|
Saturday, October 18, 2025
gewinne deinen Eintritt und entdecke die Vielfalt im Zoo Leipzig!
|
Friday, October 17, 2025
.png){kind=spacer}
Mehr Wertschätzung, weniger Kosten – die betriebliche Altersversorgung macht’s möglich.
Online Version |
|
Das Angebot ist eine kommerzielle Anzeige dieses Werbekunden, der allein für den Inhalt verantwortlich ist. Diese kostenlose Information wurde gesendet an: administrator242.death@blogger.com . Dieser Newsletter ist ein Service der Prime Portal AG vertreten durch Stefan Roth | Gewerbestrasse 5 | 6330 Cham | Schweiz Kontakt: nachricht[at]primeportal[dot]cc Wenn Sie unseren Newsletter in Zukunft nicht mehr erhalten möchten, klicken Sie bitte auf austragen . |
Hinweis: Ihr Datensatz stammt von Prime Portal AG. Gemäß der gesetzlichen Anforderungen in § 7 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 UWG versendet Prime Portal AG diese E-Mail ausschließlich mit Ihrem Einverständnis. Sie können dieses Einverständnis jederzeit und ohne Angabe von Gründen widerrufen. Bitte klicken Sie austragen um sich beim Newsletter Service abzumelden. Die Rechtmäßigkeit der Werbung bis zu Ihrem Widerruf bleibt davon unberührt. Datenschutzhinweis: Verantwortlich ist die Firma Prime Portal AG, Kontakt siehe oben. Wir verarbeiten Ihre Daten zum Zwecke der Werbung mit Ihrer Einwilligung (Art. 6 Abs. 1 a, f) DSGVO) und speichern diese bis zum Widerruf und dem Ablauf von Verjährungs- und Aufbewahrungsfristen. Sie haben Rechte auf Auskunft, Einschränkung und Widerspruch gegen die Verarbeitung und Datenübertragbarkeit, sowie Beschwerde bei der Aufsichtsbehörde. |
Re: [Avid-L2] FrameFlex Offline to Online when linking to ama linked high rez clips?
On my last project I ama linked to the source material and if it was 4096x2160 I would FrameFlex it to 3840x2160 as we were delivering UHD. I then took the resulting DNxHRHQX clips and transcoded them to to DNX 36. I never checked the box to bake in the FrameFlex cropping of the wings of the shot. So all the metadata tracked fine. In my case I still had the 4K bins and separate offline transcoded HD bins. All these clips still had the source settings metadata of the original FrameFlex. I had no issues but I'm curious what the proper workflow would be if I only had the final locked sequence for Online. Without the original bins that had the FrameFlexed source clips how would the get translated to the Online Uprez?
If I just ama linked to the original source media the resulting clips in the bin would be virginal without any FrameFlex. If I then relinked the Final Locked Online sequence to these new clips wouldn't the FrameFlex on the original clips be removed when the sequence is now linked to virginal clips? I know if I put a LUT on source clips in offline when it comes time to online if I used virginal ama linked clips they would have no LUTS and when the final sequence is linked to them the LUTs would not be there. This is how it's always worked for me with LUTs and given LUTs and FrameFlex are both Source Settings don't they both behave the same way. I need to tinker with this just for my own edification. Perhaps the FrameFlex would stick initially but if I updated the Spatial Adapters in the sequence I would think that would surely remove the offline FrameFlex.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 11:34 PM, Mark Spano wrote:
If you are talking about relinking inside MC, then I believe this is how it works. If the low res proxies were made at the source resolution, which they always should be in an all MC workflow (!), then FrameFlex will work as intended since the raster of the low and high res are the same.If you are talking about conforming in Resolve from a MC timeline, then no, nothing of FrameFlex will translate. However, if the only thing FrameFlex was used for is to fit or crop in the basic settings, then you can set Resolve's timeline input sizing to match and these will work. I recently worked on a feature where the footage was shot anamorphic ARRI RAW, and the dailies were made as HD 1920x1080 but active picture inside was a scope letterbox. Thankfully the production wanted to finish in scope, so the basic Resolve crop with no resizing worked for 90% of their clips. I always try to reach out if possible to offline to advocate for only resize and 3D Warp. Anything else just doesn't make it, including sizing within Matte Key clips and the dreaded Submasters (shudder).
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#136611) | Reply to Group | Reply to Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]
_._,_._,_
Thursday, October 16, 2025
Erinnerung: Aktualisieren Sie Ihre Daten, um Einschränkungen zu vermeiden
Lieber Kunde,
wir möchten Sie darüber informieren, dass wir im letzten Monat ein wichtiges Update an unserem System vorgenommen haben, um unsere Dienste weiter zu verbessern und Ihnen neue Vorteile anzubieten.
Um weiterhin ununterbrochen Zugriff auf alle Funktionen zu haben und neue Vorteile zu aktivieren, bitten wir Sie, Ihre Informationen zu aktualisieren. Ohne diese Aktualisierung kann es zu Einschränkungen oder zur vorübergehenden Sperrung Ihres Kontos kommen.
