Latest post Thu, Jul 26 2018 7:22 PM by Telegram!. 25 replies.
Page 2 of 2 (26 items) < Previous 1 2
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Wed, Jul 25 2018 4:01 AM In reply to

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    OK, thanks for that explanation. Resolution Independence is a catchy phrase, for sure. Thankfully, I don’t need to provide differing outputs. I always wonder though, which Frame Rate is best as a master, (or camera) if what’s potentially needed is to deliver them all. Or do people working professionally not always rely on MC to perform such conversions?

    I do marvel at how Avid has evolved with the technologies and worked-out combining all the past, present, future, formats.

    Windows7 Pro; HP 820z, 16GB ram; Composer Nitris DX, Squeeze v8.5 Pro _____ Windows10 Pro x64 Dell XPS 8930 Special Edition Tower i7-8700 3.2 Ghz; 32GB... [view my complete system specs]
  • Wed, Jul 25 2018 11:01 AM In reply to

    • luca.mg
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Roma - Italy
    • Posts 5,356
    • Points 62,825

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    Telegram!:
    I always wonder though, which Frame Rate is best as a master, (or camera) if what’s potentially needed is to deliver them all.

    Frame rate depends on what You have to deliver, according to the contract with the broadcaster or Your client. In Europe, with some exceptions, You're in the realm of 25-50 fps, while mainly in the US and Japan You're in the realm of 30-60ish fps; I seldom see the need to deliver them all; many see 24 fps as fit for all sorts of deliveries, but I kind of disagree, especially if conversion to other frame rates is done in MC. Frame rate has not much to see with frame size and resolution indipendence, except for being a part of exetensively mixed source materials gigs.

    Back to the topic, FrameFlex is quite cumbesome and very limited as for reframing and moving a "camera" inside a picture, eg if You want to zoom in blowing a picture bigger than its actual size, and since MC's performance is not that good with linked footage (except for some formats), You're kind of forced to consolidate/transcode, so that when manipulating bigger than the project size footage You have to go back to the linked clips, do Your adjustments, consolidate/transcode again, and when You see the result in context and change Your mind or need to make more adjustments You'll have to start over again. Being able to operate on the clip like when dealing with the ordinary resize effect would be much easier, and a major plus, IMHO.

    Symphony 2018.5, BM Intensity Pro 4k, Windows 10, i7-5930K, 32 GB ram, Quadro K620 [view my complete system specs]

    peace luca

  • Wed, Jul 25 2018 12:08 PM In reply to

    Re: Independent Resolutions

     

    luca.mg:

    Back to the topic, FrameFlex is

    It sounds like you may be responsible for the initial offline editing decisions as well as the finished deliverable, or online. It is nice to do it all, but it’s not painless.

    What happens if you put a 3D Warp FX on a FrameFlexed masterclip? Is it pure chaos or in any way useful in the offline stage? What about always editing in the maximal Project Resolution ? Is that what was suggested by Pat? How would offline editing in an 8K project be as it relates to Independence? Can you explain the use of 1/4 proxy setting? 

    Perhaps you have tried that... if so, what did you discover? Is this off topic too, I can’t keep track. 

     

    Windows7 Pro; HP 820z, 16GB ram; Composer Nitris DX, Squeeze v8.5 Pro _____ Windows10 Pro x64 Dell XPS 8930 Special Edition Tower i7-8700 3.2 Ghz; 32GB... [view my complete system specs]
  • Wed, Jul 25 2018 2:44 PM In reply to

    • jef
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on Sun, Feb 26 2006
    • Maryland
    • Posts 3,250
    • Points 39,450

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    Telegram!:

     

    luca.mg:

    Back to the topic, FrameFlex is

    What happens if you put a 3D Warp FX on a FrameFlexed masterclip? Is it pure chaos or in any way useful in the offline stage?

    That is a bad idea with the current Avid EFX pipeline.  The image is getting sized and filtered and rasterized twice.  A modern effects pipeline would only do those actions once.

    Premiere has it basically right with Resolution Independence.  (Not so right in many other areas).

    Avid DS had it right.  Avid MC is hostage to old code and the need to keep compatibility between versions.

    Jef

    Avid DS 11.0.2 R.I.P | MC "Well, it depends ..." | OS 10.11.x - various MacPro Towers - home system MacPro Dual 2.8 8core GTX680 "Harpertown"... [view my complete system specs]

    _____________________________________________

    Jef Huey

    Senior Editor

    Old Stuff  http://vimeo.com/album/3037796

  • Wed, Jul 25 2018 4:08 PM In reply to

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    jef:

    Telegram!:

     

    luca.mg:

    Back to the topic, FrameFlex is

    What happens if you put a 3D Warp FX on a FrameFlexed masterclip? Is it pure chaos or in any way useful in the offline stage?

    That is a bad idea with the current Avid EFX pipeline.  The image is getting sized and filtered and rasterized twice.  A modern effects pipeline would only do those actions once.

