It just looked smooth (client had just thrown the 29.97 into a 23.98 FCP sequence and it was very studdery as expected). Teranex made it look like it was supposed to. As far as graphics and animation, thats a different story. I would just have the designer rerender at 23.98 if possible.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> Just curious how great can a 29.97 to 23.98 look? I know in the past when taking computer animation from 29.97 to 23.98/24 it was problematic and the producers tried several boxes and ended up with the Yukon at Sony. They went from 29.97 to 23.98 then to 50I. According to the producer the 23.98 looked worse than the 50I. Go figure. I don't do much that goes through these conversions, at least not that I have to deal with in the long run. Curious how 29.97 to 23.98 can look great just given the need to drop/merge frames.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "ksirul" <kenavid2@> wrote:
> >
> > Our Mini is old and was having some problems but we did a side by side with the 2D and the 2D certainly looks much better. Easier to use as well. I loved the old big Teranex. I actually thought it made better pictures than Alchemist. So far, the 2D is great. We just used it to convert a bunch of 29.97 SD and HD material to 1080p 23.98 and it looked great.
> >
> > KEN
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Nigel Gourley" <avid-l@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "And what do you think of the conversion.. We have just got one and while it does lots of conversions I think I'd struggle to get away with it for broadcast work?"
> > >
> > > Nigel,
> > >
> > > Why do you say that? Does it do a lower quality conversion than the original Teranex box?
> > >
> > > I know with the old Teranex you had to become sort of an expert to get the right settings for the different material.
> > >
> > > Terence Curren
> > > Burbank, CA
> > > www.alphadogs.tv
> > > www.digitalservicestation.com
> > > www.editorslounge.com
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment