|
|
I could probably do this, but "some" of
the editors I've worked with in the past don't like working with
sequences, or even a separate QT alpha file.. would rather have
one layer to work with in FCP or Premiere.
///Greg Balint
//Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
/321.514.4839
delRAZOR.com/
On 10/5/2012 1:40 PM, Teddy Gage wrote:
I usually just spit out bw track matte sequences
along with the jpg if I need alpha.
On Oct 5, 2012 1:35 PM, "Greg Balint"
< greg@delrazor.com>
wrote:
Thanks everyone for the help.
I ended up rendering everything out at PhotoJPEG 98%..
file-sizes went WAY down and the client loves the
quality.. plus!!!!!! it fixed/didn't show the QT Gamma
issue! So I'm now a big fan. My entire render folder was
5.59Gb. vs nearly 25Gb+ previously. My client actually
called to ask if it had a hiccup in the uploads because of
how small the folder was.
Does anyone know a similar QT codec to PhotoJPEG that can
do Alpha Channel and doesn't disable MultiProcessing in AE
like PNG codec does?
Basically I need an embedded alpha channel codec which
looks pretty much uncompressed, 8-bit is probably fine, is
useable with FCP on Mac and Premiere on PC, and doesn't
take up a TON of space like Animation codec does, which
also takes advantage of AE's MP capabilities.
///Greg Balint
//Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
/321.514.4839
delRAZOR.com/
On 10/5/2012 7:11 AM, Darren H wrote:
Hi Greg,
The only difference is bit rate. HQ gives better
quality at bigger file sizes, though in some cases where
I've compared frames, I've struggled to see the
difference. They're both 10bit.
D.
On Friday, 5 October 2012, Greg Balint wrote:
Can
anyone, off hand, tell me what the diffs are
between HQ and non-HQ?
///Greg Balint
//Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
/321.514.4839
delRAZOR.com/
On 10/4/2012 7:54 PM, Gary Berendsen wrote:
I've been haing that as
well, since cs6, well 5.5 as well.
prores non hq solved it for me.
Gary
Berendsen - VFX Generalist
Czaar
Peter Straat 157-159
1018
PJ Amsterdam
skype:
garyberendsen
I missed
the detail about it showing up in the
final edit. If that's true, this is
something else.
Brian
Also this. I was gonna
mention that. But if they see the
shift in fcp for final edit I
guess it does matter. They can't
just gamma shift it back?
On Oct 4, 2012 7:46 PM, "Brian
Maffitt" < brian@totaltraining.com>
wrote:
Before
you completely panic, I think
you may be seeing a fairly
well-know Quicktime-on-Windows
display bug. It only affects how
the movie looks when played in
Quicktime, not when used in
another application. Take a look
at the same clip in VLC and see
if it looks OK.
> Hey all,
>
> I'm running into some gamma
issues or something, which I've
never seen before.
>
> I've previously had issue
with the H.264 bug, where
renders would come out lighter,
almost looking like their gamma
was bumped up. I know what that
looks like and how to alleviate
it.
>
> This however, is a
completely different ball of
yarn.
>
> Basically.. I can take a
ProRes 422 HQ file from my
client (who wo
|
|
