticeably more crisp and clean looking on the frame, while the photos from the MacBook and iMac are much more pixelated.
Has anyone else noticed anything similar? Could this be related to hardware? Please let me know if I can provide any further information that would be helpful. Thanks.

I would first compare them after export and before emailing, to remove the possibility that the discrepancy is introduced by the uploading/downloading process.
Regards
TD

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Why won't Aperture 2 support RAW files imported from Canon 60D when it does from my Olympus DSLR?

Why won't Aperture 2 support RAW files imported from Canon 60D when it does from my Olympus DSLR?

I'm afriad the fact that your Olympus dSLR is supported is no relevance.
The Raw from every model of camera is different. Note: that's every model not every brand. So, the NEF produced by a Nikon D40 is not the same as the NEF produced by a D60, the CR2 produced by a Canon 350 is not the same as the CR2 produced by a Canon 400.
Support for individual camera models has to be added one by one, and Apple will update the OS to work with the most recent version of the software. That's an incentive for you to keep up-to-date. So, for support for your 60D you'll need 10.6.5 plus Aperture 3 and/or iPhoto 11.
Regards
TD

Why when I open my raw files into lightroom, colors are different from my camera's preview?

Ciao,
I have a problem... maybe this can be a stupid question but anyway.. I would like to know the reason why when I open a raw image in lightroom, for a second I see the right colors/tone/contrast that i see when i look at the same images on my camera and soon after the word "Loading" I see the raw files with different colors.
Why this happens???
Before "Loading" and --> after
Thank you so much

Hey Giuseppe
I have a similar problem but the cause may be different from yours. I shoot a Canon 6D and as far as I know no one with the 5D MKIII has my issue, but maybe you could look into it.
Canon's Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CC, as well as Lightroom CC, is automatically down converting my CR2 RAW files from 14 bit color depth to 8 bit color depth. This is screwing up my colors, contrast, gradients, etc quite a bit when trying to process RAW files in Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC.
You can read my thread here:
Banding due to automatic downconverting of RAW files to 8 bit
You might want to check and see if your RAW files are actually being processed in 16 bit color depth. There is a possibility that they are being down converted automatically for some reason.
The bit depth in Lightroom for RAW files is supposed to be 16 bit but when opening my files it just converts it down.
Try downloading Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS 5D Mark III
Use that software to process a RAW photo and convert to a 16 bit TIFF. I know this software truly gives you a 16 bit depth image. Then compare the result side to side with what you're seeing in Lightroom.
If you are having this issue, I have not yet found a way to process RAW CR2 files in ACR or Lightroom and maintain 16 bit depth.
If you are batch processing to JPEGs it probably doesn't matter, but my issue is that it is down converting BEFORE exporting and thus any edits I do become much more destructive on my 8 bit image than they would if I was editing a 16 bit image. I have to be able to keep things in 16 bit up until the point they go to the printer.
Sorry, this may not help you at all, it looks like there could just be a difference in White Balance, but I figured I'd throw my two cents out there and maybe you could see if this is actually what is happening for you, and hopefully eventually Adobe could potentially fix this bug.

Any chance that Aperture 3 soon will support the RAW format files from Leica V-lux 3?

Any chance that Aperture 3 soon will support the RAW format files from Leica V-lux 3?

Were all just users here no Apple employees so no one can say (and if Apple was here they wouldn't say either)'
It's just not the type of information Apple gives out. You can go to Aperture->Provide Aperture Feedback to let them know you want his camera included. But when that will happen is anyone's guess.
One strategy you can use for the time being is to shoot RAW + JPG (assuming the camera has this mode) and import both as a RAW+JPG pair making the JPG the master. Then when the RAW support comes out you can switch and make the RAW the master and process the file.
There are other ways to deal with this until the camera is supported. Post back for more info.
regards

HT5930 Why does my Aperture v3.5.i look different from the one shown in the online videos

Why does my Aperture v3.5.i look different from the one shown in the online videos

Are you asking about the colorful icons in the video?
The video must have been done with an Aperture version 3.2.4 or earlier. Since Aperture 3.3 are the icons drab and gray - the Aperture 3.3 Release Notes are calling this:
Newly designed monochrome source list and toolbar icons.
The Release notes will tell you, what has changed since then:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2518
--Léonie

