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@pacbell.net> 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.
>
>> > bigfish@...> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (4) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment