Friday, January 3, 2014

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

"The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious?"

Actually, in most cases, I advise against doing it that way. Editors are often pressed for footage, and often the frames you need are right up against the next cut from the tape/episode/shot. If you have it loaded with pulldown, and you're cutting in 59.94i, you may wind up leaving in blended frames. For example:

If shot A ends here (on a "B" frame):

A B

and shot B begins here (on a "C" frame):

C D A B C D

Then your pulldown added source has a blended frame at the cut point:

AA BB BC CD DD

If you use that, it's a one field flash in your sequence. Multiply that times a lot when cutting long form.

That's why I advocate staying 23.98 all the way until finish, then add the pulldown.

"As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame rates."

I get it - so no, MC will not let you import this 23.98 AAF into anything but a 23.98 project. I was thinking you were getting WAVs. If this is the case, it should be a simple request to the mixer to also provide the same AAF delivery at 29.97, at the start timecode of your choice. Otherwise, you'll have to import 23.98 AAF into 23.98 project, then open that sequence in the 59.94i project and have Avid "convert" the timecode.

"Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not sure on that end."

Actual clock time will not change, but TC start and TC end will be different.


On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
 

I guess at the root of my approach is the way we worked before file based sources were so prevalent. The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious? In my experience the closest thing has been to take 23.98 files and link to ama then transcode/convert them to full res 59.94 media and then take that media and transcode it to offline resolution. But as the prompts say when transcoding/converting there is no way to link back to the original masters with this approach. Perhaps there might be a way with some addition of a tape name but I haven't had a need to try that specific step.

On one project I was able to take a 23.98 radio cut and using an edl make it into a 59.94 timeline sequence. Once that was done I converted the 23.98 clips to 59.94i as listed above. Then I added matching tape names to the original 23.98 clips tape names and it relinked after a little tinkering. I was rather pleased at that result but since that was several months ago I don't remember all the specific tweaks along the way.

As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame rates. I would imagine if I were just importing the audio stems Avid really just cares about samples and not frame rate. Not sure if the same holds true for an aaf import given that is more like a sequence it may want to convert the sequence to the native frame rate. Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not sure on that end.



--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> "Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> onlined in a 23.98 project."
>
> That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience,
> since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the
> very last thing you do.
>
> "Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94
> sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will
> have a random cadence between shots."
>
> Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk
> of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter =
> perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready
> for tape output or file output.
>
> "If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> accurate to the universal mastered tape"
>
> I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that
> precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is
> easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).
>
> "I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."
>
> That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98
> sequence and export SAS.
>
> "The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that
> into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94
> timeline if I go that route"
>
> I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project. MC
> stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier
> than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open
> the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many
> > different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested onlining in
> > 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all the
> > source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the show
> > was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98 NTSC
> > project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98 master
> > but now I'm told the network need 59.94.
> >
> > Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online sequence
> > and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I
> > realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's no
> > different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on
> > capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it be
> > better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0 and
> > 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down later
> > but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.
> >
> > If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full res
> > pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd
> > have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence
> > into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right now to
> > play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
>


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 7:31 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Re: Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

I guess at the root of my approach is the way we worked before file based sources were so prevalent. The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious? In my experience the closest thing has been to take 23.98 files and link to ama then transcode/convert them to full res 59.94 media and then take that media and transcode it to offline resolution. But as the prompts say when transcoding/converting there is no way to link back to the original masters with this approach. Perhaps there might be a way with some addition of a tape name but I haven't had a need to try that specific step.

On one project I was able to take a 23.98 radio cut and using an edl make it into a 59.94 timeline sequence. Once that was done I converted the 23.98 clips to 59.94i as listed above. Then I added matching tape names to the original 23.98 clips tape names and it relinked after a little tinkering. I was rather pleased at that result but since that was several months ago I don't remember all the specific tweaks along the way.

As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame rates. I would imagine if I were just importing the audio stems Avid really just cares about samples and not frame rate. Not sure if the same holds true for an aaf import given that is more like a sequence it may want to convert the sequence to the native frame rate. Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not sure on that end.

