Return-Path: Received: from host23.canaca.com ([66.49.161.151] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4974414 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:12:18 +0100 Received: from 207-195-100-23.regn.static.sasknet.sk.ca ([207.195.100.23]:58224 helo=[192.168.1.28]) by host23.canaca.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1U5IYp-0007cA-7B for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:18:23 -0500 From: Jack Tunnicliffe Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3D034930-6DAF-410D-A9C5-2021EB2ED289" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: [AE] Scaling up SD to HD in Premiere Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:18:22 -0600 References: To: "After Effects Mail List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host23.canaca.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - media-motion.tv X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - javapost.ca X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host23.canaca.com: authenticated_id: jack+javapost.ca/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: --Apple-Mail=_3D034930-6DAF-410D-A9C5-2021EB2ED289 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 This might surprise you but I'd suggest an NVIDIA GTX 285 if you are = going for a Mac compatible card. It sounds like you want to move into = the Davinci world and if you do this is the best card on a Mac. They can = be a little hard to find but we managed to pick up a couple of the Mac = versions of these cards on ebay. I think we paid about $500 per card.=20 We run several Davinci Resolve systems here and the GTX 285 is faster = than the Quadro 4000, even though its a newer and supposedly faster = card. I purchased the 4000 thinking I'd up my performance and soon = realized my real time performance was reduced in Resolve, less nodes of = correction with the 4000 and went back to the 285.=20 You can install the Lite version of Resolve for free. It is fully = functioning unless you decide you want to work at resolutions beyond HD = for renders out. Otherwise Resolve is a fully functioning application, = which still blows me away. You can contact me off the list if you need = any further information. We have a lot of experience with Resolve = systems.=20 Jack Tunnicliffe Java Post Production 402, 2206 Dewdney ave. Regina, SK Canada S4R 1H3 P. 306-777-0150 cell. 306-536-4321 www.javapost.ca ______________ On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Jonathan Penzner = wrote: > Thanks, Bruce. >=20 > Any suggestions for a CUDA card? I'm running Snow Leopard in a = MacPro3,1 Tower. I'm not crazy about upgrading to Mountain Lion as I = still use FCP and Color. Color breaks with 10.7 and above, I believe. = I've been wanting to move to Da Vinci but the $1,000 is a hurdle I can't = jump over right now. Anyway, it's late, been working all day and I'm = losing my mind. >=20 > Thanks also to Brian Klein for the tip about the high quality check = box. >=20 >=20 > Jonathan >=20 >=20 > On Feb 11, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Bruce Wainer wrote: >=20 >> I don't know the names of the algorithms off the top of my head, but = here's the order of scaling quality: >> After Effects, regardless of hardware, is lowest >> Premiere Pro without a CUDA-enabled video card (so running in = software only mode) >> Premiere Pro with a suitable CUDA card, either directly supported or = manually added to the PP list >>=20 >> So use Premiere Pro, but you'll get better quality (and more speed) = by adding a new(ish) video card. >>=20 >> Bruce Wainer >>=20 >> On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:33 AM, Jonathan Penzner = wrote: >>=20 >>> According to what I've read on the list, scaling footage up in = Premiere is better than scaling in AE or FCP. Is the quality dependent = on the graphics card? Or is it software-based? For the job I'm working = on now, speed isn't important =96 quality is paramount, and my graphics = card is o l d . . . .=20 >>>=20 >>> Many thanks in advance. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Jonathan >=20 >=20 >=20 > JONATHAN PENZNER > SUNDANCE/REALTIME > VIDEO EDITING =95 MOTION GRAPHICS =95 DESIGN >=20 > | STUDIO 626 345-0285 | > | CELL 818 321-2890 | >=20 > SUREAL@CHARTER.NET >=20 --Apple-Mail=_3D034930-6DAF-410D-A9C5-2021EB2ED289 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 This = might surprise you but I'd suggest an NVIDIA GTX 285 if you are going = for a Mac compatible card. It sounds like you want to move into the = Davinci world and if you do this is the best card on a Mac. They can be = a little hard to find but we managed to pick up a couple of the Mac = versions of these cards on ebay. I think we paid about $500 per = card. 

We run several Davinci Resolve systems = here and the GTX 285 is faster than the Quadro 4000, even though its a = newer and supposedly faster card. I purchased the 4000 thinking I'd up = my performance and soon realized my real time performance was reduced in = Resolve, less nodes of correction with the 4000 and went back to the = 285. 

You can install the Lite version of = Resolve for free. It is fully functioning unless you decide you want to = work at resolutions beyond HD for renders out. Otherwise Resolve is a = fully functioning application, which still blows me away. You can = contact me off the list if you need any further information. We have a = lot of experience with Resolve systems. 

Jack = Tunnicliffe

402, 2206 = Dewdney ave.

Regina, SK

Canada

S4R 1H3

P. 306-777-0150

cell. = 306-536-4321

www.javapost.ca


On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Jonathan Penzner <sureal@charter.net> = wrote:

Thanks, = Bruce.

Any suggestions for a CUDA card? I'm = running Snow Leopard in a MacPro3,1 Tower. I'm not crazy about = upgrading to Mountain Lion as I still use FCP and Color. Color breaks = with 10.7 and above, I believe. I've been wanting to move to Da Vinci = but the $1,000 is a hurdle I can't jump over right now. Anyway, it's = late, been working all day and I'm losing my = mind.

Thanks also to Brian Klein for the tip = about the high quality check = box.


Jonathan

=
On Feb 11, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Bruce Wainer wrote:

I don't know the names of the algorithms off = the top of my head, but here's the order of scaling = quality:
 After Effects, regardless of hardware, is = lowest
Premiere Pro without a CUDA-enabled video card (so = running in software only mode)
Premiere Pro with a suitable = CUDA card, either directly supported or manually added to the PP = list

So use Premiere Pro, but you'll get better = quality (and more speed) by adding a new(ish) video = card.

Bruce Wainer

On Feb 12, 2013, at = 1:33 AM, Jonathan Penzner <sureal@charter.net> = wrote:

According = to what I've read on the list, scaling footage up in Premiere = is better than scaling in AE or FCP. Is the quality dependent on the = graphics card? Or is it software-based? For the job I'm working on now, = speed isn't important  =96 quality is paramount, and my graphics = card is  o l d . . . . 

Many thanks = in = advance.


Jonathan



JONATHAN = PENZNER
VIDEO EDITING =95 MOTION GRAPHICS =95 = DESIGN
| STUDIO 626 = 345-0285  CELL = 818 = 321-2890 SUREAL@CHARTER.NET


= --Apple-Mail=_3D034930-6DAF-410D-A9C5-2021EB2ED289--