That makes more sense than 'guessing'. Thanks!
________________________
Greg Huson
Secret Headquarters, Inc
Greg (at) SecretHQ.com
www.SecretHQ.com
DigitalServicsStation.com
On Nov 16, 2012, at 7:34 AM, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:
> As long as the source material is labeled as "Progressive" in the Field
> Motion column in the bin, the motion adapter will add correct 2:3 pulldown.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM, ksirul <kenavid2@glueedit.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> When MC adds a motion adapter, it isn't actually adding 3:2 pulldown
>> right? It's just a 125% Motion Effect?
>>
>>
>> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> You have it, although the way I read it, you may be adding (or being
>> forced
>>> to add) multiple redundant steps. If this were my show, I would have just
>>> cut everything into a master 59.94i sequence. Not sure why there's
>> bouncing
>>> back and forth between 23.98p and 59.94i sequences, when MC can handle
>> the
>>> 23.98 material perfectly fine in the 59.94i sequence using motion
>> adapters.
>>> But anyway, once you have everything in your master 59.94i sequence, yes,
>>> the 23.98 sections will have motion adapters added to them automatically.
>>> You can definitely mixdown those sections, but to avoid clutter and
>>> confusion, I usually just render. Rendering the sequence bakes in the
>>> motion adapters - you then in effect have an entirely 59.94i sequence,
>> and
>>> any file outputs can be done using QT ref or same-as-source (as every
>>> referenced file is now either a natively 59.94i video file or a rendered
>>> (baked in) 59.94i file). Avoiding mixing down is just a preference for me
>>> at this stage, since it makes things much easier when the inevitable last
>>> minute note comes down and we've got to change something. Then I don't
>> have
>>> to remove a mixdown and revert to a previous sequence to make that
>> happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM, John Moore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I'm doing an hour special that has a few sketches shot on Red, oh
>> joy,
>>>> at 23.98. For the studio shoot of the main show it is all 59.94. We
>> took
>>>> the sketches and cut them into a 59.94 sequence to build the studio
>>>> playback reel. The offline is being done with the line cut and isos and
>>>> the playback reel. I haven't had to deal much with mix and match but I
>>>> figure I will color correct the sketches in their native format
>> timelines
>>>> and then when I get the final online sequence I will eye match and cut
>> in
>>>> the 23.98 sequences into the 59.94 final timeline. Avid will add the
>>>> appropriate motion adapter and voila away we go. Am I missing something
>>>> here? Will I need to do video mixdowns of the 23.98 sequences to
>> output to
>>>> tape or file. I'm delivering a file as primary and tape as backup. I
>> seem
>>>> to have read that the mixdown will be required for a QT ref movie do
>> to the
>>>> differing frame rates. Usually I like to export a QT ref for multiple
>> audio
>>>> channels and use QT Pro to make the final file. This has worked well
>> even
>>>> when I had to go to ProRes files. There is the option to export an
>> XDCam
>>>> file which would require that fake disk folder thingy and an export to
>>>> device IIRC. Can someone shed some more light on the need for a video
>>>> mixdown of the 23.98 sections or do I have to mixdown the entire show?
>> TIA
>>>>
>>>> John Moore
>>>>
>>>> Barking Trout Productions
>>>>
>>>> Studio City, CA
>>>>
>>>> bigfish@...
>>
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (6) |
No comments:
Post a Comment