Thursday, July 21, 2016

Re: [Avid-L2] Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

Thanks everyone.  Two things important to me have not been touched on.

jpeg 2000 as used for archiving, is lossless. If the j2k sample is considerably smaller than the ProRes LT, I'd bet my bottom dollar that it is compressed.  Someone knowledgeable on the list said earlier that j2k was added as a capture standard to Avid to accommodate the archival needs and standards of big studios... how does one get to the archival/lossless version of j2k in MC?

if jpeg 2000 is an open standard then a video captured to that standard should not require Avid software to playback. Somehow Avid fingerprints are on it (not sure what expression to use) and it's been rendered proprietary. In the case of ProRes (ok not an open standard but a non-Avid industry standard) - no Avid fingerprints, it just plays like any ProRes file.

Thanks,

Paul






On Jul 21, 2016, at 5:24 AM, Pat Horridge pat@horridge.org.uk [Avid-L2] wrote:

 

Agreed. My point was Macs don't have all codecs so not haven't support on a Vanilla Mac isn't a measure of the value (or not) of a codec.

And yes MPEG2 can do a better job if the datarate is high and the content not demanding and suitable for temporal compression. However H264 can often do more for less and sometimes that counts.

We have DAB radio over here in the UK for broadcast using MP2 codec and its crap. Just because its used for broadcast doesn't make it the best. Broadcasters are very slow to adopt changes so as long as they have something that works (good enough for TV) they tend to stick with it.

 

From: Edit B [mailto:bouke@editb.nl]
Sent: 21 July 2016 10:14
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com; Pat Horridge
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

Mpeg II licences will be free within a year or so, close to all patents have lapsed, and the remaining ones last not so long.

A licence for Mpeg II costs close to nothing on patent fees (but the price of course depends on the one you buy it from...)

 

And for QT on win, that's about QT in a webbrowser, NOT qt player!

 

But besides that, you don't need QT player to play QT movies, a lot of other players can do this just fine.

 

H264 can be better than MpegII, but the opposite is also true. It highly depends on the encoder and the encoding settings.

Over here, MpegII is standard for broadcast.

 

 

Bouke

 

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS  NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:51 AM

Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

 

Sounds like you're not looking for an open standard but a Mac standard.

If its Mac compatibility then just go with Prores.

And Macs only come some codec support not all. Even MPEG2 has to be purchased and installed on a Mac for MPEG2 playback.

Likewise you have to install the Avid codecs (which are free) to get support. But you can install them on any Mac or PC from free.

We can no longer install QuickTime on PCs and get ProRes support as Apple no longer support QT on PCs and the last PC QT version has security issues.

And yes a JPEG compressed file would expect to be smaller than a ProRes one. It's a more advanced sophisticated codec. Its not the file size that determines quality.

An H264 file is smaller than an MPEG2 but better quality.

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

 



__._,_.___
Posted by: Paul Dougherty <lists@postlit.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (5)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:38 AM 0 comments

RE: [Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

Agreed. My point was Macs don’t have all codecs so not haven’t support on a Vanilla Mac isn’t a measure of the value (or not) of a codec.

And yes MPEG2 can do a better job if the datarate is high and the content not demanding and suitable for temporal compression. However H264 can often do more for less and sometimes that counts.

We have DAB radio over here in the UK for broadcast using MP2 codec and its crap. Just because its used for broadcast doesn’t make it the best. Broadcasters are very slow to adopt changes so as long as they have something that works (good enough for TV) they tend to stick with it.

 

From: Edit B [mailto:bouke@editb.nl]
Sent: 21 July 2016 10:14
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com; Pat Horridge
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

Mpeg II licences will be free within a year or so, close to all patents have lapsed, and the remaining ones last not so long.

A licence for Mpeg II costs close to nothing on patent fees (but the price of course depends on the one you buy it from...)

 

And for QT on win, that's about QT in a webbrowser, NOT qt player!