Contact Sheets / Proofing and useful Aperture RAW Conversion

All,
I wanted to appeal to all of you pro photographers out there to share about how you handle the proofing stage (contact sheets) with your clients. I'm curious about how you all make this process as efficient as possible.
Ok, say you have taken 1000 pictures for a wedding or some other event (forget the accuracy of that number, its just a round number for discussion sake). You need to present your photos to your client, but you need to present a subset of the 1000 photos for a few reasons:
1) Not all photos you are going to take are going to be great. I've heard a general quote by some pro photographers that their "keeper ratios" (the percentage of pics that are really good from a shoot) run around 10%-20%. Fair enough, I don't want to debate this percentage, but it gives us a target number of 100 photos to present to a client from a 1000 picture shoot.
2) Your client is probably not going to be happy if they have to sift through 1000 photos. I recently had a friend who paid several thousand dollars for a wedding photographer who sent them 1000 photos to choose from. They weren't particularly happy with this, and told the guy there was just too many to choose from. Personally, I felt that this was putting part of the photographer's responsibility on the client, but whatever.
Ok...so for the sake of the example here, we have to get 1000 photos down to 100 photos, so the client can choose what 50 (for example) they want to purchase and have printed, put in their photo book, slide presentation, etc.
Sorry for the long intro, but here is the issue at hand: we want to work quickly for the client, and get them their 100 photos as soon as possible. We also want to put our best foot forward, and give them high-quality photos. But at the same time, we want to work efficiently, and if possible not spend time doing final retouching on photos that the customer doesn't want, but rather focus this time directly on the photos the customer does want.
I have two questions from this which pertain to Aperture's RAW conversion and workflow:
1) Do you do any significant adjustments on photos for the contact sheets you present to clients (the 100 photos now)? Is it just a quick exposure adjustment, or are you retouching all 100?
2) Despite Aperture's RAW conversion problems and other adjustment glitches, is it sufficient quality in your opinion for a contact sheet?
My purpose in asking these questions is that perhaps the Aperture RAW conversion issue can be mitigated if we can get to the point of customer contact and review using Aperture-only conversion and adjustment tools, and then isolate photoshop use for only the final, significant edits. The problems with Aperture's RAW conversion are well-documented, but the question is, could it still be sufficient for small-scale proofs, understanding that for large-scale, high-res images, it won't be suffcient.
Your opinons are valued!
Brad
Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz Mac OS X (10.4.2) PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

">-DELETE project from Aperture because I can't use the app for the delivery
of finals:
Forgive me if I've forgotten the detail you may have posted elsewhere about this. I have seen you mention this several times, but I am really interested in the specifics behind the problems you have encountered. I have some needs in finishing that are beyond just regurgitating a photo. I'll be basically augmenting my photo with text, borders, special effects, etc. for more professional presentation, and the ability to market a photo in different ways. This is one reason I cannot discard Photoshop from my workflow. Anyway, let's assume for a moment I'm able to do all my editing in Photoshop, and those PSD files are sitting within Aperture. From there, what problems am I going to encounter? I'm tapping your brain here, as the time I have spent in Aperture has been primarily oriented toward everything prior to the finishing stage. "
Hi Brad,
If I've imported images into Aperture that have previously been worked over in Photoshop, none of the layers I may have created in those files will be available to me from within Aperture. This does not break but severely sprains the functionality of Photoshop. I'm keeping the images around because I think I or my clients will need them later, so what might I do with them?:
1) If I'd like to do more work on them I either have to abandon access to the previously created layers and their magic, or export the file from Aperture, work on it outside, import it back into Aperture. Every time I want to work with those layers I have to do the same dance.
2) If I'd like to send jpg or tif versions of those files anywhere I can choose to use the tools within Aperture or Photoshop to do so. Aperture's tools for these conversions are simply not of professional utility: no compressed tifs, no layered tif support, no quality choices for jpgs and no jpg previews. And in either case, using Aperture or Photoshop, the conversions are created OUTSIDE of Aperture and not managed by it.
3) When I decide to archive my older projects I'm faced with the incredible limitation that Aperture will not allow me any remote search of any archive that is not "live" within Aperture. Not even Spotlight will search Aperture libraries!!!!!
So moving already created projects into Aperture has absolutely no advantages and a number of problems, any one of which might be a deal-killer by itself.
If I'd like to use Aperture to manage work that I create going forward I've got those limitations already listed above, but I CAN access layers in PSD that are created from within Aperture. I cannot make layered duplicates of those files in order to work on versions of those images so once again the Photoshop workflow is hobbled.
All of this makes it a bad idea for my projects to make anything but a brief trip in and out of Aperture for sorting/proofing.
Regards,
fp