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> "Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> onlined in a 23.98 project."
>
> That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience,
> since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the
> very last thing you do.
>
> "Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94
> sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will
> have a random cadence between shots."
>
> Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk
> of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter =
> perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready
> for tape output or file output.
>
> "If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> accurate to the universal mastered tape"
>
> I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that
> precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is
> easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).
>
> "I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."
>
> That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98
> sequence and export SAS.
>
> "The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that
> into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94
> timeline if I go that route"
>
> I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project. MC
> stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier
> than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open
> the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many
> > different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested onlining in
> > 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all the
> > source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the show
> > was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98 NTSC
> > project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98 master
> > but now I'm told the network need 59.94.
> >
> > Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online sequence
> > and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I
> > realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's no
> > different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on
> > capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it be
> > better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0 and
> > 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down later
> > but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.
> >
> > If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full res
> > pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd
> > have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence
> > into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right now to
> > play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 6:15 PM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

"Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just onlined in a 23.98 project."

That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience, since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the very last thing you do.

"Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots."

Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter = perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready for tape output or file output.

"If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be accurate to the universal mastered tape"

I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).

"I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."

That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98 sequence and export SAS.

"The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route"

I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project. MC stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.



On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
 

Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested onlining in 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all the source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the show was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98 NTSC project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98 master but now I'm told the network need 59.94.

Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's no different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it be better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0 and 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down later but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.

If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right now to play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:41 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested onlining in 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all the source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the show was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98 NTSC project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98 master but now I'm told the network need 59.94.

Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's no different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it be better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0 and 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down later but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.

If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right now to play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:16 PM 0 comments

Thursday, January 2, 2014

[Avid-L2] Hobbit 3D HFR

 

Just came home from seeing the Hobbit/Smaug in 3D HFR. I wasn't too sure I was going to enjoy it - I'd heard reports of headaches, fakeness, etc.

To provide me a comparison in the same theater, they ran the 3D promo for the upcoming SpiderMan movie. Depth of field looked great and all, but the fast motion blurs and judder made me feel like I was missing half the action.

Then they ran the Hobbit. Wow - It was like magic - everything was super clear. No judder, pans looked smooth. There was still some stuff that looked "too video" and some of the effects (especially liquids) didn't look quite right, but over all I was very impressed.

Maybe I'm just too used to playing video games, but I really think that Jackson and company are onto something good.

But I do seem to have a slight headache...

--
Tim McLaughlin
Final Cut, Avid and Premiere Pro Editor
http://vimeo.com/mcltim

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 9:54 PM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Operation not supported.../Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

 

Well, that did prove to be the quickest workaround. I simply deleted the render files that were on the wrong drive and reimported the other files (deselecting Import Offline Only) to the correct drive.


Thanks for helping me think this through.


Martin

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 11:36 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Operation not supported.../Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

 

No, the client bought the drive, formatted it ExFAT, copied the media from cards to the drive, then shipped to me. I then linked to AMA files and transcoded onto the same drive. I then edited, revised, added graphics, rendered effects and color corrections all successfully on this drive. No reformatting at any time.


The only reason I'm even aware of the issue is I accidentally imported some music and rendered some effects for this project to a different drive. The renders I could, of course, delete and re-render, but not the music. 


As I write this it occurs to me I may be bale to reimport anything that is not a render. Hmm.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 9:41 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Operation not supported.../Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

 

Possible workaround:


Consolidate to another mac formatted drive and copy the Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1 folder (rename to another number if necessary) to the ExFat drive at the Finder level, and placing it into the proper folder structure.

This may not work if you have file names created by your Mac not suppose by ExFat.



On Thursday, January 2, 2014, Roger Shufflebottom wrote:
 

Did the client format as Ex-FAT after you'd had all the success you mentioned or did he reformat recently? The format might be the problem.


On 2 Jan 2014, at 16:28, martin@MartinNelson.com wrote:

 

Hi,


With the new year here, I've been trying to do some cleanup and consolidation. I have an assortment of external drives and the consolidation has been going fine until I got to one particular drive. It's a 2TB OWC Mercury Elite Pro (currently there's about 280 GB on it) connected via firewire 800 and it's been performing like champ until now; I don't think the problem is with the drive itself. I  have successfully AMAed from this drive, transcoded back to it, edited and rendered effects all on it. However, and this may well be a clue, because the client was shipping the original footage to me on this drive and he has a PC and I have a Mac it was formatted ExFAT.


Here's my problem, whenever I attempt to consolidate to it I get the following error:

Exception: Operation not supported, filename:/Volumes/pdv drive 1/Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

"pdv drive 1" is the name of the drive and each time I attempt this the final digit —0 in the example given— goes up by 1. Otherwise the message is always the same.


I checked permissions on the drive and internal folders and they all are Read and Write. I have trashed all media databases, I trashed the Creating folder on this drive, I've restarted. As a test I have successfully consolidated from this drive to another, but still get this error message when trying to consolidate that file back to this drive.


