Uprezzing DV to HD

So...in this project that I am doing (The Mexican American War...airdate Sept 29, 2006 @ 8:00 PM ET/PT) I had three stock footage shots. I knew that I'd only be able to get this footage on SD tapes, so I was planning to uprez these when it came time.
Well, it came time so we ordered the three shots (film shots of 19th century sailboats) and requested them as DVCPRO 50 (since I had access to a DVCPRO HD deck). The other option was Digitbeta, but DVCPRO 50 is practically the same quality, and as I said, we had access to the deck...
WELL...I go to the dub facility, pick up the tape, attempt to capture at DV 50...and can't. Dropped frames ALL over the place. Hmmm...OK. Well, huh. Let me try as DVCPRO HD via HD SDI...nope...wouldn't do it. (Did I mention that AJ-HD 1200 decks are tempramental and complex? thot so). Hmm....OK, lets try DV/NTSC....BINGO! But...man...that isn't what I wanted. Now I have to take a DV quality shot (THREE!) and put them not only into a DVCPRO HD 720p project, but uprez them again to 1080p.
Well yuck.
I tried dropping them into the timeline and resizing...eew. No no no. OK...that won't do. Hmmm, I heard great things about INSTANT HD, let me get the demo. OK...dropped it on and...hey, why did the sides shrink instead of expand? Let me look at the documentation for this...alright, I can't find any. Must be available when you buy it. Well, I don't want to unless I know what it does. So...alternatives.
Compressor.
Using Compressor I choose the ADVANCED CONVERSION option and see DVCPRO HD 720p60 at 59.94. I'll choose that as the footage is 29.97 and will convert frame for frame. I did so...and interestingly the image widened...it stretched it horizontally. Fine for me, I am just using long distance ship shots. And...LOOK AT THAT! All that aliasing you get on the DV has been smoothed out! SWEET!
I had one shot that I slow-mo'd in the show, but FCPs slow-motion leaves something to be desired. So I took the 59.94 clip...duplicated it, opened Cinema Tools and conformed it to 23.98. Done...sweet slow motion.
Hmmm...but still, the quality is a little off and doesn't match the Varicam shots we have. Not much to do about that. But I can try to treat it enough that it is SUPPOSED to look different. I grab the Nattress Film Effects and dropa Bleach Bypass on it...adjusted it here and there, then a Magic Bullet Misfire Grain, cut the preset in half.
Wow...that didn't look half bad. Rendered...walked away for 14 min (23 seconds of footage with Misfire Grain)...and returned to find a great couple shots that blend with the other footage well (easily spotted as different, but recognizable as shot on film, and added effects to rough it up to hide the DV quality).
When this is over I will do a write up and show pictures.
Mind you, this won't work for everything. I still have to figure out the horizontal stretching issues.
Shane

DOH...Airing on the History Channel.
Anyone here a Neilson family?
Shane

Similar Messages

  • LR or PS for best uprezzing - confused

    Just read the excellent article "The Right Resolution" by Jeff Schewe in DigitalPhotoPro. But it has left me with a question:
    I have a (new) Epson R3000, so I want to print my images at 360ppi.
    0. Using Photoshop CS5, I can use Image Resize to set the resolution to 360ppi and natively, with no resampling, this makes the 12.3mp image, say 6inx4in. I guess if I print this (either in PS after applying some output sharpening, or in LR using output sharpening), this is the best print I can achieve.
    However, If I wanted to print an enlarged version, I have 4 options, but which will give me the best printed image quality?
    1. In PS, resize the image but maintain resolution at 360ppi using Resampling. I can then just sharpen/print from PS as the image is at 360ppi
    2. In PS, resize the image but don't constrain the resolution, i.e. let it reduce to whatever it takes for that size - no resampling. Then print it in LR, by setting the output resolution to 360ppi and let LR do the resampling and the sharpening (LR is uprezzing the image)
    3. Open the original from step 0 above in LR - it is already at 360ppi - then resize/zoom to fit paper in LR without changing the resolution (LR is increasing the image size at the same ppi)
    4. Use Perfect Resize 7 plugin to do the resizing
    I would very much appreciate your views on why which approach is best

    Stevie,
    Your math in step 0 is wrong. An image of that many megapixels at 360 ppi will yield an image that is about 12 x 8 inches.
    Personally, if I wanted to print at 360 ppi, I wouldn't bother going to PS at all. LR lets you set both the output size and the ppi in the Print Module. If the math calls for resampliing, it will happen. Up to that point nothing really cares what the output size or ppi is.
    I can't comment on Perfect Resize, but I suspect that it won't make a difference that you can see without a magnifying glass. Try both ways and make your decision on the basis of what you can see in the print and how much hassle is involved in getting that print.
    Hal

  • Uprezzing SD to HD, make output upper field dominant?

