I agree with Quick Time being an albatross. There is no consistency in
maintaining the notorious QT gamma shift . Check out this recent discussion
on the Avid Community forums.
Multiple Gamma problems/5DMKII/Avid DNxHD120 MXF - Avid Community
http://bit.ly/hlBBwB
Just having programs like Perian or the Canon software codec's installed can
effect viewing QuickTime viewing
levels on a computer screen. As an example by removing the Perian codec
changed the gamma levels of exported QuickTime files that previously looked
washed out. Same files changed in the quick time viewer without re-doing the
transcode.
Though I think Quick Time is so entrenched across software platforms as a
transfer vehicle that it will be with us forever much like the QWERTY
keyboard.
Robert Alsop @
Red Truck
Video Delivered!
----- Original Message -----
From: "oliverpetersvidy" <oliverpeters@oliverpeters.com>
To: <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:20 PM
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: MC exporting to QuickTime how to get it right?
>> Job ter Burg wrote:
>> Again, I think QuickTime is the issue and Avid's
>> way to make that work is use the Avid QT codec.
>
> I agree. QuickTime is not a professional video architecture. It was
> developed as a multimedia application for computer-based presentations. It
> currently lives on as a consumer media player and a set of legacy codecs.
> No one has true control of what QT does to a file except for Apple.
> Everyone else is reverse-engineering to get the desired results.
>
> Avid QT-in and Avid QT-out is controllable because Avid designed it to
> work and controls the codec. Conversions to other formats are a bit
> unpredictable. For example, I can convert Avid QT files to ProRes using
> Compressor or I can convert them using Squeeze (or other). QT will display
> the Compressor-encoded files with expanded levels (to the computer
> screen), while the other encoded files will be washed out. Yet, both
> encodings are actually the same. The difference lies in the QT player and
> profiles that have been written into the file. This is ONLY a display
> issue.
>
> Then you can add the differences between QTX and QT7. It's amazing how bad
> QTX actually is. It's great with H264 or uncompressed and completely
> abysmal with ProRes files. Go figure!
>
> If you want to get a sense of how others feel, check out the various
> comments at the REDuser forum. They have the same questions, concerns and
> complaints, because they are trying to figure out how best to deal with
> grading RED images. The general consensus is that if you want predictable
> results, use MXF, DPX or TIFF.
>
> - Oliver
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
> your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
> on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment