|
1st AD posted:Those renders look fantastic and you did a great job compositing them into the video. Where the robot is inserted in the live action plates, we shot that all with a RED Scarlet. Every shot that does not contain the robot (bar the electronic board and end logo shot) was stock footage we purchased. BonoMan posted:My first kneejerk responses are "why is the Robot's voice and the VO guy's voice the same?" and "the robot is lit way too brightly in the scene where he's looking at the painting considering he's standing in direct shadow." I agree, it sucks how similar the voices are. We had a second voice actor lined up to do the Robot voice, but he pulled out last minute and we had no choice but to do what we could with the main VO guy. And yeah the lighting on that gallery shot is a bit off. Thanks for the feedback so far guys 
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Yeah, the footage the robot was composited in looks pretty good, the stock video just looks very "video" for lack of a better term. Maybe grade those shots a bit so they match the other footage, I think some contrast and saturation adjustments would probably be enough to get them to blend better. You're stuck with having the same VO, so I'd look into distorting the hell out of that voice so that it sounds more mechanical/artificial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
if ur a bad enough dude, you can join YVCPOS (Your Video Codec is a Piece of poo poo) over in YOSPOS (the comedy subforum in SH/SC) cat's out of the bag I made this for another YOSPOSTER for Secret santa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3shHgxx6bU http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3598705
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Really annoying FCP7 problem I'm having, if anybody has any ideas: We film lectures at our uni, and we take people's Powerpoint slides and export them as 960x720 TIFFs to be imported into a timeline and synced up with video of the lecture. And then both tracks go into a Motion template for the finished product. First thing I do when I import the slides into my bin is change the aspect ratio from HD (960x720) to square, otherwise they look widescreen, not 4:3. I have fit to fill bound to a key so I can set an in and an out for each slide, based on when I can see the slides changing on the projector screen on the video of the actual lecture. But when I hit the fit to fill key, they get sent to the timeline as a widescreen clip. So I'm finding myself selecting all the slides when done, doing remove attributes/distort, and that fixes everything. Any ideas why they won't go on the timeline with the aspect ratio I've set in the bin?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Any ideas why they won't go on the timeline with the aspect ratio I've set in the bin?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
WebDog posted:What's your project settings set to? As that will generally dictate what dimensions and ratio a new sequence will default to. The sequence is set to HD (960x720) with the aspect ratio set to square pixels, 25fps Progressive, ProRes LT. So exactly the same size and ratio as the slide images. Our default sequences are usually 1280x720 for our final exports, but I manually change them to 960x720 square for the slide track as that's how Powerpoint exports the TIFFs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
So if I'm reading it right. Project settings and main working sequence at 1280x720 / 16:9 In that sequence you have two sequences on different layers. Sequence A (lecture hall vid) : 1280x720 / 16:9 Sequence B (Slides) : 960x720 / 4:3 AR Final Cut is going to follow it's default rules and try and conform anything to the main working sequence you've inserted it in. You can turn that off or say no, but I think it always monkies with the AR regardless. You could save some time by having the slides remain in one sequence then adjust the motion properties on that so you don't have to do it again and again. Additionally motion settings can be assigned to objects in the bin that haven't been moved into the timeline, so you might be able to fudge ratios.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
WebDog posted:So if I'm reading it right. Well, to clarify, in our project we have 3 sequences. First one, called Mixed, is the intro graphics, then an apple motion template with 2 drop zones (slides and lecture hall vid), then the end credits (in that order). Sequence is set to 1280x720/25fps, Prores LT Second one, called Video, is the video from the camera in the hall, this is DVC Pro HD video, anamorphic 960x720/25fps. We keep it like that during the edit so there's no transcoding involved, and when we drop it into the Mixed sequence and export, FCP handles it like a champ. Third one, called Slides, is the slides as already discussed. 960x720, Prores LT, square aspect. The slides show up fine in the viewer when I double click them (after changing their aspect ratios to Square in the bin) but it's after I do a fit to fill that they go into the sequence in 16:9, despite the sequence being 4:3. Does that make it clearer? And is there anything obviously stupid that I'm doing? Doing the Fit to fill is the only problem I get using this workflow. Edit: In Audio/Video settings I have my default sequence preset set to Prores LT 1280x720 25fps. So an Apple-N gives me that sequence and then I can make any manual changes I want (such as when making the Slide sequence) thehustler fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