 

But besides that, you don't need QT player to play QT movies, a lot of other players can do this just fine.

 

H264 can be better than MpegII, but the opposite is also true. It highly depends on the encoder and the encoding settings.

Over here, MpegII is standard for broadcast.

 

 

Bouke

 

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS  NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:51 AM

Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

 

Sounds like you’re not looking for an open standard but a Mac standard.

If its Mac compatibility then just go with Prores.

And Macs only come some codec support not all. Even MPEG2 has to be purchased and installed on a Mac for MPEG2 playback.

Likewise you have to install the Avid codecs (which are free) to get support. But you can install them on any Mac or PC from free.

We can no longer install QuickTime on PCs and get ProRes support as Apple no longer support QT on PCs and the last PC QT version has security issues.

And yes a JPEG compressed file would expect to be smaller than a ProRes one. It’s a more advanced sophisticated codec. Its not the file size that determines quality.

An H264 file is smaller than an MPEG2 but better quality.

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

 

__._,_.___
Posted by: Pat Horridge <pat@horridge.org.uk>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (4)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 2:24 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

Mpeg II licences will be free within a year or so, close to all patents have lapsed, and the remaining ones last not so long.
A licence for Mpeg II costs close to nothing on patent fees (but the price of course depends on the one you buy it from...)
 
And for QT on win, that's about QT in a webbrowser, NOT qt player!
 
But besides that, you don't need QT player to play QT movies, a lot of other players can do this just fine.
 
H264 can be better than MpegII, but the opposite is also true. It highly depends on the encoder and the encoding settings.
Over here, MpegII is standard for broadcast.
 
 
Bouke
 
VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS  NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:51 AM
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

Sounds like you're not looking for an open standard but a Mac standard.

If its Mac compatibility then just go with Prores.

And Macs only come some codec support not all. Even MPEG2 has to be purchased and installed on a Mac for MPEG2 playback.

Likewise you have to install the Avid codecs (which are free) to get support. But you can install them on any Mac or PC from free.

We can no longer install QuickTime on PCs and get ProRes support as Apple no longer support QT on PCs and the last PC QT version has security issues.

And yes a JPEG compressed file would expect to be smaller than a ProRes one. It's a more advanced sophisticated codec. Its not the file size that determines quality.

An H264 file is smaller than an MPEG2 but better quality.


Virus-free. www.avast.com

__._,_.___
Posted by: "Edit B" <bouke@editb.nl>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 2:14 AM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Re: Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

 

Sounds like you’re not looking for an open standard but a Mac standard.

If its Mac compatibility then just go with Prores.

And Macs only come some codec support not all. Even MPEG2 has to be purchased and installed on a Mac for MPEG2 playback.

Likewise you have to install the Avid codecs (which are free) to get support. But you can install them on any Mac or PC from free.

We can no longer install QuickTime on PCs and get ProRes support as Apple no longer support QT on PCs and the last PC QT version has security issues.

 

And yes a JPEG compressed file would expect to be smaller than a ProRes one. It’s a more advanced sophisticated codec. Its not the file size that determines quality.

An H264 file is smaller than an MPEG2 but better quality.

 

__._,_.___
Posted by: Pat Horridge <pat@horridge.org.uk>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 1:51 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

[Avid-L2] Avid & jpeg2000 - More questions (& anomalies)

(reposting - sorry earlier subject line was bad)

To recap - I'm trying to help a colleague with a fairly large archiving/digitizing project for a career's worth of NTSC work. The last time I posted about this someone mentioned capturing in jpeg2000.

I did some digitizing trials today and was surprised by the results. First I should add that I understand when people talk about jpeg2000 (henceforth j2k) in an archival context… it is lossless, right?

For that reason I'm surprised that an a/b test of a minute for ntsc captured at j2k was 156 megs while the same minute captured as ProRes LT was 222 megs. Can anyone explain? Also am I missing a setting where one dials up the level of compression (or not) when using j2k?

Part of the j2k appeal for archiving is that it is an open standard while ProRes is not. However when I exported a Quicktime (same as source) using each capture setting, the ProRes LT will play on a Mac without any special Avid software (codecs). Whereas the j2k would not. "Quicktime Player can't open such-n-such.mov To see if additional software is available that will enable Quicktime…"*

Also when you do a Get Info on the j2k it says "Avid JPEG 2000" whereas the ProRes just says Apple ProRes 422 LT. Ok Apple is proprietary but far more universal than Avid.

*Just as a test I also captured at Avid 2:1 and got this msg "QT Player can't open" on what I'll call a plain vanilla Mac (no Avid soft). The bottom line is that for my purposes j2k does not seem to be an open standard.

Thoughts and feedback welcome.

Thanks,

Paul

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

this is the Avid-L2
------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:40 PM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] More questions (& anomalies) re. Avid & jpeg2000

To recap - I'm trying to help a colleague with a fairly large archiving/digitizing project for a career's worth of NTSC work. The last time I posted about this someone mentioned capturing in jpeg2000.

I did some digitizing trials today and was surprised by the results. First I should add that I understand when people talk about jpeg2000 (henceforth j2k) in an archival context… it is lossless, right?

For that reason I'm surprised that an a/b test of a minute for ntsc captured at j2k was 156 megs while the same minute captured as ProRes LT was 222 megs. Can anyone explain? Also am I missing a setting where one dials up the level of compression (or not) when using j2k?

Part of the j2k appeal for archiving is that it is an open standard while ProRes is not. However when I exported a Quicktime (same as source) using each capture setting, the ProRes LT will play on a Mac without any special Avid software (codecs). Whereas the j2k would not. "Quicktime Player can't open such-n-such.mov To see if additional software is available that will enable Quicktime…"*

Also when you do a Get Info on the j2k it says "Avid JPEG 2000" whereas the ProRes just says Apple ProRes 422 LT. Ok Apple is proprietary but far more universal than Avid.

*Just as a test I also captured at Avid 2:1 and got this msg "QT Player can't open" on what I'll call a plain vanilla Mac (no Avid soft). The bottom line is that for my purposes j2k does not seem to be an open standard.

Thoughts and feedback welcome.

Thanks,

Paul

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

this is the Avid-L2
------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 5:21 PM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Avid 8.5 & BMD Ultrastudio 4K 2013 vintage

 

I imagine it will. We have three Ultrastudio 4Ks at my university for play-in and capture in our studio, connected to Mac Minis. You just need to keep an eye on the BMD driver versions and be prepared for the odd power-down and restart.
 
With Best Wishes, Roger Shufflebottom +44 7973 543 660


From: "scottesmith1@gmail.com [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 20 July 2016, 10:32
Subject: [Avid-L2] Avid 8.5 & BMD Ultrastudio 4K 2013 vintage

 
Before I attempt to transfer my Avid license from my laptop to a Mac trashcan, can someone tell me if my old Thunderbolt BMD Ultrastudio 4K (purchased to work with Smoke & Resolve) will work with Avid?

Thanks, Scott E. Smith


__._,_.___
Posted by: Roger Shufflebottom <rogershuff@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 6:48 AM 0 comments

[Avid-L2] Avid 8.5 & BMD Ultrastudio 4K 2013 vintage

 

Before I attempt to transfer my Avid license from my laptop to a Mac trashcan, can someone tell me if my old Thunderbolt BMD Ultrastudio 4K (purchased to work with Smoke & Resolve) will work with Avid?