Iphoto vs aperture book quality

I realize that aperture gives much more flexibility, however, is it the same printing service? I use iphoto, but there was a write up on aperture in a photo magazine giving it high marks. How different from a printing service standpoint are the two applications? Anyone know?

Diana Phillips wrote:
Are books from aperture and iphoto printed using the same quality paper,printers,inks etc????
OR is aperture better. I am not referring to the layout options just print quality.
Sadly, it appears that there is a bug in Aperture 2.1, and images printed from books within Aperture, whether by Apple or on your own printer, have serious colour management issues. This only affects images printed +from books+ within Aperture.

Merge JPEG and RAW after import from iPhoto

Hi,
camera is set to shoot JPEG + RAW, iPhoto manages after import from camera as two separate files.
I want to transition from iPhoto to Aperture.
After importing from iPhoto into Aperture, is there any chance to merge the files in a way similar to how Aperture merges jpeg + raw when importing directly from camera?
Thx
Axel

When I click on Faces, it's empty, the import from iPhoto forget to import faces?
Hello Kris,
How did you imort from iPhoto? If you import using the Aperture Apllication menu
File -> Import -> iPh.oto Library
then all your Faces should be transferred from iPhoto.
Which of the two buttons in Aperture do you use to show your "Faces"? There is the "Faces" button in the Library panel and the "Faces" Button in the Toolbar. Both behave differently. The "Faces" button in the Library panel will reveal all faces, whereas the "Faces" Button in the Toolbar will only show the faces detected in the in the currently selected item (folder, project). So it may appear that faces are missing, even if they are included in the Aperture Library.
Regards
Léonie

Aperture RAW conversion colour noise with Canon 1D Mark II

I'm using Aperture 2.1 and am wondering if anyone here is having this problem - basically highlights end up with false colour with this camera/RAW conversion combination. The problems appears to have been introduced with the 1.1 RAW converter as 1.0 conversions don't seem to have the problem. I'm not sure if this is camera specific, or whether there is some tuning which can be done to the RAW converter to minimise the effect - attempts have so far failed with this approach.
The best subject to produce the effect is strong reflections from water - i've attached a crop of an image which shows this problem, and I can supply a RAW with this problem.
Conversion using RAW 1.0 (less or no colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%201.0.jpg
Conversion using RAW 2.0 (colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%202.0.jpg
Any suggestions as to what to do? Is this simply a RAW conversion problem which can be addressed or am I using the tool wrong?
Many thanks,
Cesare

Hmm. I can see some color effects in the 1.0 conversion as well.
Those are some touch photos... you have lots of specular highlights with the sun reflecting off the water and the railing.
Aperture 2.x and 1.x handle the RAW conversion differently. I would suggest you try playing with the RAW Fine Tuning brick, specifically with the Moire and Radius sliders, and try fiddling with the Auto Noise Compensation checkbox.
I don't know whether you'll be able to make the problem go away completely or not.
With my ~30,000 1D Mark II files I've seen something similar to this (though much less extreme) on a couple of them. Always with specular highlights though -- off water or metal objects.
Still, you may wish to submit Aperture feedback and include the RAW file.

Aperture Video Import Problem - from Lumix GH4: Imported clips have their dates changed to the import date. The files show up on the hard drive but many are not showing up in Aperture.

Aperture Video Import Problem - from Lumix GH4: Imported clips have their dates changed to the import date. The files show up on the hard drive with import date not created date, but many of these same files are not showing up in Aperture. Sometimes the clips actually show up with the current import but take on the video information from a previously imported file.

It was suggested I move this question to IPhoto or IMovie which I did.
Well moving to a different discussion group did not provide an answer to this question either. But what I finally did was import one batch of photos and videos into IPhoto for a given day at a time. Working with these I could change the date and times in order to get them in the original sequench taken. Then I would create an album with that batch. These would all be on the same day (IMove was closed for this phase). Then I would open IMovie, generate the thumbnails for that album, and select the album I had created. This was necessary because the importing process in IPhoto was using incorrect dates for my video so it was a real struggle finding them in IMove until I developed this approach.
I believe that this whole process was so screwy because I was importing from an external hard drive not a camera. I had these photos on a PC and did not have the original cameras to use to import directly which I am fairly sure would have made this easier!

Poor quality printing from reader

I am getting poor quality printing from adobe reader.
I tried 3 different PC with the same printer (windows 7 - Epson xp 600)
DOC XLS JPG and all other files are excellent on the printer.
I tried almost all the configurations on the properties of the printer and adobe
I don't know what else to do to get my printing correctly.
Please HELP MEEEEEEEE
Thanks a lot for your time.

What is your Reader version?
What exactly means "poor quality"?
Have you tried Print as Image?

Poor quality export from imported mp4 screen capture

My video source is an mp4 file created from a screen capture of a unix app running on a PC. Quicktime plays the mp4 file fine (lots of detail, dark blacks, ...), but the resulting movie (Share > Export Movie > HD 720p) is faded. When shown on a large screen, the movie is pixelated and faded (grey blacks, etc.).
I imported the mp4 file into iMovie (File > Import > Movies) with Fit in Frame, Optimize video unchecked, Widescreen (16/9), and 30 fps NTSC.
I have tried various combinations of import and export settings and the above is the best I get.
I'm guessing the import is throwing half the information away (hence the faded appearance). Whatever the cause, is there a way to import mp4 files into iMovie and get the same quality on the export? I tried exporting the entire import and got a file about half the size.

Your description of the problem - a 'comb' effect - sounds as if the "fields" which make up the resultant picture have been put together in reverse.
(..You don't normally see 'interlaced' video in iMovie's playback window - you normally see just a single field of the two, to make the picture clearer and simpler to display..)
[..A video picture's generally made up of two "fields" which each comprise half the number of lines down the screen: one field comprises the odd-numbered lines, and the other the even-numbered ones. Your exported video should be encoded with the lower (2nd) field first ..as described in this Apple document ..and the problem's mentioned here as well..]
However ..you said in your first post that "..I am using a Sony HDR-HC1 and trying to export at the highest possible settings.."
This is an HDV camcorder, and you didn't say if the original footage which you shot was HDV or normal DV. (HDV is recorded differently from normal DV, as it's recorded in a more compressed format, and it has to be automatically 'unscrambled' by Apple's Intermediate Codec while you're importing it into iMovie HD.)
It seems as if somewhere along the chain of importing>editing>exporting, the fields are being reversed, so that you get this jumpiness on replay when QuickTime tries to deliver a "highest quality" interleaved replay of both fields:
Ah ..sudden thought: you mentioned that you exported thro' iDVD: "..I have used iDVD by dropping it into a DVD theme and it seems to work ok, although the playback is a little jumpy, not quite as good I would have expected.."
You may have left the iDVD settings at their default 'NTSC' instead of switching them to PAL.
Check your iDVD Preferences ..that may be the problem.

Low-quality DVD from SD files

I'm new to Premiere Pro CS5, and I'm having difficulty creating a good-quality DVD from my SD footage. It may be because my video is too long (2 hr. 14 min.), but I thought maybe I was doing something wrong.
I've done similar things (DVDs from plays I've recorded, with the same camera) using different software, and the final quality was better. However, for various reasons, the old software isn't working well any more and I'm making the switch to PP.
I've included some technical details below. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jon
Original footage:
Shot on Panasonic DVX 100B, SD: 720x480 (0.9091), 23.976 fps (24p)
Captured as .avi files using Premiere Pro
Edited in Premiere Pro CS5 64bit (ver.5.0.3)
Total video length: 2h:14m
Sample of .avi footage, original size:
400% magnification:
Dynamic linked to Encore (ver.5.0.0.5)
Added 2 menu screens with a small jpg on each
1st try: Transcoded using Automatic settings
(DVD Transcode in Properties dialog). Quality was awful -- faces very blotchy.
2nd try: Changed DVD Transcode to:
NTSC DV 23.976 Hi-Qual 7Mb VBR 2 pass
Quality didn't improve.
3rd try: Specified a 2-sided DVD to give it more room. (I don't have a 2-sided DVD, but I thought I could burn it onto 2 DVDs). The transcoded file size increased (6.89GB m2v file), but the quality didn't really improve.
Sample of m2v footage, original size:
400% magnification:
It's a 3-act play, and my next thought was to try to do Act 1 as one file, on one DVD, and Acts 2 & 3 (shorter) as a separate project on a 2nd DVD. Blu-Ray isn't an option, unfortunately.
Thanks!