    Ok, so I'm uprezzing a SD short film originally shot on DV, interlaced, to HD for a film festival. After the uprez, the resulting file will go onto an HDCAM tape for broadcast at the fest. I want to keep the interlacing as the crappy video look is part of the story.
    So, that being said, I hear all HD is upper field dominant, while my clip settings and and sequence in FCP for the original SD movie are lower field dominant. In compressor, do I want to change the settings so the output file is upper field dominant since it will be HD, or leave it as is to match the source material (lower field)? Furthermore, there are two places to set field dominance in compressor, one under the encoder tab, after pressing the "video settings" button (if interlaced is checked), and another under the frame controls tab. Do I set both to upper/lower field dominance, or is one telling it what the source footage looks like and the other is for the output file? Thanks.

    OK, here you are,
    Original footage :
    Original Footage Interpretation:
    Render Settings :
    Output Module Settings :
    Format Options :
    Re-imported Footage :
    Interpretation of re-imported footage :
    The End and Thanks~~

  • Uprezzing sd footage to hd?

    Guys,
    I shot a wedding with 2 cameras: Canon XHA1 (HD) and Canon XL2 (SD). I have always worked with SD footage in the past in Adobe premiere Pro products. Now as you have figured out, I need to insert the SD footage into my PP CS5 HDV project. I think if I capture my sd footage in a differenet project with the correct SD settings, and then import the footage in the hdv project, the resolution will be wrong. Can you guys please give me insightful suggestions on what is the best (highest quality) way to up rezz or convert my SD XL2 footage into HD? I just want to make it compatible with my XHA1 project settings with highest quality possible. Is there any feature in the new PP CS5 to do this? or is the technology not there yet that cost me thousands of dollars?
    Thanks and any help would be appreciated. 

    I have used BorisFx BCC  Uprez filter for
    converting 720 x 480 SD to 1440 x 1080 HDV.
    It has flexibile settings and includes sharpening
    If your SD video clip is good quality the conversion has been good.
    This works as a pluggin to either AE of PrPro --but not CS5.  If you still have CS4 on your machine it will run in that program even with Windows 7 64 bit (as it runs in 32 bit compatibility mode, just as CS4 does)   CS5 is natively 64 bit and the 32 bit 3rd party effects no longer work
    The XHA1 SD stream should be able to be capture by PrPro--I do it all the time.  This is most likely a camera setting problem, and I can almost predict that you have set the output in the camera menu to be AUTO.  This doesn't work you need to set either HDV or SD as appropriate.

  • Uprezzing film timeline which uses two different codecs

    So I have my final film edit in FCP 6 which uses two different codecs...DVCPROHD 720p60 at 23.98fps and HDV 1080p24 at 23.98fps. There are only about 15 clips which are the HDV codec. My next step is to color correct in apple Color. So I did a quick test where I sent a couple clips of each codec, on the same timeline, into Color and back out into FCP, which seemed to roundtrip without any hitches...the only difference is that the DVCPRO clips came back as ProRes 422HQ 1280x720 and the HDV clips came back as 1920x1080...which is all fine. However, I do want 1080p (1920x1080) as my final output...for Bluray as well as DCP if my film gets picked up by a festival. So what I plan to do for my final output is export my completed Colored timeline to compressor and use ProRes 422 HQ at 1080p. My question is...since there isn't a specific 1080p ProRes HQ codec (like there is for DVCPROHD) but simply the "Geometry" tab in Compressor where you can change the 'Dimensions' to 1920x1080...is this how I "Uprez" my DVCPRO 720p clips to match my HDV 1080p clips?
    I just want to make sure NOW, that my workflow will be good all the way up to finishing, before I start sending sections of my timeline to Color...
    Thanks!
    David