Thanks, Scott E. Smith

__._,_.___
Posted by: scottesmith1@gmail.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 2:32 AM 0 comments

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Teranex pulldown removal (was) Resolve 12.5

 

Okay here's where I am still not sure about the language:

"even when the footage has been previously edited and suffers from flash fields."
Does this mean random cadence like I would get when I take all my DVCProHD 23.976 filed masters and have the deck add pulldown to capture as 59.94i material in a 59.94i project and then edit as if everything is 29.97i?  Or
Is this referring to a flash frame with an edit beginning or ending on a split frame where one field is one shot and the next field is a different shot?

In my DVCProHD case, which is the way we had done all our shows up until we switched to a 23.976 workflow, all the edits would be Field 1 dominant so there would never be a split frame edit in that sense between shots but each new shot might start with either a single, double or triple field of the same moment in time.  These fields would be individually half vertical resolution given the Psf nature of spreading odd lines to one field and even lines to the other field.  When I break it down this way I wonder how the circuitry/algorithms handle when a new shot starts with just a single field of a moment in time.  Does it line double or blend that with the next field(s) when creating the output 23.976 frame?  Or maybe it analyzes  that the first field of the new shot is only one field and then ignores it and goes with the next field and the following ones to determine what the final output frame is.  I am beginning to appreciate more and more all the subtitles involved in the process.  



---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :

I have had a fair bit of disappointment over the years from buying equipment which is touted to do something and then in practice fails. This was just another to add to that pile. The Blackmagic Teranex 2D has worked on about half its claims. For less than a tenth of the price of its predecessor, I guess I'm OK with that, but realistically, I know that we all work in a field where time is money, and the time I've spent diagnosing why some equipment or software doesn't do what it claims is just more to add to the 'expense' column. I concentrate my life on creating systems that are fail-proof. Creating methods to handle footage issues which fix them 100% of the time. I am sure we're all working to that end on different days, so I wanted to be clear that this particular claim by the marketing materials about this piece of equipment should not be trusted, and even though it might work some of the time, in my experience, that's not 100% and therefore it should be avoided.

Sorry for being sensitive about this, it's just easy to get defensive after having been burned before. In this case, it's a piece of equipment whose quirks I have little tolerance for.


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
Well now I've gone and gotten my wires crossed as well. I feel like a mixed cadence sequence…

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
Not you, John. Terry's reply had a hint of a backhand I didn't care for.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:40 AM, tcurren@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Mark, I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking your professionalism. That is not my intent at all. BM sells Teranex as being able to handle reverse telecine on the fly. We have had success doing that, but it wasn't obvious in any way. Might the Snell & Wilcox box be better? Maybe. Is the price difference worth it? Not to us. If it doesn't work for you, sure, go to the "cut up the sequence in MC and go shot by shot having it find the cadence" approach. But what if it does work as it has for us? Wouldn't that be a huge timesaver?



---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :

Not worth it. I only need to try something and have it fail on me once in order to know it doesn't work. And I don't like the implication that I don't know how it's supposed to work or don't know what settings to use to make this work. It does not work. It might work sometimes. To me, that is as good as saying it does not work. "Sometimes" is not worth the effort of capturing something only to have to go through it cut by cut to see it fail in places.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:09 AM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Suffering from flash fields is not the same as random cadence.  Flash fields are that extra field of a different shot because the cut happens on a split frame of an already edited segment, often referred to as flash frames, perhaps this is just a bit different terminology than I'm used to.  With random cadence you don't get flash frames just the cadence is different for each shot.  I know you know this.  I guess one interpretation of flash field could be when you pick up a shot on a split frame and it's still the same basic image but only one field of it before the next moment in time.  It sounds like this unit does what I'm asking for.  Which specific Teranex model are you using to do this?




---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

Read what it says: "even when the footage has been previously edited and suffers from flash fields." We have had success using it to do just that. Yo do have to get all the settings right. And sometimes it goes awry. But for the most part it does exactly what you are asking it to do which the old Teranex (Before BM purchase) also did.


---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <bigfish@...> wrote :

But does that count for random cadence material.  Me thinks I'll have to contact BM support for clarification on the specifics of that function.


