After last weeks Blackmagic event in Burbank two of the Davinci engineers spoke with me and they made the mistake of giving me their contact info. I have been sending all these posts to them directly and they have a sample of our aaf.
I'm just not sure when to start sending them OKI Dog posts. ;-)
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Pale <pale.edit@...> wrote:
>
> Please make sure you are in contact with Blackmagic with your observations.
> They are usually pretty good about fixing stuff once the problem can be
> identified and reproduced.
>
> On Sunday, July 28, 2013, Greg Huson wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I remember seeing that in Resolve with... something. Can't remember what
> > or how I solved it, so my memory's as useful to you as it is to me. Are you
> > selecting "handle mixed frame rates' before loading any footage and the
> > aaf? I wanna say I was having the same problem, but using XML, and that
> > fixed it, but I could be forgetting some other detail- that was during v8
> > which seems ancient history now.
> >
> > 'Handle mixed frame rates' does solve a lot of problems.
> >
> > GH
> > ----------------------------
> > Greg Huson
> > Chief, Secret Headquarters, Inc
> > 323 677 2092
> > SecretHQ.com
> > DigitalServiceStation.com
> >
> > On Jul 28, 2013, at 0:33, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I just wanted to update everyone on something I've discovered about our
> > skipping
> > > frames with an aaf import from Avid to Resolve 9.1.5. It seems it's not
> > a skip
> > > every so often but a skip in every shot somewhere in the middle when we
> > import
> > > an aaf. I tried the same sequence using an edl and we do not get the
> > skipped
> > > frames. I would now speculate this might have to do with the aaf being
> > > interpreted as if the outpoint of the source time code is inclusive when
> > in fact
> > > it is exclusive. I seem to recall a setting related to edls being
> > interpreted
> > > as inclusive or exclusive but I can't seem to find it again in Resolve.
> > Am I
> > > misremembering this setting? Perhaps I am confusing the inclusive vs.
> > exclusive
> > > setting with Red Cine X Pro.
> > >
> > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Moore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This one hour show was offlined in Avid using downconverts from
> > multiple Red Epics. The finished offline sequence was decomposed in avid
> > and then stringouts of the reels were made into timelines to facilitate
> > exporting aafs of the string outs linked to the origial R3D files. This was
> > done to transcode the need footage to DNX 220. Apparently the AE could not
> > get his Avid 6.x to do the transcodes from ama linked R3D files. My similar
> > system does but his doesn't. So the transcodes were done in Resolve. I'm
> > not sure if those transcodes were then linked back up in Avid and a new aaf
> > of the timeline was sent to Resolve for color correction but that is my
> > guess at this point. The problem we are seeing now is that the .mov in
> > ProresHQ exported from Resolve of the final show is skipping frames ever
> > minute or so. These are a complete skipped frames that I have confirmed are
> > not skipped on the original R3D files. My gut feels like something is
> > > > going on between 29.97 and true 30. The footage was shot 29.97P but
> > I'm wondering if in one of the myriad of transcodes there could have been
> > some link in the chain that was trying to in essence frame rate convert and
> > thereby caused the skipping frame every so often. I stepped through field
> > by field or Psf by Psf to be more accurate and it's definately skipping
> > over a complete frame. Nothing like a frame being doubled up it's a missing
> > frame that exists in the original. Anybody seen this type of behavior? I
> > was not involved in the workflow so I'm trying to back engineer something
> > that hasn't really been engineered from the start. 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]
>
Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (11) |
No comments:
Post a Comment