    OK...you wanted a 1080p final, right? So why shrink the HDV down to 720p, and then blow it back up to 1080p? That's the point of doing both formats separately, and upscaling only the 720p...keeping the HDV at full size.  How noticeable will it be? Test to find out.  Personally, I'd do it my way. 
    And yes, upscale AFTER you color correct.  As for re-color correcting down the line...why? Color correcting is the final process...do it until it's right...why would you go back? And if you did adjust a couple shots, then just render those back out, and only upscale those and put into that final sequence again.  It's a small patch.
    >why is it better to send the DVCPRO 720p stuff for upscale BEFORE marrying it with the HDV 1080p stuff.
    because the HDV is already 1080. Scaling it down to 720, then back up will be TWO generation losses. Why do that?
    >my method of upscaling the 720p with the 1080p stuff at the same time seemed logical to me (the 720p is upscaled while the 1080p stays the same)
    But it doesn't...you first will be shrinking it to 720p...then blowing up to 1080p. And HDV is a GOP format without real frames, so the compression really pops when you upscale.
    >just want to know WHY your method is better??
    Because I tested this out..mixing 720p DVCPRO HD and HDV...and my method gave the best results.  Call it "experience."

  • How to?  Working images on main computer drive and backup to externals?

    Hi there---
    Right now I work in Bridge CS3 and Photoshop and have a workflow and image management system that works for me. But I want to see if I can integrate Lightroom, which I just installed.
    I skimmed Martin Evening's book and I am still not sure I can do the following:
    Can I keep 3-6 months worth of images on my working computer drive, backing up regularly as I always do, and then erase them on my working computer drive while keeping them on my two backup drives? Or does the Lightroom database not allow you to work that way. My read of Evening is that he works entirely off the external disks. But I don't want to do that. My external disks are just for backups only and I want to keep it that way.
    When I would need something from 3-6 months ago, then I'd want to be able to fire up the backup drives and retrieve.
    Any suggestions on whether I can do this and how I would do this would be great!
    Thanks, Paul

    Thanks! Is there a "how to" posted somewhere about this?? I need workflow suggestions and I'm coming up blank.
    Currently, I put a new yyyy-mm-dd-nameofshoot folder for every shoot which contains a folder with the original RAW files. I delete the bad ones in bridge. And develop the ones I want to level 10 jpgs in photoshop. I put those in a JPG folder. Sometimes I put other things in the same folder that I want to keep in there... like client invoices, retouched photos, uprezzed images, web galleries. I try to keep everything together under 1 folder and manage everything through my Mac OS interface... not through software.
    My backup routine consists of backing up weekly to two external drives using Prosoft's Data Backup 3. I do a simple copy, not a sync or clone, which only copies new or modified files. If the files get deleted off my computer disk, they get kept on the backup. In this way, I clean my computer disk periodically and retain my backup.
    I'm so happy with my backup system and kind of want to retain it, but also use LR. I'm worried that the database will screw up my system of working. But I'm attracted to the easy metadata entry and image search capabilities.
    Any ideas would be appreciated!
    paul

  • How can I export m2ts footage with 5.1 audio in PP CS5.5?

    Dear All!
    I have a 90 minutes project which made from 4 sequence. Sequence settings are the followings : AVCHD 1080p 25fps square pixels , 5.1 channel master audio.
    I made the sequences from avchd file-s, which recorded with Sony HDR-CX700V with AVCHD 1080p 25fps and Dolby digital 5.1 sound.
    Right now I finished the project with lots of effects and imported After effects compositions, and I cannot find any setting to create 5.1 sound.
    I have Mainconcept codec suite, but this offer m2ts 1440*1080i settings only.( And I cannot configure the mainconcept codec settings.)
    Do you have any idea how can I export the project without any degradation, and with 5.1 audio? The original footages recorded with this properties : H264/AVC - top field first - 22.000 Mbit/sec.
    And I use in the project some 720p H264/AVC - progressive - 8.001 Mbit/sec videos.
    Please help! Thanks a lot.

