"Professionals understand this stuff"
Oh if only this were true in my world. My next 4K project has 4096_2160, our deliver format, footage as well as 5K, 6K and some other odd size. We deliver 1.9:1 4096x2160 but they shot the 5K and 6K in 16:9 format for absolutely no reason other than they could. Nobody asked for it to be shot in varying sizes. In some cases it was a shoot in a different country but even here in the good ole USA when the crew was told to match the out of country shoot they didn't shoot 4096x2160 but opted for 6K or 5K at 16:9.
I'm getting to learn more about frame flex etc... but a complete waste of time and effort. These are relatively large multicam stage show shoots so it's hard for me to believe there aren't a number of professionals on the crew. It seems production just wants to flip every switch and use all the options even when they are not requested. It seems no matter what post says in the field they just do whatever the hell they feel like and leave it in our laps to sort out.
Given the systemic nature of these issues I really get the impression many professionals don't understand all this new stuff. Shooting Log format in an 8 bit codec comes to mind as an example of production drinking the LUT Koolaid and leaving me with footage that gets flagged in QC with solarized blacks, which I take to mean quantizing/banding like errors they see which are a byproduct of stretching the log material back out. It was pointed out to me by one of the L2 QC gurus that 8 bit and shooting log is asking for trouble. And don't get me started on the boneheads that shoot log for chromakey work on the 8 bit formats.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:18 AM, David Dodson davaldod@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Understood. But being as I exist mainly in the feature world, there is a HUGE difference between 23.98 and true 24. We don't use shorthand since the the consequences can be dire. In other words, me no like shorthand.
On Jan 12, 2017, at 8:01 AM, Shane Ross <shanerosseditor@...> wrote:30fps is many peoples shorthand for 29.97.
ShaneSent from my pocket calculator.
On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:24 AM, 'Dom Q. Silverio' domqsilverio@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:30.00 fps does exist. You can create a project for it. DNX codec types are the exact same ones for 29.97 (145 / 220).But I would double check that. 30 fps is not an on air standard. It is likely a digital delivery (video games, YouTube, etc.).Dom Q. SilverioOn Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:13 AM, David Dodson davaldod@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:I'm being told an incoming show is shooting '30fps' using a Canon XF300. But is there really such thing as '30fps'? Might they actually be shooting 29.97? And if that's true, then what DNxHD resolution should I ask them to transcode to if the goal is to cut at a good resolution for pilot submission? 220x should be fine, right?Thanks!
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (7) |
No comments:
Post a Comment