Jeff,
As I just posted, it turns out that Dan's instructions about HC Encoder were the ones that basically got me what I needed. However, I really appreciate your suggestions, and I wanted to post my test results and procedure, in case it's helpful to anyone (or if I need it again).
Regarding your test scenarios, I started on two different sequences: one set up as DV 24P, and the other as DV NTSC. My detailed notes are below -- too much to read, unless you're interested how it all turned out.
Thanks again,
Jon
Test 1: Playing in the Premiere Program Window
A. On DV 24P sequence:
   1. Leave Interpret Footage parameters at current settings. Quality OK
   2. Change just the "Remove 24p DV Pulldown" setting. Quality Terrible
   3. Change just the Field Order setting to Progressive. OK
   4. Change both the Remove and LFF settings. OK, but w/ interlace combing
B. On DV NTSC sequence:
   1. Leave Interpret Footage parameters at current settings. Quite bad
   2. Change just the "Remove 24p DV Pulldown" setting. Worse
   3. Change just the Field Order setting to Progressive. Quite bad
   4. Change both the Remove and LFF settings. Lots of combing
So, after this round, DV 24P sequence was best, either w/ default settings, or making field order progressive.
Test 2: AVI export
Created a split-screen test clip, on DV 24 P sequence, with no change on left, and change of setting from LFF to progressive on right (A1 & A3 above, which were the best after the first round).
Exported to avi files, using:
1. NTSC DV 24P preset, DV (24P Advanced) codec
2. Lagarith codec, progressive
3. Lagarith, LFF
Played avi file on Media Player Classic and Windows Media Player.
Not a lot of discernible difference among the three files.
Test 3: HC Encoder
Created *.avs fils for each of 3 test files (using Dan's directions), plus original avi (captured directly from the camera)
(Note: HC Encoder doesn't like file names with spaces or underscores,apparently.)
1. NTSC: couldn't open
2. Input for encoding OK
3. Input for encoding OK
4. Original avi couldn't be decompressed
So, the lagarith-encoded files work fine with HC Encoder, but I still have interlace combing artifacts - throughout Act 2, and at the curtain call for Sat (when the background is lighter -- is that significant?), and throughout (but not completely) Acts 2 & 3 for Fri (all on one tape). Act 1 either night doesn't appear to have a problem.
Looking at the original captured footage (in MPC and Win Media Player), there is no interlacing problem, so it appears to be an issue with PP.
Previewing the files in PP (before putting them in a sequence), there is no interlacing problem.
When creating a new sequence, I tried: New Sequence, General, Playback Settings button, choose "Repeat Frame (ABBCD)" rather than "Interlaced Frame" (the default).
This sort of fixed the problem -- no more combing, EXCEPT at the curtain call -- the very end of tape 3. The other footage that was combing is now a little softer -- kind of annoying, but I applied an Unsharp Mask filter (default settings), and it helped. (I also tried Auto Color, to see if it would quickly help the color. Not a good move: the color changes sometimes frame by frame, and all black becomes gray static. Obviously, I need to understand what that does next time I try to use it.)
I decided to live with the combing at the end. (It was "good enough" at that point -- not a commercial project.) At least I've learned a lot.
I put the .h2v and .aac files into Encore, created some menus and built it to a folder, to test the files one more time before committing them to plastic. It all looked good. Then, for one more hurdle, Encore didn't like my DVD burner ("unknown error"!) It worked last week! However, I used a different burner, since I had the DVD files already, and it worked fine. Phew!
I'd love to know what the interlace combing at the end was about. My only guess it that it may be because I was using a sort-of-cheapo DV tape, recording over it for the third time. Maybe the tape was a bit stretched or something and the frames got out of synch at the very end. (?) If anyone has ideas, I'd be interested.

Is Apertures RAW quality different from brand to brand?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for