    You have to consider a couple of things. Mixing 1080 and 720 material is best done in a 720 sequence, because uprezzing will seriously deteriorate quality, unless you accept black borders. That also means exporting a 720 format as maximum, unless again you accept serious quality loss. Whatever the resolution you choose, exporting AVCHD material to anything else than uncompressed, Lagarith or UT will entail a generation loss and thus quality loss. The best export settings are dependent on your delivery medium. DVD, BD or web.
    Since you are working in a 1080 sequence, the quality loss of uprezzed 720 material is not a big issue, apparently, so what is the relevancy of 'the same quality' on export when you have already compromised quality?

  • Easy capture sharpening in ACR 6

    After reading most of the books available on ACR and sharpening, including Jeff's latest, and after having dinked with this stuff for many years, I've come to a startling conclusion, at least to me.  Setting Amount = 150, Radius=1. Detail = 0, and Masking = 0 seems to work well for CAPTURE sharpening on all of my images.  And I'm including low and high iso, "high frequency" and portrait, etc.
    I capitalized capture because to me these settings work well on the initial image prep, narrowing the light/dark transitions without adding any discernable halo.  Doing as is generally recommended, bringing up Detail to add a slight halo visible at 400% but not at 100%, with corresponding Amount and Radius adjustments, can certainly produce a slightly sharper appearing image on the monitor, but IMO one has now at least partially crossed over into output sharpening for the monitor.
    Another advantage of the 150-1-0-0 approach is the lack of any artifacts as one continues to process the image, particularly upsampling for printing.  For noisy images I do end up adjusting Masking as I interatively apply NR, but again in general the settings work well.  And of course setting them up as ACR defaults simplifies processing.  I'm curious as to whether others have arrived at a similar conclusion, or not.  I haven't been doing this as a default very long, and wonder if I'll come across pitfalls later.
    Richard Southworth

    OK, well I just tried this on a landscape image that is basically almost all high/mid frequency:
    Amount 150
    Radius 0.5
    Detail 0
    Masking 0 (although I would mask appropriately with any image)
    and then compared it to
    Amount 35
    Radius 0.5
    Detail 100
    Masking 0
    Critical viewing was at 100, 200, 300 and 400% in ACR.
    I am really surprised at this!  Although the sharpening is extremely close to the same amount in appearance (at 100%) the first settings with detail at 0, to my eye has a lot cleaner edges (less halowing) and definitely less artifacting in smoother areas (even w no masking).  Basically at the edges of the image there seems to be less feathering of pixels transitioning them (may interpolate up better this way?).
    I will do some more testing, to see how the file then handles Sharpening for Output (with the new datail at 0 settings).  I am thinking at this point that your detail at 0 idea might be sound. Less artifacting and cleaner edges seems to mean that the file will take more aggressive sharpening after up sizing it, and then the grain simulation I use to disguise the artifacting may be able to be a little less aggressive.
    Question, do you still approach the masking (ACR) the same way?
    Lastly, I tried using the first settings of sharpening on an image interpolated to max size in ACR (about 20MP) and then tried the same capture sharpening settings on an image at native size (about 12MP) then interpolated up to 20MP using PS Smoother (remembering that ACR applies the sharpening after the uprez). I have found the ACR uprez to have more detail at ultra zoom levels.  But if ACR applies the capture sharpening after the ACR uprez (if my reading is right, Jeff S said that) and the other is capture sharpened at native pixel size and then uprezzed with Bicubic Smoother, aren't I just comparing apples with oranges?  Also, when taking a image from 12.9 to 19.5MP is the ACR interpolating using its algorithm that is like Smoother?

  • DVDs look horrible on Apple Cinema Displays

    I compress my HD video using Compressor or Adobe Media Encoder, using Compressor's 'Best Quality 90 min' settings. Then burn to a single layer disc through DVD SP. It looks fine on an SD CRT monitor, but when playing back on an Apple 23" Cinema Display, it looks like it's been digitally uprezzed - basically it looks horrible.
    However, when purchasing an SD DVD from the store, it plays back beautifully on the Apple displays.
    I don't think it's the compression settings. Could it be that I'm burning & duplicatin instead of stamping & replicating? I'm getting lost with this.
    Any thoughts?
    Thanks!
    Kenny Miracle
    Mac Pro 8-Core, 12 GB Ram, ATI Radeon HD 4870
    Final Cut Studio 3

