So I did a few short tests and if I take a section from the body of the show which is all safe color mixdowned on an upper track to DNX 220X with a few titles above the safe color mixdown. The titles are DNX 220 but the resulting QT ref export to self contained QT and then re ama'd clip act fine. As soon as I include a section of slate or bars tone and slate at the top, both of which are DNX 220 the problem occurs on the subsequent ama'd clip.
My assumption based on this is it's a lot like how Avid looks at the first piece of media to determine the sequence codec. Not much of an issue today like it was in the past when you couldn't mix and match various resolutions. The second assumption is that once seen as DNX 220X the ama clip can still handle DNX 220 media like the titles I mentioned but it seems the opposite is not true. Perhaps even though the title itself is DNX 220 when it is over DNX 220X media it renders to DNX 220X following the same as source render settings. Just speculating based on what I'm seeing.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> â„ž filled!
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > So Doc, you're saying take two mixdowns and call me in the morning. ;-)
> >
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not know enough about what is happening to explain what you're
> > seeing,
> > > but I do know that making a QT ref export from a multiple codec sequence
> > > contains references to all of those pieces in the resulting QT. When you
> > do
> > > a save as self-contained in QT Pro, you are not converting all codecs to
> > > one, rather it's just adding all of the pieces you're referencing
> > together
> > > into a package you can take with you. So the resulting self-contained QT
> > > will have multiple codecs as well. This is true for audio as well - you
> > can
> > > have 16/48 audio and 24/48 audio in your sequence on the same tracks and
> > > they will come out as separate tracks in a ref export. A subsequent
> > > self-contained QT saved from this export will maintain the separate audio
> > > tracks. So the solution, for me, is always mixdown before ref exporting.
> > > Whatever is happening (especially in your case here) is too much of a
> > > brain-bender, so I mixdown and save a headache.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The curious thing is this is a self contained movie that was made from
> > the
> > > > QT Ref. I would think, perhaps in error, that the resulting QT .mov
> > would
> > > > all be the same codec. I guess my root questions is do applications
> > see DNX
> > > > 220 and DNX 220X as different codecs and I'd extend the question to
> > include
> > > > DNX 145 and 145X. Are these all the same DNX codec or are they
> > different
> > > > enough to explain what I'm seeing on my end.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not think most applications (including MC) like Quicktimes with
> > > > > multiple resolution video. Before you do a ref export, duplicate the
> > > > > sequence, and replace all video tracks with a mixdown. This will
> > ensure
> > > > the
> > > > > resulting QT ref points to only one clip with one resolution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:54 PM, John Moore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm on mac 0S 10.8.6 SNDX V 5.5.3.7. I've always done QT ref
> > exports of
> > > > > > my shows to maintain the audio stems. Now we've gone HD. The AEs
> > > > captured
> > > > > > DNX220X which created issues with BCC 5.0.4 renders. I posted about
> > > > this
> > > > > > in an earlier thread and it seems there is some issue on my system
> > or
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > a bug that won't render 16 bit effects processing on some if not
> > all
> > > > of the
> > > > > > BCC 5.0.4 effects. I found that if the media is DNX220 then when
> > set to
> > > > > > automatic processing the BCC effect render okay. I've now asked my
> > AEs
> > > > to
> > > > > > capture everything DNX220. Now I have sequences with a mixture of
> > > > DNX220
> > > > > > and DNX 220X. I find I can export a QT ref and then save as a self
> > > > > > contained movie in QT Pro 7.6.6. I always check my files with an
> > ama
> > > > link
> > > > > > back to make sure the levels are correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've noticed on our first HD episode the ama link had whacky blown
> > out
> > > > > > like posterized levels in some sections of the show. Scrubbing up
> > and
> > > > down
> > > > > > and back to the section and it was okay some of the time. Now on
> > > > episode 2
> > > > > > the whole show where ever there is source video and not graphics
> > alone
> > > > is
> > > > > > showing the same whacky levels. Color bars are fine as is a texted
> > > > credit
> > > > > > back plate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've pulled some sections and examined the reference and render
> > clips.
> > > > > > For color bars the media is DNX 220. For sections of the show the
> > > > media is
> > > > > > DNX 220X and for the Safe Color Limit Rendered Track the media is
> > DNX
> > > > > > 220X. My exported and self contained files look fine in QT pro and
> > if
> > > > I do
> > > > > > a traditional import back into Avid they are fine. It's just the
> > ama
> > > > link
> > > > > > that is whacky.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could these issues be the mismatch of bars at DNX 220 and most of
> > the
> > > > > > source material and safe color render being at DNX 220X? Also on
> > the
> > > > ama
> > > > > > linked clip back to the episode the color space says 601 while
> > when I
> > > > check
> > > > > > the safe color render media in avid it's 709. Not sure what's up
> > any
> > > > > > suggestions? The network has not complained about the files so they
> > > > must
> > > > > > work for them too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Moore
> > > > > > Barking Trout Productions
> > > > > > Studio City, CA
> > > > > > bigfish@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (8) |
No comments:
Post a Comment