The viewer doesn't always display how the footage will look when placed inside a sequence, it'll just read what needs to be seen, so it'll look "fine". I'm curious to why you set everything in the mixed sequence to 1280 when both the slides and video are at 960 - effectively the same resolution. It sounds like the hall video being shot in anamorphic is what's triggering the AR change as that's anamorphic stretched to 16:9. FCP by nature conforms the anamorphic ratio and displays the non-square resolution as 1280x720. (960 x 720 into 1280 x 720) By trying to keep everything as non-square via the complex layout is inadvertently multiplying the AR trying to stuff 16:9 into 16:9. How does it look if you converted Mixed to match the video? BogDew fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
Well we want the final video to be widescren because it looks nice Example here: http://vls.uclan.ac.uk/Play/8845 You can see the elements there. I lied by the way, there are four dropzones, because we have 2 for the reflection. So we drop the video into the main one and the reflection, and the slides into the main one and the reflection. If what you're saying is correct, if I set the Mixed sequence to 960x720 just as a test, and set my default sequence in preference to be the same, and then try putting slides on the slide sequence, maybe I'll see them added to the timeline in the correct AR. thehustler fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Actually semi-disregard my other posts, they're half correct. What is happening is that you're shooting in a non-square (animorphic) format (All DV, even if it's HDV will do this) and then are importing square pixel files (the TIFFs) despite the resolutions "matching". 960x720 is still 16:9. Final cut corrects the non-square pixels to the 16:9 ratio - 1280x720. When you import your powerpoint slides they're not actually anamorphic and so what happens is the sequence that is marked as anamorphic tries to automatically correct them - I'm guessing they get skinnier. While you can select an anamorphic tick box for DV footage (scroll across in the bin headers for this) I'm not sure about TIFFs. You could try and export them as 1280x720 with luck the anamorphic correction will over-compensate and it will fit. Or make a new anamorphic sequence just for the slides and hope it matches. Anyhow the point is all of your assets must be conformed to the anamorphic ratio. At the end of the day Final Cut / Motion will export out as 1280x720 if it's been told to correct the square pixel ratio (sometimes you keep it "squished" for broadcast) and it will appear as 16:9 - you don't really need to force it into shape, but it won't hurt if you've kept your working files at 960 x 720.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm really understanding why you're saying that everything must conform to be the same, surely if they're on separate sequences the only thing that matters is the particular sequence's setting? Those TIFFS are 4:3 tiffs, and for some reason when I import them in they show in the bin as HD (960x720) - hence the need to right click and make them square instead. And so after I've done that, and I fit-fo-fill them onto my sequence, that's when they get made into a 16:9 clip. Incidentally, it is ONLY fit-to-fill that does this. If I manually drag things onto the timeline, they go on just fine and use the attributes that the bin columns say they have. The video and the slides sequences get exported separately and then I drag those .movs back into the same project so I can put them in the dropzones. (incidentally, why can you not drag sequences into motion dropzones. Grr) Edit: I will have a play though, thanks for your advice!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
thehustler posted:I'm not sure I'm really understanding why you're saying that everything must conform to be the same, surely if they're on separate sequences the only thing that matters is the particular sequence's setting? Those TIFFS are 4:3 tiffs, and for some reason when I import them in they show in the bin as HD (960x720). Sequence settings can provide a way to override the default settings FCP likes to impose and get around working with mixed media. Another "gotcha" is found in the Sequence Setting where the Compressor dropdown (under the Quicktime Video Settings) can inadvertently be left to something like PAL DV and people end up with items that need to be rendered (like titles) ending up stretched and interlaced when exported, despite looking fine in the viewer. Given you make two separate movies for the final compile it might be easier just to create a project just for the slides, where the sequence is at 1280x720 square, no anamorphic and when you import the TIFF you should (if it's a 4:3 graphic) have two "black bars" at the side of the screen as FCP will scale images to sequence hight by default. You shouldn't have to be doing as much AR conversion as it's a square pixel file going into a square pixel sequence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Thanks. Makes more sense now. I'll have a play
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Heh, the joys of corporate video - I am required to use some kind of AMD Phenom system with 8gb of RAM and a 4 year old ATI card and somehow run Premiere CS6 on this. I can't even run a color corrector and curves on DSLR footage without rendering. Like, I think my old C2D MacBook Pro runs Premiere better than this. And of course they spent all their budget on a 3 chip video camera before I started. And despite having a camera that shoots 5mbps they got a single 1tb hard drive. So...do you guys prefer Avid DNxHD or Cineform as an intermediate codec? Joke question - does hacking in an OpenCL card that old even work? I can manage it to a point with a 6900 series Radeon, but I'm working with a 5400 or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