    I find the best way is to export as a self-contained movie to a codec such as ProRes (do not use things like HDV) then bring that into Compressor. In Compressor make it a SD m2v as suggested. Though frame controls add time, it is not too painful when using Better (not Best) settings, especially for resizing. The difference between Better and Best is not worth the trade off most of the time in terms of the length of time needed to encode.
    Set up virtual clusters to help with time to encode. Also make your own preset and/or make sure to tweak the Apple presets. If using the 90 Minute preset, for example, it is two pass @ 6.2. If you have an hour worth of material, for example, you can go higher. Sometimes the incremental difference may not be seen, but for an hour you can go up more to where it is noticable. YOu could even try a high CBR rate. Take a look at the links below.
    http://dvdstepbystep.com/faqs_7.php
    http://dvdstepbystep.com/faqs_3.php

  • Resolution DPI

    I'm new to Aperture and have a question I can't seem to figure out. It may be a camera setting even but how do I shoot into Aperture so that the Master/RAW image is opened at 300dpi. I'm using a Nikon D80.
    Sorry if the answer is too obvious.
    Thanks in advance

    Tarisio wrote:
    I am opening my images in Adobe Camera Raw and they always open in 240 dpi. There is an option to change the dpi there but if I increase it to 300 is that a bad thing? I thought that increasing the dpi loses information.
    Until the final step of sending an image to a hard copy print device, all that matters is the total number of pixels. If we reduce the total number of pixels we do lose information. And if we increase the total number of pixels from the original capture we do not really add image information, so we are creating a sort of false resolution.
    E.g.300 pixels x 600 pixels is 180,000 pixels, whether at 300 ppi or 100 ppi. When sent to final print 300x600 pixels @ 300 ppi will print a 1"x2" print; when sent to final print 300x600 pixels @ 100 ppi will print a 3"x6" print (but at the lower 100 ppi resolution).
    What is risky is arbitrarily increasing the number of pixels ("uprezzing"). E.g. in the 300x600 original pixels example we may want a 3"x6" 300 ppi print. So maybe we reset the image data to (3"x300 ppi = 900 pixels) x (6"x300 ppi = 1800 pixels), which equals a new total of 900x1800=1,620,000 pixels. That is an arbitrary 9x increase in image data!
    Interestingly, unlike with film scans, for printing purposes we often can get away with uprezzing well shot DSLR images by 2x or sometimes even more. However uprezzing is definitely something to be avoided except in very specific, controlled situations.
    There are no dots in digital files, only pixels, so dpi is a misnomer until the file gets to a hard copy output or input device.
    -Allen Wicks

  • Mixing HDV and DVCPRO HD

    I'm working on a project where the interviews were shot in HDV 1080i60, and most of the B-roll was shot in DVCPROHD 720p24 (but some in HDV 1080i60).
    Ordinarily I'd choose to edit at the lesser resolution, but I'm thinking that since most of the material is 1080i60, that's the ideal sequence resolution and frame rate, even though this would involve uprezzing the 720p material slightly. I'm also thinking that the progressive material will look better in an interlaced sequence than vice-versa, and since the 720p material is DVCPRO HD, it ought to weather the uprez decently. Stop me if you disagree.
    The next question is codec. My first thought was: edit in HDV, then swap out for a better codec (ProRes or DVCPRO HD) before final output. That seems better than the prospect of cross-coding everything to ProRes or something. Again, stop me if you disagree.
    Thanks, everyone, for your input and helping me think through this...

    Thanks X. Why not HQ? Too much disk space for no quality benefit?
    Where do editors get to fire the director who didn't think through the post issues?
    Seriously, I'm not complaining. This actually is not as bad as the one-hour show which was shot with five cameras: two XDCAM, one HDV, one three-chip DV and one one-chip DV...

  • Correct export from FCP for 16:9

    We have a Canon GL 2 mini DV cam. We shot footage as 16:9 and imported it into FCP as 720x480 anamorphic. After building the project went to export and I have had all sorts of issues starting with the best export setting. the footage isn't HD but when I use an HD setting or a 720p setting, the aspect ration is correct, but the footage is rough/blurry and not nearly as clear as the shot footage or the viewer in FCP. We are trying to move from 4:3 to 16:9 and not getting it al figured out yet. BTW, worked like a top in iMovie 08.

    I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do. What happens when you export your anamorphic sequence? Does it look stretched and in 4:3? If so, the easy fix is to open it in quicktime, hit CMD+J to open the properties. Select the video track and click on the Visual Settings button. Deselect the Preserve Aspect Ratio button and type 854 in place of the 720. Then save.
    Your problem is that you're editing standard definition. By definition SD is 720x486 (or 720x480 if you're in DV). When you shoot something in "16:9", you're really just cramming the info into a standard 4:3 image which is why it looks stretched. The anamorphic button in FCP merely adjusts the view to the correct aspect ratio but if you look at your sequence settings, they are still 720x480.
    HD on the other hand is natively 16:9 so of course when you export in that format the aspect ratio will be correct, but you're also uprezzing an SD clip to HD which has double the resolution. This is why it looks soft.
    You really have 2 choices. Either make the change in QT as above, or else edit in a standard 4:3 sequence and have a "letterboxed" 4:3 final product. It all depends on what you need.
    Andy

  • How can I fix wrong pixel aspect?

    System(s):
    OS X 10.4.9
    FCP 5.1.4
    Color 1.0.1
    Xsan 1.4.1v81
    Aja Kona 3
    Panasonic AJ-HD1400 decks
    Offline / Online workflow: Capture DVCproHD material from tape (not P2) at offline RT using multiple stations to capture to XSAN. Then online / uprezz using DVCProHD 1080i 29.97 (Aja Kona 3) using standard media manager process. Use 2 stations to uprezz by duplicating project and doing half tapes on one station, half on the other. Then choose one project as the master project and reconnect the tapes captured on the other station to the master project.
    The problem: The tapes that have to be reconnected in the master project come out with square pixels flagged when you look at their format information. The pixels should be HD (1280x1080). In FCP this doesn't seem to matter - it comes out looking fine. However, when we export an XML and take it into Color, the clips with square pixels come out squished, with geometry settings applied. We can fix this by resetting the geometry. However, when we render these projects out and bring them back into FCP the square pixel clips render the interlacing wrong - they kind of bake both fields into one, creating a strange 'ghosting' effect on footage with a lot of motion in it.
    There is a workaround fix - we can change the pixel aspect in FCP before making the XML. This fixes the problem. However in a show that contains over a thousand clips this is laborious - each clip has to be done individually. And if we do two or three shows a week.....that is a lot of wasted time.
    Has anyone experienced this? Got a good solution?
    PW

    Reasons for using FCP 5.1.4 and Color 1.0.1 are a bit involved, but basically to do with the compatibility of our version of XSAN with later versions of OSX. Until we upgrade the XSAN we cannot go to the most recent versions of OSX, which are required by the most recent versions of FCP. We do not want to go to FCP 6 until we can go to FCP 6.0.4, which has fixed certain problems with the media manager in earlier versions of FCP. In order to upgrade the XSAN I have been told we need to upgrade hardware switchers - not just software....
    Prior to using Color we used Final Touch HD, so Color is effectively the more recent version of Final Touch for us.

  • How can I fix wrong pixel aspect translation?

    System(s):
    OS X 10.4.9
    FCP 5.1.4
    Color 1.0.1
    Xsan 1.4.1v81
    Aja Kona 3
    Panasonic AJ-HD1400 decks
    Offline / Online workflow: Capture DVCproHD material from tape (not P2) at offline RT using multiple stations to capture to XSAN. Then online / uprezz using DVCProHD 1080i 29.97 (Aja Kona 3) using standard media manager process. Use 2 stations to uprezz by duplicating project and doing half tapes on one station, half on the other. Then choose one project as the master project and reconnect the tapes captured on the other station to the master project.
    The problem: The tapes that have to be reconnected in the master project come out with square pixels flagged when you look at their format information. The pixels should be HD (1280x1080). In FCP this doesn't seem to matter - it comes out looking fine. However, when we export an XML and take it into Color, the clips with square pixels come out squished, with geometry settings applied. We can fix this by resetting the geometry. However, when we render these projects out and bring them back into FCP the square pixel clips render the interlacing wrong - they kind of bake both fields into one, creating a strange 'ghosting' effect on footage with a lot of motion in it.
    There is a workaround fix - we can change the pixel aspect in FCP before making the XML. This fixes the problem. However in a show that contains over a thousand clips this is laborious - each clip has to be done individually. And if we do two or three shows a week.....that is a lot of wasted time.
    Has anyone experienced this? Got a good solution? How can we get Apple to fix their broken software?
    PW

