Return-Path: Received: from mail-tul01m020-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4628728 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:01:37 +0100 Received: by obbta7 with SMTP id ta7so3801898obb.28 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:07:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=2b+aGTL9jOa0BxVoJEfU/EeBwvtn+o4LCNzt0lBiTrg=; b=vohbnPqLNcvdwvLZs9UzSCGu2hoXKNXwtH1uIQ20MLkMfSI4sZn4+nDXDESew6FswR PDSs0/L5q/rQGZbuMZTF19R5HQND/17CN80yg6No9mJrcYQCNCpXtEeGFnMOZQOSHIBJ 4NsTTFeDLgDh/fQCeLRkVxn45Wnzvvn1LoGM8= Received: by 10.182.193.2 with SMTP id hk2mr3256247obc.20.1329430075272; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:07:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.48.200 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:07:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Byron Nash Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:07:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 720 or 1080 To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044794cf63ee6704b91c0f59 --f46d044794cf63ee6704b91c0f59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Is anyone actually working with interlaced 1080 material? We get a lot of 1080 stuff but it's almost always 23.976 progressive. We just let the "interlacing" happen on the output. But I never see the fields on our stuff, I think it's just a flag in the file so it doesn't get rejected by the stations. I haven't seen any true interlaced source footage unless it came from Digi-Beta or SP. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Carey Dissmore wrote: > LOL, managed to avoid the spit-take! > > Look, I'm a quality freak. Whatever I do, I want to do the best it can be > done, always creating and preserving the highest video and audio quality > from acquisition-to-master and from master-to-deliverable, within the > target specs of the job. In my analog beginnings in this business you > wouldn't believe the hoops I would jump through for a bump in quality. > > My quality freak-ish-ness nowadays translates to the principles of good, > intelligent (non-wasteful) workflows. I believe in the proven concept of > over-sampling, but often the budgets, projects and crews I'm working with > do not shoot resolutions higher than 1080p. Rarely I get a 4K-shot RED job > to "finish" in 1080p, but enjoy it when I do. > > But I believe strongly in doing all you can to work in what I think will > remain a dominant standard for mastering (and deliverables) for a good long > time. That's 1080p. The fact that a client may want a smaller deliverable > today is not enough to sway me (very often) to throw away that resolution > at the start of the project. Rather, I'll produce it 1080p and deliver a > 720p and enjoy the benefits of oversampling (for that deliverable) but also > have that 1080p master and raw footage to draw upon in case there's a > future higher quality use. > > As far as low-data rate green screen keys, sure--I've seen it done....and > I've even pulled them myself. Doesn't mean I want to. When I work with > XDCAM footage at 35mbit vs. at, say 220mbit 422 recorded by a nano-flash > one of my DPs uses, the differences are more readily apparent in the keying > than even the viewing of straight video. The stuff just eye-dropper-keys so > freaking well without nearly as much choking, fiddling, etc. BTW as you > crank up the data rate you do see diminishing returns once you get over > about 120-130mbit on XDCam 422 but it's still interesting to compare. I've > settled on 140 long-GOP for interviews and b-roll and 220 I-frame for > keying an vfx. > > Carey > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Dave Bittner wrote: > > Another factor to consider is whether or not you're dealing with a fixed > data rate at any point in the acquisition or delivery phases. > > For example, much of the in-house acquisition with do is shot with a Sony > EX3. We chose that model as our default camera to own because it can > handle, out of the box, the vast majority of our needs. And we can (and do) > throw a Pro35 adapter with prime lenses if we need that particular look. > > But it's limited, internally, to 35mbs, variable bit rate. Again, for the > vast majority of the stuff we do, this is sufficient. (Carey just did a > spit-take, spraying some really good wine all over his computer monitor.) > I've had no troubles pulling clean keys, for example. But I've also got 15+ > years experience pulling keys, and that surely helps. > > So, the question is, do I throw that 35mbs at a 720p frame or a 1080p > frame? Most of the time I choose 720p. And to my eyes it looks great. I > never find myself pressing my nose against the screen, lamenting digital > artifacts, like we used to do back in the DV25 days. Would 100mbs look > better? Probably. Most likely. But the 35mbs looks great, takes up less > room on my hard drives, and has various other workflow advantages. It's a > good, practical solution. (We edit and archive in ProRes.) > > My work is primarily B to B, and most of the stuff we produce ends up > online, so again, 720p is a good, practical choice. > > There are plenty of studies out there which demonstrate that resolution > is just one part of the image-quality equation. > > Dave > > Dave Bittner - Pixel Workshop Inc. > www.pixelworkshop.com > 410.381.8555 > Twitter @bittner > > > > > --f46d044794cf63ee6704b91c0f59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is anyone actually working with interlaced 1080 material? We get a lot of 1= 080 stuff but it's almost always 23.976 progressive. We just let the &q= uot;interlacing" happen on the output. But I never see the fields on o= ur stuff, I think it's just a flag in the file so it doesn't get re= jected by the stations. I haven't seen any true interlaced source foota= ge unless it came from Digi-Beta or SP.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Carey Dissm= ore <carey@imu= gonline.com> wrote:
LOL, managed to avoid the spit-take!
Look, I'm a quality freak. Whatever I do, I want to do= the best it can be done, always creating and preserving the highest video = and audio quality from acquisition-to-master and from master-to-deliverable= , within the target specs of the job. In my analog beginnings in this busin= ess you wouldn't believe the hoops I would jump through for a bump in q= uality.=A0

My quality freak-ish-ness nowadays translates to the pr= inciples of good, intelligent (non-wasteful) workflows. I believe in the pr= oven concept of over-sampling, but often the budgets, projects and crews I&= #39;m working with do not shoot resolutions higher than 1080p. Rarely I get= a 4K-shot RED job to "finish" in 1080p, but enjoy it when I do.= =A0

But I believe strongly in doing all you can to work in = what I think will remain a dominant standard for mastering (and deliverable= s) for a good long time. That's 1080p. The fact that a client may want = a smaller deliverable today is not enough to sway me (very often) to throw = away that resolution at the start of the project. Rather, I'll produce = it 1080p and deliver a 720p and enjoy the benefits of oversampling (for tha= t deliverable) but also have that 1080p master and raw footage to draw upon= in case there's a future higher quality use.=A0

As far as low-data rate green screen keys, sure--I'= ve seen it done....and I've even pulled them myself. Doesn't mean I= want to. When I work with XDCAM footage at 35mbit vs. at, say 220mbit 422 = recorded by a nano-flash one of my DPs uses, the differences are more readi= ly apparent in the keying than even the viewing of straight video. The stuf= f just eye-dropper-keys so freaking well without nearly as much choking, fi= ddling, etc. BTW as you crank up the data rate you do see diminishing retur= ns once you get over about 120-130mbit on XDCam 422 but it's still inte= resting to compare. I've settled on 140 long-GOP for interviews and b-r= oll and 220 I-frame for keying an vfx.

Carey

On Feb 16, 2012,= at 10:39 AM, Dave Bittner wrote:

Another factor to consider is whether or not you're dealing with a fixe= d data rate at any point in the acquisition or delivery phases.=A0

=
For example, much of the in-house acquisition with do is shot wi= th a Sony EX3. We chose that model as our default camera to own because it = can handle, out of the box, the vast majority of our needs. And we can (and= do) throw a Pro35 adapter with prime lenses if we need that particular loo= k.=A0

But it's limited, internally, to 35mbs, variable bi= t rate. Again, for the vast majority of the stuff we do, this is sufficient= . (Carey just did a spit-take, spraying some really good wine all over his = computer monitor.) I've had no troubles pulling clean keys, for example= . But I've also got 15+ years experience pulling keys, and that surely = helps.=A0

So, the question is, do I throw that 35mbs at a 720p fr= ame or a 1080p frame? Most of the time I choose 720p. And to my eyes it loo= ks great. I never find myself pressing my nose against the screen, lamentin= g digital artifacts, like we used to do back in the DV25 days. Would 100mbs= look better? Probably. Most likely. But the 35mbs looks great, takes up le= ss room on my hard drives, and has various other workflow advantages. It= 9;s a good, practical solution. (We edit and archive in ProRes.)

My work is primarily B to B, and most of the stuff we p= roduce ends up online, so again, 720p is a good, practical choice.

=A0There are plenty of studies out there which demonstrate= that resolution is just one part of the image-quality equation.=A0

Dave

Dave Bittner - Pixel Workshop Inc.
Twitter @bittner





--f46d044794cf63ee6704b91c0f59--