I'm not sure which is better, but the real time tweakability of hardware and the fact that it is real time is attractive to me. Perhaps because of the greater investment in hardware/bigger iron there tends to be more expertise on the operator/engineer side than software solutions. While there may be no technical reason for this in practice this is what I have observed over the years. I would much rather tweak a real time device feeding a broadcast monitor while playing the show down than use a computer interface and trial and error that takes a lot of time waiting for the processing to finish before you can really access the results. Having no experience using these devices I can't speak to any specific issues or shortcomings of either approach.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:44 PM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:The current concern is Hulu. In the past we have had exactly the same workflow with shows that ended up on iTunes but according to the network folks Hulu is being more quality conscious than before. I also found out they are using software "transcoders to fix the master files they made from our tape delivery. FFmpeg was mentioned and a few other choices I can't remember. It seemed they are using software not hardware to make the files Hulu compliant. I think they would be better off with a master run through a more old school Teranex or some other big iron. That just seems the only viable way to not go nuts trying to use less effective software solutions.
---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <bogdan_grigorescu@...> wrote :are you delivering to Europe? B.From: "bigfish@... [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Practical Solution to Hulu Rejection of random Cadence?
Understood, but didn't someone post a little while back their European QC was saying they wanted 2;2;2;4 over 2;3;2;3 so they didn't have to deal with split frames or some such nonsense. The thread was within the last month or so IIRC. Not saying deinterlace would be right but given where we are at now I'm looking for a simple practical approach to process the existing masters.
---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <bogdan_grigorescu@...> wrote :the only de-interlacing that could work here is 'discard' where it actually drops one of the fields every frame, but that creates a jumpy picture(AABBBBCCDD 2:4:2:2 or AABBCCDDDD 2:2:2:4), so it doesn't really cut it.QC will flag this as weird cadence again.BG
From: "bigfish@... [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Practical Solution to Hulu Rejection of random Cadence?
I agree reverse telecine is what needs to be done on random cadence shots but given the issues some are describing with how well reverse telecine can be done with hardware/software would a deinterlace just make it somewhat progressive at 30 frames and shut Hulu up? I know it's not ideal but if with deinterlacing all the split frames were removed, halving the vertical resolution in the process, wouldn't that make it easier for Hulu to compress it as 29.97P and eliminate most of the artifacts they may be seeing with the random cadence they are not willing to deal with so far? I'm just trying to get the train wreck through the station with a minimum of damage. And in light of Oliver's post I think this is a big waste of time that they should be dealing with no us.
---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <bogdan_grigorescu@...> wrote :de-interlace doesn't work here - you need inverse telecine/pulldown removalcheers,BG
From: "bigfish@... [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:56 PM
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Practical Solution to Hulu Rejection of random Cadence?
What about a hardware pass that just deinterlaces the whole show. Sure there might be some occasional duplicate frames but it would alleviate any split frames and more or less stabilize the random cadence. I don't know how you fix everything at this stage with all the motion speed ramps etc...
---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <oliverpeters@...> wrote :First of all, that's utterly insane that it was rejected. Absolutely every filmed TV show done up until most of us started editing in native 24p was a 29.97 interlaced SD show with mixed cadence. The film was telecined with pulldown to transfer masters, from which the show was edited. Therefore, every one of these SD shows has inconsistent pulldown. There's nothing wrong with it if the master is intended to be 1080i or 525i.
Obviously network QC is what it is and they are probably concerned about compression for crappy streaming over the web. Hardware is your best and maybe only option. I believe Teranex will make the adjustments by converting back to 24 internally and then re-applying pulldown. I'm not sure how well it deals with a mix that might include actually 29.97i video content along with the 23.976+3:2. I'm also not sure how well this works with the newer BMD Teranex units. The last time I had to work with one of these was one of their Image Restore boxes back when they were their own company. This may cause some analogies at cuts.
Another way - if it is all 24p original from some source - is to fix it in Media Composer, but you will have to go shot-by-shot. This would get you back to 24fps and then generate an interlaced master with consistent cadence from there. Or just deliver 24p if they take that.
- Oliver
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (19) |
No comments:
Post a Comment