    Peter Wollsey wrote:The tapes that have to be reconnected in the master project come out with square pixels flagged when you look at their format information. The pixels should be HD (1280x1080). In FCP this doesn't seem to matter - it comes out looking fine. However, when we export an XML and take it into Color, the clips with square pixels come out squished, with geometry settings applied. We can fix this by resetting the geometry. However, when we render these projects out and bring them back into FCP the square pixel clips render the interlacing wrong - they kind of bake both fields into one, creating a strange 'ghosting' effect on footage with a lot of motion in it.
    Two things:
    1. Color doesn't know how to properly display DVCProHD (or any anamorphic footage), so it looks wrong while working. Believe it or not, this is normal (for Color). Try setting the sequence in FCP to anamorphic and see what that does for your Send to Color.
    2. The Geometry room is broken with interlaced material. The moment you touch the Geometry Room in any way, Color field-blends the footage upon render. Even after you reset the Geometry Room. Once the footage has been user-altered in that Room, the footage is forever toast and will only render out properly if starting from scratch in a new project. It's a major bug.
    Peter Wollsey wrote:How can we get Apple to fix their broken software?
    Unless you're personal friends and have some pull with a particular vegetarian named Steve - you'll just wait it out with the rest of us.
    - pi

  • ACR INTERPOLATION Q

    Simple Question (sorry I have not gotten the latest book yet - if the info is there).
    When I use a higher MP DSLR like the Canon 5D Mark II...  I only get one option to uprez (from 21. to 25.2) in ACR 6.1.
    I want to know if in this situation (choosing the 25.2), is it going to interpolate with the algorithm that is very similar to Bi-cubic Smoother?
    Since I am being open minded to the new information presented on this forum that interpolating in ACR with good Capture Sharpening settings, to the largest size, with the intent to push the boundaries of quality enlargements, that uprezzing in ACR can improve the quality... I want to do a series of tests on the subject.
    The test would be:
    1: (native 21MP) image, capture sharpened appropriately and then ACR interpolated to max size (25.2), and then in PS brought up larger to a 70 inch print using Smoother (200 ppi Lightjet Flex).
    2: (native 21MP) image, capture sharpened appropriately (the same way) and then brought in PS at native size, and then in PS brought up larger to the 70 inch print using Smoother (200 ppi Lightjet Flex).
    Of course output sharpening would be applied to both and the testing would look at both the image without output sharpening applied, then with.
    Thank you in advance for your feedback.

    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
    Noel Carboni wrote:
    Interesting to see you getting into the territory I've been mapping out...  As you know, I asked a similar question about upsampling.
    I think the real answer is that you have to try it yourself and see what results you can get.  And don't stop just by looking at the pixels output from ACR...  Take it to the next step and post-process your image(s) to see how much you can make of the results.
    One thing is certain:  If you have experience with past versions of ACR, you must unlearn some of what you have learned.  The 2010 process doesn't respond the same ways the prior process did.
    -Noel
    I agree, TESTING!
    Funny enough I just tested a very high frequency only image of a slot canyon wall (sandstone) shot with a top DSLR and top lens and top f/stop.  I pushed the 21MP image to 70 inches at 200 ppi.  One image was max interpolated in ACR, one was native size in ACR.  Both capture sharpened with 40 - 0.5 - 100 - 0.
    Once the images got into PS CS5 I used Smoother to go to the 70 inches on both.
    At 100% they look the same.
    At closer zooms, the opposite as I would suppose was true!  The image brought into PS at native size (no ACR interpolation) was absolutely noticeably more detailed!  I have no idea WHY.  And I don't suppose it will be the same with every image!
    But this is, so far, going against what I am hearing about ACR interpolation.
    It will be interesting to me to see how further testing goes on other images of a variety of types...

Maybe you are looking for