---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

John writes:
"Say I'm given a finished show as a source and that show is random cadence like happened in all shows back when they would cut in a 29.97i project with material that had 2:3 pulldown added."

Cadence Detect and Remove

Teranex is unique because it can automatically remove cadence (3:2 pulldown) from video when converting 24 fps, even when the footage has been previously edited and suffers from flash fields. That's perfect for mastering clean online content!






__._,_.___
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (11)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 12:21 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Teranex pulldown removal (was) Resolve 12.5

 

I have had a fair bit of disappointment over the years from buying equipment which is touted to do something and then in practice fails. This was just another to add to that pile. The Blackmagic Teranex 2D has worked on about half its claims. For less than a tenth of the price of its predecessor, I guess I'm OK with that, but realistically, I know that we all work in a field where time is money, and the time I've spent diagnosing why some equipment or software doesn't do what it claims is just more to add to the 'expense' column. I concentrate my life on creating systems that are fail-proof. Creating methods to handle footage issues which fix them 100% of the time. I am sure we're all working to that end on different days, so I wanted to be clear that this particular claim by the marketing materials about this piece of equipment should not be trusted, and even though it might work some of the time, in my experience, that's not 100% and therefore it should be avoided.

Sorry for being sensitive about this, it's just easy to get defensive after having been burned before. In this case, it's a piece of equipment whose quirks I have little tolerance for.


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:
Well now I've gone and gotten my wires crossed as well. I feel like a mixed cadence sequence…

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:
Not you, John. Terry's reply had a hint of a backhand I didn't care for.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:40 AM, tcurren@aol.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Mark, I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking your professionalism. That is not my intent at all. BM sells Teranex as being able to handle reverse telecine on the fly. We have had success doing that, but it wasn't obvious in any way. Might the Snell & Wilcox box be better? Maybe. Is the price difference worth it? Not to us. If it doesn't work for you, sure, go to the "cut up the sequence in MC and go shot by shot having it find the cadence" approach. But what if it does work as it has for us? Wouldn't that be a huge timesaver?



---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :

Not worth it. I only need to try something and have it fail on me once in order to know it doesn't work. And I don't like the implication that I don't know how it's supposed to work or don't know what settings to use to make this work. It does not work. It might work sometimes. To me, that is as good as saying it does not work. "Sometimes" is not worth the effort of capturing something only to have to go through it cut by cut to see it fail in places.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:09 AM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Suffering from flash fields is not the same as random cadence.  Flash fields are that extra field of a different shot because the cut happens on a split frame of an already edited segment, often referred to as flash frames, perhaps this is just a bit different terminology than I'm used to.  With random cadence you don't get flash frames just the cadence is different for each shot.  I know you know this.  I guess one interpretation of flash field could be when you pick up a shot on a split frame and it's still the same basic image but only one field of it before the next moment in time.  It sounds like this unit does what I'm asking for.  Which specific Teranex model are you using to do this?




---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

Read what it says: "even when the footage has been previously edited and suffers from flash fields." We have had success using it to do just that. Yo do have to get all the settings right. And sometimes it goes awry. But for the most part it does exactly what you are asking it to do which the old Teranex (Before BM purchase) also did.


---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <bigfish@...> wrote :

But does that count for random cadence material.  Me thinks I'll have to contact BM support for clarification on the specifics of that function.


---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

John writes:
"Say I'm given a finished show as a source and that show is random cadence like happened in all shows back when they would cut in a 29.97i project with material that had 2:3 pulldown added."

Cadence Detect and Remove

Teranex is unique because it can automatically remove cadence (3:2 pulldown) from video when converting 24 fps, even when the footage has been previously edited and suffers from flash fields. That's perfect for mastering clean online content!






__._,_.___
Posted by: Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (10)
Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app
Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
this is the Avid-L2

.

__,_._,___
Posted by Video Geek Squad at 10:55 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)