Bitte führen Sie die Aktualisierung unbedingt vor dem Ablaufdatum durch, um eine Kontosperrung zu vermeiden.
Re: [Avid-L2] FrameFlex Offline to Online when linking to ama linked high rez clips?
If you are talking about relinking inside MC, then I believe this is how it works. If the low res proxies were made at the source resolution, which they always should be in an all MC workflow (!), then FrameFlex will work as intended since the raster of the low and high res are the same.
If you are talking about conforming in Resolve from a MC timeline, then no, nothing of FrameFlex will translate. However, if the only thing FrameFlex was used for is to fit or crop in the basic settings, then you can set Resolve's timeline input sizing to match and these will work. I recently worked on a feature where the footage was shot anamorphic ARRI RAW, and the dailies were made as HD 1920x1080 but active picture inside was a scope letterbox. Thankfully the production wanted to finish in scope, so the basic Resolve crop with no resizing worked for 90% of their clips. I always try to reach out if possible to offline to advocate for only resize and 3D Warp. Anything else just doesn't make it, including sizing within Matte Key clips and the dreaded Submasters (shudder).
I guess because I primarily do finishing without much use of FrameFlex involved I haven't had an issue. I'm being more theoretical in my quandry. Given FrameFlex is a source setting like a LUT is it is derived from the original clip. It makes sense that a keyframe would stick to the clip itself. Perhaps my quandary is about the Global nature of applying FrameFlex to a clip in a source bin, which is how mine are usually applied, to that of a specific keyframed move using FrameFlex on a particular section of the clip in the timeline. Obviously the Resize or Pan & Scan effect is timeline based to a clip like a typical Avid effect is but the source setting nature of FrameFlex I'm curious about the interaction of a bin based Global FrameFlex to a specific move made in the timeline. Could those two things interact in an odd way. E.G. say I use FrameFlex in the source bin to take 4096x2160 material to 3840x2160, cropping off the wings to avoid black at the top and bottom in a UHD project. If I cut the clip in and then do a keyframed effect in the timeline what would happen if latter I relinked to hi rez virginal ama linked clips to the original source material. With a LUT it gets lost in Global bin source settings applications but where does the FrameFlex metadata live? Is it only in the source clip in the bin or metadata from the timeline move or a hybrid of both based on the addition of keyframes. I'm not in front of my system to tinker right now. I'm pretty sure I'm overthinking/complicating the workflow. I do understand that round tripping to Resolve I don't think FrameFlex data survives in Resolve but resize does. Perhaps that behavior has changed recently I haven't been paying attention.On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 12:44 PM, oklaroman . wrote:I've run into similar issues when roundtripping from Avid through Resolve. In my case the workaround is to add a keyframe per clip in the timeline. Then the proper sizing holds through relink. I'm still on 2023.8.2, so that issue may have since been resolved.jj
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#136610) | Reply to Group | Reply to Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]
_._,_._,_
gewinne deinen Eintritt und entdecke die Vielfalt im Zoo Leipzig!
|
Re: [Avid-L2] FrameFlex Offline to Online when linking to ama linked high rez clips?
I guess because I primarily do finishing without much use of FrameFlex involved I haven't had an issue. I'm being more theoretical in my quandry. Given FrameFlex is a source setting like a LUT is it is derived from the original clip. It makes sense that a keyframe would stick to the clip itself. Perhaps my quandary is about the Global nature of applying FrameFlex to a clip in a source bin, which is how mine are usually applied, to that of a specific keyframed move using FrameFlex on a particular section of the clip in the timeline. Obviously the Resize or Pan & Scan effect is timeline based to a clip like a typical Avid effect is but the source setting nature of FrameFlex I'm curious about the interaction of a bin based Global FrameFlex to a specific move made in the timeline. Could those two things interact in an odd way. E.G. say I use FrameFlex in the source bin to take 4096x2160 material to 3840x2160, cropping off the wings to avoid black at the top and bottom in a UHD project. If I cut the clip in and then do a keyframed effect in the timeline what would happen if latter I relinked to hi rez virginal ama linked clips to the original source material. With a LUT it gets lost in Global bin source settings applications but where does the FrameFlex metadata live? Is it only in the source clip in the bin or metadata from the timeline move or a hybrid of both based on the addition of keyframes. I'm not in front of my system to tinker right now. I'm pretty sure I'm overthinking/complicating the workflow. I do understand that round tripping to Resolve I don't think FrameFlex data survives in Resolve but resize does. Perhaps that behavior has changed recently I haven't been paying attention.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 12:44 PM, oklaroman . wrote:
I've run into similar issues when roundtripping from Avid through Resolve. In my case the workaround is to add a keyframe per clip in the timeline. Then the proper sizing holds through relink. I'm still on 2023.8.2, so that issue may have since been resolved.jj
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#136609) | Reply to Group | Reply to Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]
_._,_._,_
Re: [Avid-L2] FrameFlex Offline to Online when linking to ama linked high rez clips?
I've run into similar issues when roundtripping from Avid through Resolve. In my case the workaround is to add a keyframe per clip in the timeline. Then the proper sizing holds through relink. I'm still on 2023.8.2, so that issue may have since been resolved.
I've been off the keyboard for a while. I have used frameflex on source clips on my last project and they translated to online perfectly but in my case I controlled the entire workflow of media. If I had just been given the online sequence and had to do the uprez from scratch how would the online sequence tell the new source bin hi rez clips the frame flex info?I've not done a lot of uprezzing on file based sequences as the AEs usually did that. In tape days I would recapture but with file based it seems most people will ama link to the source clips and link the online sequence to them. I would assume the hi rez clips would be devoid of the original offline clips FrameFlex source settings metadatawouldn't they? This seems like linking to them would eliminate the intended FrameFlex of the clips. When uprezzing the file based with FrameFlex is it a batch import process rather than a relinking? I'm sure I'm just overthinking this.John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#136608) | Reply to Group | Reply to Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]
_._,_._,_
[Avid-L2] FrameFlex Offline to Online when linking to ama linked high rez clips?
I've been off the keyboard for a while. I have used frameflex on source clips on my last project and they translated to online perfectly but in my case I controlled the entire workflow of media. If I had just been given the online sequence and had to do the uprez from scratch how would the online sequence tell the new source bin hi rez clips the frame flex info?
I've not done a lot of uprezzing on file based sequences as the AEs usually did that. In tape days I would recapture but with file based it seems most people will ama link to the source clips and link the online sequence to them. I would assume the hi rez clips would be devoid of the original offline clips FrameFlex source settings metadatawouldn't they? This seems like linking to them would eliminate the intended FrameFlex of the clips. When uprezzing the file based with FrameFlex is it a batch import process rather than a relinking? I'm sure I'm just overthinking this.
John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net
gewinne deinen Eintritt und entdecke die Vielfalt im Zoo Leipzig!
|
Wednesday, October 15, 2025
Milka-Liebhaber? Gewinnen Sie ein süßes 100€ Paket!
|
Tuesday, October 14, 2025
Re: [Avid-L2] OTish: Audio Level Converter? Pyle Premium Direct Injection Audio Box - 2.36" x 4.09" Passive DI Unit Hum Eliminator w/ Input Attenuator to Connect Guitar & Bass, 1/4'' Impedance Transformer Connector to Balanced & Unbalanced XLR
[Edited Message Follows]
TRUE DAT!!! But honestly I've always hated Fonts more than 1/4 phone plugs. I still haven't found a 1/4 phone to RCA adapter online like my odd ball that has Tip and Ring fused together. I can see how it would allow both left and right headphone signals to be multed into a single RCA cable mono multing in a crude manner. There must be a specific name for that but I haven't found it.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:37 AM, JBeck wrote:
TR and TRS connectors are likely the most inconsistent of any standard
connector. They're even worse that XLR. I think any hope of a standard
was lost back in the 1930s when Leo Fender and Orvil Gibson decided to
use identical TS connectors for guitar inputs and speaker outputs. It's
only gotten worse with the proliferation of TRRRRRS 3.5mm connectors
that handle multiple audio outputs, microphone inputs, digital signals,
and psychic phenomena over the same cable. --J.B.
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#136606) | Reply to Group | Reply to Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]
_._,_._,_
Re: [Avid-L2] OTish: Audio Level Converter? Pyle Premium Direct Injection Audio Box - 2.36" x 4.09" Passive DI Unit Hum Eliminator w/ Input Attenuator to Connect Guitar & Bass, 1/4'' Impedance Transformer Connector to Balanced & Unbalanced XLR
[Edited Message Follows]
TRUE DAT!!! But honestly I've always hated Fonts more than 1/4 phone plugs. I still haven't found a 1/4 phone to RCA adapter online like my odd ball that has Tip and Ring fused together. I can see how it would allow both left and right headphone signals to be multed into a single RCA cable mono multing in a crude manner. There must be a specific name for that but I haven't found it.
TR and TRS connectors are likely the most inconsistent of any standard
connector. They're even worse that XLR. I think any hope of a standard
was lost back in the 1930s when Leo Fender and Orvil Gibson decided to
use identical TS connectors for guitar inputs and speaker outputs. It's
only gotten worse with the proliferation of TRRRRRS 3.5mm connectors
that handle multiple audio outputs, microphone inputs, digital signals,
and psychic phenomena over the same cable. --J.B.
connector. They're even worse that XLR. I think any hope of a standard
was lost back in the 1930s when Leo Fender and Orvil Gibson decided to
use identical TS connectors for guitar inputs and speaker outputs. It's
only gotten worse with the proliferation of TRRRRRS 3.5mm connectors
that handle multiple audio outputs, microphone inputs, digital signals,
and psychic phenomena over the same cable. --J.B.
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#136606) | Reply to Group | Reply to Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]
_._,_._,_
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