I'm going to try a reboot now, but I'm really out of ideas. Anyone have any suggestions? Here are my specs:


OS 10.8.5 running MC 6.5.3 on a Mac Pro 2x2.26 Quad-Core


Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated,


Martin




__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 9:31 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Operation not supported.../Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

 

Did the client format as Ex-FAT after you'd had all the success you mentioned or did he reformat recently? The format might be the problem.


On 2 Jan 2014, at 16:28, martin@MartinNelson.com wrote:

 

Hi,


With the new year here, I've been trying to do some cleanup and consolidation. I have an assortment of external drives and the consolidation has been going fine until I got to one particular drive. It's a 2TB OWC Mercury Elite Pro (currently there's about 280 GB on it) connected via firewire 800 and it's been performing like champ until now; I don't think the problem is with the drive itself. I  have successfully AMAed from this drive, transcoded back to it, edited and rendered effects all on it. However, and this may well be a clue, because the client was shipping the original footage to me on this drive and he has a PC and I have a Mac it was formatted ExFAT.


Here's my problem, whenever I attempt to consolidate to it I get the following error:

Exception: Operation not supported, filename:/Volumes/pdv drive 1/Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

"pdv drive 1" is the name of the drive and each time I attempt this the final digit —0 in the example given— goes up by 1. Otherwise the message is always the same.


I checked permissions on the drive and internal folders and they all are Read and Write. I have trashed all media databases, I trashed the Creating folder on this drive, I've restarted. As a test I have successfully consolidated from this drive to another, but still get this error message when trying to consolidate that file back to this drive.


I'm going to try a reboot now, but I'm really out of ideas. Anyone have any suggestions? Here are my specs:


OS 10.8.5 running MC 6.5.3 on a Mac Pro 2x2.26 Quad-Core


Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated,


Martin




__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 9:08 AM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Operation not supported.../Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

 

Hi,


With the new year here, I've been trying to do some cleanup and consolidation. I have an assortment of external drives and the consolidation has been going fine until I got to one particular drive. It's a 2TB OWC Mercury Elite Pro (currently there's about 280 GB on it) connected via firewire 800 and it's been performing like champ until now; I don't think the problem is with the drive itself. I  have successfully AMAed from this drive, transcoded back to it, edited and rendered effects all on it. However, and this may well be a clue, because the client was shipping the original footage to me on this drive and he has a PC and I have a Mac it was formatted ExFAT.


Here's my problem, whenever I attempt to consolidate to it I get the following error:

Exception: Operation not supported, filename:/Volumes/pdv drive 1/Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1/Creating/creating0

"pdv drive 1" is the name of the drive and each time I attempt this the final digit —0 in the example given— goes up by 1. Otherwise the message is always the same.


I checked permissions on the drive and internal folders and they all are Read and Write. I have trashed all media databases, I trashed the Creating folder on this drive, I've restarted. As a test I have successfully consolidated from this drive to another, but still get this error message when trying to consolidate that file back to this drive.


I'm going to try a reboot now, but I'm really out of ideas. Anyone have any suggestions? Here are my specs:


OS 10.8.5 running MC 6.5.3 on a Mac Pro 2x2.26 Quad-Core


Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated,


Martin


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 8:28 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: OT: Do I finally get to blame it on transmission?

 

Don't get me wrong I love videotape just surprised I guess that dual tapes are still a thing. Maybe super black could make a comeback!

On 2 Jan, 2014, at 9:56 pm, John Heiser <jpheiser@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Tape is still the most common way to transport material in and out of trucks for sports. EVS systems can (if the truck owner has paid the big bucks) use a number of codecs, but getting material for a Fox show that uses one codec from a show on a truck that didn't have that codec - the only way to do that is to capture from tape. It happens every day all over the country, and won't stop anytime soon. Yes, many shows use X-file transfer of highlights and elements, and that's expanding, but I haven't worked a show yet that didn't have stuff coming in from tape. 


----
john heiser | senior video editor
o2ideas
birmingham, alabama, USA


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Mikeparsons.tv <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com> wrote:
 

I used to synch roll 6 cams of ISO records on cmx340-x but I thing the bigger point here is how rare it is to see a truck with more than 2 hdcam-srs these days. Certainly not two assigned to digitizing.

File based material with >rgb is the future and I'm stunned how much tape deliverables are still requested in long form as a mostly commercials guy I haven't used a tape in 5 years or more.

Mike

On 2 Jan, 2014, at 10:07 am, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (18)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 7:06 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)