5 Replies Latest reply on May 10, 2008 1:19 PM by (jwlane)

    progressive downconvert for editing

      I have an animation that's going out to a Final Cut Pro timeline. The sequence in FCP is DVCPro50 Standard def. The animation I created is HD 1920 x 1080 square pixels, because the project may have to be upconverted in the future. What would be the best settings to render out this animation to this sequence? However, the trick is that I would like to retain a progressive animation, not interlaced.
        • 1. Re: progressive downconvert for editing
          Jonas Hummelstrand Level 2
          If you want maximum fidelity and minimum data loss, render to a lossless format such as QuickTime Animation @ 100%, or even better to something like BlackMagic Design's 10-bit QT codec (set the project bit depth to 16-bit and the render settings to "Trillions of Colors."

          If you render at 1920x1080 (Field render "Off" in "Render Settings") you can create a duplicate output module (Ctrl-D / Cmd-D) that renders to an SD size file at the same time ("Stretch" in "Output Module.") That SD render could be to DVCPRO50 or perhaps QuickTime PhotoJPEG @ 100%.

          - Jonas Hummelstrand
          http://generalspecialist.com/
          • 2. Re: progressive downconvert for editing
            Level 1
            thank you for your response. I tried your suggestion of converting the project to 16bit and render out as DVCPro50. However, I'm trying to figure a way to properly letterbox the material into Final Cut Pro. But worse than that is I cannot seem to be rid of a judder effect on a particular part of my animation.
            I have some text being affected by a camera that is pushing into them. Basically the text is filying toward the viewer in 3D space. At this part of the animation and no where else there is a slight judder on particular parts of the text. The top and bottom of the text is affected most.

            Everything seems fine after final render as i play it in quicktime and looks good, but once i put the footage into my DVCPro50 final cut timeline, it gets screwy when viewing it on my video monitor. I'd appreciate any insight.

            questions: is this a field issue, pixel aspect?
            • 3. Re: progressive downconvert for editing
              Jonas Hummelstrand Level 2
              1. Letterboxing is a way to make sure that widescreen video is shown properly on a non-widescreen monitor. IF you do this in FCP, you will sacrifice almost 1/3 of the image resolution and replace those pixels with black bars. Are you sure that's what you want to do? I'd imagine that you want to edit in full resolution and output in full resolution...

              2. "Judder" can result from many things, and if it looks fine in QT Player, it seems like you have a mismatch between frame rates.

              - Jonas Hummelstrand
              http://generalspecialist.com/
              • 4. Re: progressive downconvert for editing
                Level 1
                1. yes i most definitely want to letterbox. the original footage of the program was shot in HD and was not center composed. so the footage of the program must be letterboxed to ensure that all elements in the frame are seen in the SD cut. Therefore, to match, the animation must be letterboxed.

                2. I hope I'm using the term judder correctly. The animation starts with a lateral, left-to-right movement that seems just fine. The animation goes southward when the text grows on screen to move toward the viewer, the lower parts of the text (bottom of letter, legs of an "R" and stem of a "T") start to fluctuate vertically from frame-to-frame.

                I hope this clarifies. I simply want a progressive animation in an interlaced (lower dominant) sequence. This must be possible. Anything else you need to know from me, please ask. And thank you for your help.
                • 5. Re: progressive downconvert for editing
                  A monitor's scan line is going to be on or off, with no in-between as the type changes size. You may be trying to do a better job than can be had in standard "video" resolution.

                  Years ago I did a lot of flying 3D type. Interlaced displays just don't do a good job with fine horizontal lines. Zooming moves could be particularly problematic. The best results I ever got out of Softimage was field render and anti-aliasing with pixel blending cranked way up (longer renders). It still wasn't perfect. Many times I just had to modify the image, change the zoom a little, and or introduce a little motion blur.