    Premiere has it basically right with Resolution Independence.  (Not so right in many other areas).

    Avid DS had it right.  Avid MC is hostage to old code and the need to keep compatibility between versions.

    Jef

    I will take all that to the bank... you know it.

    But if I had a theoretical thought, it was that an offline editor, knowing that attempting to treat an ultra hi Rez LINK like a full-motion Pan & Zoom, (not fun) might prefer “sketching it out” easily using a 3D Warp... and go that route, since a real conform would (somehow) be done before final delivery.

    Re (somehow):  It was that other 8K (or higher?) notion that intrigues me. If as an editor, either offline or online or both, you know in advance that your highest resolution source footage (motion or stills) maxes out at say, 8K, then wouldn’t a 3D Warp or Pan & Zoom on that 8K Project media retain its highest quality even with cropping, once the Project Tab is flipped to the lower Rez delivery format, like 4K or less? If that’s correct, is that not some form of resolution independence?  Or am I off my rocker?

     

    Windows7 Pro; HP 820z, 16GB ram; Composer Nitris DX, Squeeze v8.5 Pro _____ Windows10 Pro x64 Dell XPS 8930 Special Edition Tower i7-8700 3.2 Ghz; 32GB... [view my complete system specs]
  • Wed, Jul 25 2018 9:38 PM In reply to

    • luca.mg
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Roma - Italy
    • Posts 5,356
    • Points 62,825

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    Always dealt with linked 4-8k footage, tediously reframed within HD projects using FrameFlex and then transcoded, this heavy footage put to its knees a dual Xeon box... My best guess is that flipping the project to 8k and bringing in footage, then flipping back to HD, that footage can be manipulated with FrameFlex, but it's just a guess. You can see by Yourself how complicate this is compared to true resolution indipendence and being able to bring in footage at its own native resolution into a project of another size, so You get the point in asking for resolution indipendence! As for mocking up a reframe by adding a 3d warp or similiar, to later recreate the thing in hires sounds more uncomfortable than dealing with FrameFlex. I have to say that I often go to Resolve to blow up footage, the result, compared to the very same resize in MC, is much better.

    Symphony 2018.5, BM Intensity Pro 4k, Windows 10, i7-5930K, 32 GB ram, Quadro K620 [view my complete system specs]

    peace luca

  • Wed, Jul 25 2018 10:08 PM In reply to

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    luca.mg:

    Always dealt with linked 4-8k footage, tediously reframed within HD projects using FrameFlex and then transcoded, this heavy footage put to its knees a dual Xeon box... My best guess is that flipping the project to 8k and bringing in footage, then flipping back to HD, that footage can be manipulated with FrameFlex, but it's just a guess. You can see by Yourself how complicate this is compared to true resolution indipendence and being able to bring in footage at its own native resolution into a project of another size, so You get the point in asking for resolution indipendence! As for mocking up a reframe by adding a 3d warp or similiar, to later recreate the thing in hires sounds more uncomfortable than dealing with FrameFlex. I have to say that I often go to Resolve to blow up footage, the result, compared to the very same resize in MC, is much better.

    I hope you get the independence features you want.

    I just want to know, theorectically, if when you bring in an 8k file into an 8k Prokect, and do a 3D Warp FX on it, then switch your project over to say, 1080HD, at output, is that picture quality just as good, worse, or better than if you had taken that same footage into a 1080 Project and used FrameFlex to achieve the ersatz camera move. I forget: can we save FrameFlex FX to a bin, like 3D Warp FX?

    The blow-up tip is good to know, thanks.

    Windows7 Pro; HP 820z, 16GB ram; Composer Nitris DX, Squeeze v8.5 Pro _____ Windows10 Pro x64 Dell XPS 8930 Special Edition Tower i7-8700 3.2 Ghz; 32GB... [view my complete system specs]
  • Thu, Jul 26 2018 5:27 AM In reply to

    • luca.mg
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Roma - Italy
    • Posts 5,356
    • Points 62,825

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    Telegram!:
    I just want to know, theorectically, if when you bring in an 8k file into an 8k Prokect, and do a 3D Warp FX on it, then switch your project over to say, 1080HD, at output, is that picture quality just as good, worse, or better than if you had taken that same footage into a 1080 Project and used FrameFlex to achieve the ersatz camera move.

    If You bring an 8k file into an 8k project and You apply a 3D Warp (or a Resize) to it, You'll have a quality loss, that You'll carry over into the HD project; the purpose here is to bring an 8k file into an HD project and being able to pan and zoom taking advantage of the extra pixels to avoid quality loss, FrameFlex does that in a convoluted unconvenient way, due to its unflexibility and because it forces You to bring the footage into a project of the source resolution, to be switched to the target resolution, unless You work with linked clips, which is unfeasible, due to poor playback performance of linked clips, that's why LB resolutions have been implemented, introducing even more complications (transcode to LB, edit, relink to the original sources, transcode again to high resolution, switching the project back and forth between source and target resolutions...) to an already complicate workflow. The competing NLEs do not have the same playback issues that MC has with linked stuff, have true resolution indipendence, and manipulate the clips in an easier way, that's where MC has to catch up.