I didn't think Windows CS6 supported OpenCL. (IIRC no Mac has used a Phenom but I may be wrong) Joke question poorly answered 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Joke question - does hacking in an OpenCL card that old even work? I can manage it to a point with a 6900 series Radeon, but I'm working with a 5400 or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Webdog: http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1958 Maybe this is the reason for my issues. It's just because it matches a known size for videos, not that it's trying to match a sequence preset. I just tried to do the same workflow but with different sequence preset selected and it did the same thing. But when I tried importing TIFFs at 1024x768 instead, they got detected as square pixels and fit-to-filling them onto the 960x720 timeline put them in as 4:3 (obviously scaled down to fit the sequence). So it's just because that 960x720 makes FCP think "OMG VIDEO!" that fucks it up. Edit: Yeah, that's definitely the issue. I can live with it. It's not a huge problem. I'm not about to start batch-resizing slides when apple-a/remove attributes takes me 5 seconds. But I'm glad I've found out what the problem was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
Yip Yips posted:I didn't think Windows CS6 supported OpenCL.  you're probably rightAlso lol I can't run color corrector and curves on XDCAM 50mbps footage in real time, it plays at about 12 frames per second. If I could put in a CUDA card in this would it be worthwhile, or is AMD Phenom just a lovely platform to work on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
My colleague put a Dazzle filter on a clip in FCP 7 to make some of the parcans and spotlights in shot have star-like trails, and it detected the back of my head (I was at the front doing closeups and I am quite bald and very touchy about it...) as a highlight and put a star on it. Not happy and just wanted to rant. loving filters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
I bet it made you look fabulous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Heh, the joys of corporate video - I am required to use some kind of AMD Phenom system with 8gb of RAM and a 4 year old ATI card and somehow run Premiere CS6 on this. I can't even run a color corrector and curves on DSLR footage without rendering. Like, I think my old C2D MacBook Pro runs Premiere better than this. I wasn't around for the initial question but this is the answer to "what should I ask in my interview." Truth be told most of us in corporate video end up bringing in at least some of our own stuff - if you have a laptop, just use that and point out that having you draw a salary without the resources to do your job is a waste of your time and their money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Is there anyway to batch render, or do multiple jobs at once in FC7? Occasionally we have to render different bits of footage for broadcast (letterbox, or graphics), and being able to do multiple things at once would be handy. Any plugins? I've been told to use Compressor, but I have to slap on graphics in FC7 and then render it before I can do anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
GiveUpNed posted:Is there anyway to batch render, or do multiple jobs at once in FC7? Occasionally we have to render different bits of footage for broadcast (letterbox, or graphics), and being able to do multiple things at once would be handy. Any plugins? You can export your sequences directly to Compressor, no need to render in FCP first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
1st AD posted:You can export your sequences directly to Compressor, no need to render in FCP first. Doesn't this take a stupidly long time, or did FCP X fix that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Make sure you have Qmaster installed and set up properly and your renders will go much faster through Compressor. Having your source media on a different drive than where you are rendering your QuickTime to will help too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Doesn't this take a stupidly long time, or did FCP X fix that? Nope, and the only thing FCPX really changed was to get rid of Qmaster and replace it with something else that is basically Qmaster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Interesting. I'd always been led to believe that using send to Compressor was a bag of wank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
GiveUpNed posted:Is there anyway to batch render, or do multiple jobs at once in FC7? Occasionally we have to render different bits of footage for broadcast (letterbox, or graphics), and being able to do multiple things at once would be handy. Any plugins? In addition to what everyone else said about compressor, there's also the export queue in FCP that you can set as many sequences to output at once and then leave it to go, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as doing multiple jobs "at once" since it's a queue in the very literally sense of the term. Or you can highlight the sequence you want rendered in the browser and render them all at once, though again, this is a queue, not simultaneous. If you're asking about background rendering while you're working, there's not anything that does that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
RaoulDuke12 posted:If you're asking about background rendering while you're working, there's not anything that does that. FCPX does this actually, and if you have a 3ghz+ i7 or Xeon you can continue working fairly seamlessly while it renders in the background as long as your media and render destination are on separate drives. If you're trying to decode native H264 there's some lag, but on ProRes it actually works really well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Oh yeah totally, that was one of the big selling points of FCPX, I thought he was specifically limiting his request to FCP7 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I'm also posting here because it's sorta related to the industry. I used to work at a paper, and got into a pretigious portfolio school in Sept. They offer second year majors in PR, Advertising, Broadcasting, and Journalism. The job placement rate from the program is very high. However, to gain experience, I'm volunteering at a local tv station. A lot of people that work at the station graduated from the program I'm attending. I'm working for free, and they've started to give me a lot of responsibility. Am I being taken advantage of, or are they trusting me with work? I work for the same company as the TV station, and volunteer on an occasional day off. My boss says them giving me responsibility is a good thing, but I'm not 100% sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
If you're still in school and you aren't doing coffee runs and nonsense paperwork, then you're getting great experience more than likely, taken advantage of or not. All internships take advantage of you, at least the ones that let you do actual work are giving you real world experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Are you enjoying the work at all? Does it feel like you're learning useful stuff? Are you working unreasonable hours doing things that aren't going to help you in your career? Unpaid internships are definitely a thing that a lot of people do in the industry. Whether you're cool with that or not depends on a lot of things. There's plenty of discussion out there on the ethics of unpaid work in creative industries if you really want to delve into the nuances of it. edit: also, are you good enough at the things that you're doing that you could go out right now and get paid to do it? Many of the bullshit unpaid things I see are like above where instead of gaining real experience you're doing coffee runs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
powderific posted:Are you enjoying the work at all? Does it feel like you're learning useful stuff? Are you working unreasonable hours doing things that aren't going to help you in your career? Unpaid internships are definitely a thing that a lot of people do in the industry. Whether you're cool with that or not depends on a lot of things. There's plenty of discussion out there on the ethics of unpaid work in creative industries if you really want to delve into the nuances of it. The station has a tendency to hire volunteers. And no, I'm currently terrible. They are being really nice by helping me out and training me. I've gone from helping out with sound on an access shoot, to editing a show and working in the field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
RaoulDuke12 posted:All internships take advantage of you Up to you whether the time investment is worth it or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
GiveUpNed posted:The station has a tendency to hire volunteers. And no, I'm currently terrible. They are being really nice by helping me out and training me. I've gone from helping out with sound on an access shoot, to editing a show and working in the field. That sounds like you're actually getting something useful out of things. If the station was having you do traffic and data entry bullshit then I'd question if they were taking advantage of me, but the fact that you're helping editing/shooting b-roll that kind of thing makes it sound like you're getting some valuable skills out of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Anyone experienced this issue with Premiere CC? Exported a 23 minute MP4 directly from the timeline, plays fine on any computer, but on Youtube it looks like it loses an i-frame about 3 minutes in and while the video plays normally after maybe 4-5 frames, the sound never comes back. All the footage was XDCAM 422 stuff, so there shouldn't have been any weird issues with compressed formats exporting directly to h264, right?? I ended up fixing it by just exporting to DNxHD and then exporting THAT to a Quicktime with the x264 encoder. Still burned like 5 hours of my life trying to get through that though 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
The line of "being taken advantage of" is whether they turn a profit on your work. If they're letting you do things even though you're not very good at them yet, and they're not turning around and selling it, you're in a great situation. If you're contributing to the business and getting nothing, then there was a recent very high profile lawsuit about that in this very industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
I don't really follow that logic, since the alternative is doing strictly grunt work over the same number of hours but not gaining any useful experience. I'd rather be "taken advantage of".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 10:34
|
|