    Symphony 2018.5, BM Intensity Pro 4k, Windows 10, i7-5930K, 32 GB ram, Quadro K620 [view my complete system specs]

    peace luca

  • Thu, Jul 26 2018 11:29 AM In reply to

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    luca.mg:

    If You bring an 8k file into an 8k project and You apply a 3D Warp (or a Resize) to it, You'll have a quality loss, that You'll carry over into the HD project;  

    Thanks for addressing that. I am genuinely trying to establish that difference in quality between doing the crop or 3D Warp on 8K HQ Avid Media versus doing the same crop or 3D Warp on HD Avid Media. As you know, in the first case, the Avid Media can be DNxHR and in the second case HD Project, can be DNxHD. Both at some HQ flavor, via import or transcode. DNxHD & DNxHR. It’s more than a name difference right? I suspect there is a great deal of engineering involved. (See link below) So if you are right and the quality loss is “carried over” from the 8K DNxHR crop after flipping the Project Tab from 8K over to HD, is the quality loss equally substantial as if you had done the same crop/3D Warp in the 1080 DNxHD Project?

    I’m not trying to dispute your requests or experience with other gear. I ask because of what I need. I don’t have decent monitoring or 8K footage (only Hi Res Stills), and it may be hard for me to judge any quality difference to determine if any quality drop actually matters. But, at a certain point I want to get technical guidance about this method or any simpler way, other than fiddling with Frame Flex zooms, to make use of random Hi Rez video needed inside Projects that are maxing out in HD.

    This resolution independence link is one you probably have already seen:

    http://www.avid.com/products/avid-high-resolution-workflows

     

     

    Windows7 Pro; HP 820z, 16GB ram; Composer Nitris DX, Squeeze v8.5 Pro _____ Windows10 Pro x64 Dell XPS 8930 Special Edition Tower i7-8700 3.2 Ghz; 32GB... [view my complete system specs]
  • Thu, Jul 26 2018 5:47 PM In reply to

    • luca.mg
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Roma - Italy
    • Posts 5,356
    • Points 62,825

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    DNxHR is nothing else but a DNxHD flavour that goes beyond HD, adding more colour samplings, compression ratios, data rates, and more; it's a good step toward true resolution indipendence, although I know that there's a frame size limit, but I don't know if it belongs to DNxHR or to MC. As for quality loss using 3D Warp vs FrameFlex, yes indeed, there is quality loss. The thing is, IMHO, that FrameFlex is a workaround to integrate (almost) resolution indipendence into the playback engine of MC, with its limitations due to the ties to the obsolete QuickTime libraries and to old fashion project settings presets belonging to the past century. Implementing true resolution indipendence would require a rewrite of the playback engine, hopefully in the pipeline, since QT is EOL, or else MC will die, stuck in the past. Dropping frameFlex altogether for an easier to use and more flexible tool would be a very welcome addition, but, if only MC would perform better with linked clips, or could transcode sources to DNxHR at their own frame size regardless of the project size, it could be a good starting point, provided that Avid improves it further; not likely, since the Company's priorities seem to be others. In the meanwhile more and more editors and facilities are switching to Premiere or Resolve, with the LightWorks having its niche, hurry up Avid!

    Symphony 2018.5, BM Intensity Pro 4k, Windows 10, i7-5930K, 32 GB ram, Quadro K620 [view my complete system specs]

    peace luca

  • Thu, Jul 26 2018 7:22 PM In reply to

    Re: Independent Resolutions

    I found some 8K Sample footage on the Red website. In 8K Project, I Linked to it, Transcoded it (to DNxHR, HQ) added a 400 Scale and Pos move with a 3D Warp FX (easily done) then flipped the Project Tab over to 1080. Then after adding a 2nd track, tried matching my 3D Warp FX, using the Scale/Pos and KeyFrames with Frame Flex direct from the same 8K Red file — particularly to the last frame of the 8K Video mixdown. Very painful to manuever, especially matching aspect ratios, but eventually I got both very close. This is a software-only v2018.4 Win MC system. After rendering the FrameFlex to DNxHD in the 1080 Project, I just couldn’t see any difference between them in terms of detail on that last frame. (* though I'm only monitoring on an 11-year old Dell screen, so I'm not drawing too many conclusions).

    Noticed that others are seeking alternatives to FF and also Pan & Zoom, with similar strategies in mind... https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/45/908069

     

     

    Windows7 Pro; HP 820z, 16GB ram; Composer Nitris DX, Squeeze v8.5 Pro _____ Windows10 Pro x64 Dell XPS 8930 Special Edition Tower i7-8700 3.2 Ghz; 32GB... [view my complete system specs]
Page 2 of 2 (26 items) < Previous 1 2

© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc.  Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Find a Reseller