the capture of the capture of the...?

[MovieStuff]

Yes, a friend has the new Velocity and it is pretty cool. It has real time color corrections on each clip which is something that I wish I had. The only real hitch with the Velocity is in their batch capture and their audio. The batch capture aparently is problematic and the audio scheme they use, where the audio is on a separate drive, causes the soundtrack to fall out of synch on occasion.

I used to have the older DPS animation drive. It was great and very simple to use. Now I just use the stop motion capture function on Premier and it works fine. The older DPS card had component inputs as well, which was great. Nice set up; kind of miss it. (sniff)

Roger

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mattias:
"each frame is a separate file, NOT a continuous video file, like AVI, Quicktime.
excuse me but this you'll just have to explain. first: why would this be a benefit? second: what is a "continous video file" if not a series of still images (that can be split to "separate files" with one push of a button)?

I mean each frame is actually a separate file being stored on your hard drive, not one file that is a combination of a bunch of frames, like AVI or Quicktime files.
I'm not saying whether or not this in itself is a benefit, that's just the way it is. (In relation to the separate files, that is).

However, film scanning is leaps and bounds better quality, NOT because it's separate frames, but because each frae is being stored without the limited capability of any of the compressed, or uncompressed video standards (they are VIDEO, and therefore lack resolution, and have problems like artifacting, etc. NO video file is perfect, and none of them, even digital stands up to these high resolution film scans.)

Of course an AVI or QT file is a series of images, but a Quicktime file is ONE file.
When you scan one second, using film scanning, you end up with 24 separate files!
Programs such as Adobe Premier are set up to be able to import these and then edit just like you would normally...
Matt Pacini

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

[ulrichsd]

Hey Roger, you're right about the S Video, I just couldn't remember what extra the S-video did. In my own opinion I can tell a huge difference between component and S-video on my 32" TV, but I can't see a difference between component and S-video with my friend who had component, but I didn't see the 2 next to each other.

Scott

[This message has been edited by ulrichsd (edited August 23, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Mattias, Matt...

I think Matt meant that the size of the file was a benefit, not the notion of it being a separate file. I could be wrong, but I think he was writing sort of short hand, conceptually, not literally. Likewise, the distinction about separate files, as opposed to video files, was only used as an indicator of designed function. Video files, BECAUSE they are designed to be played at the press of a button, are understandably smaller. The larger high rez files have to be handled one frame at a time due to their size, not in spite of it, even if you lined them up one after the other in sequence.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 23, 2001).]

[MadFor3D]

Matt,

I just want to make sure I understand two terms you used.

Component: Separate R, G, B, plugs...?
(I have three plugs like this from my video card, one S-Video plug, and the other plug...)

Composite: The typical plug type for most standard home VCR's...?
(The "other plug" from my video card).

Right?

-M



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

[MadFor3D]

Matt,

I'm sorry, I'm still trying to understand something.

Here is an image: http://www.MadFor3D.com/Gallery/Supe...weenFrames.jpg

I believe this "ghosting" is caused because the video transfer VCR was recording at 30fps while the film was running at an un-synced 24fps. Therefore, sometimes it would capture "in between frames"? I'm sorry, I know there is a name for this, something like ghosting? No?

So, there is no way to avoid this, unless you have the film scanned?

This will happen even with a Rank transfer?

It would be a problem for any chroma key shots to try and do special effects on such a frame. I do want to do some special effects using those techniques. Would it be possible to just copy a frame next to it and rename that frame to copy over the "ghosted" one? Would the viewer notice two matching frames side by side?

Thanks,

Madrone



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

[MovieStuff]

This is called "frame sharing" and, yes it is a problem for a lot of keying type effects. It is most noticable in film chain transfers where a five bladed shutter is used. A Rank transfer will give you enough separation between frames for effects work. In NTSC, the only problem being the annoying 3:2 pull down which effectively doubles every fourth frame. Other than that, you should get enough discretion between frames for effects work. I do it all the time with no problem.

Oh, yeah: The RGB is component and composite or "base band" video is like what comes out of the little RCA video in and out jacks of a VCR.

Roger

[mattias]

> I'm not saying whether or not this in itself is a benefit, that's just the way it is.

that was not what you were saying, but if it's what you meant, i guess it makes perfect sense. :-)

and roger, there's no reason a "video file" would be smaller than a series of stills, since a video file *is* a series of stills, and the resolution can be as high as you want it to be. but i'm pretty certain you knew that, so i'm curious of what you meant too. seems like we have a very different understanding of several concepts here. maybe "video file" to you means an ntsc stream, while to me it's a file with a bunch of still images intended to be played in sequence?

/matt

[MadFor3D]

Well,

I gotta spend some more time with the manual for my PVR card. That or the help file. Cause I found out yesterday that it has a thing called "film mode". When in film mode it captures 24fps. What? Why would I want to do this when capturing from a VCR?

This really makes me wonder, what type of output plugs does a Telecine? Rank Super 8 Gate have? They gotta be plugging it into VCR's somehow right?

I guess I just really don't understand how come these Telecine machines have to be so big and expensive. Seems like there should be a way to manufacture a similar thing much smaller for home use. I know I know, an Elmo right? But something better, more like a Rank transfer at home for less than $2000. I'm just dreaming right? It really involves rocket science?

-Madrone

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

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Mattias!

Technically, animated drawings are nothing but a series of still images waiting to be play back sequentially, as well. And, as high a resolution as those original drawings might be, there is no button in the world that will make them play back unless they are put onto a carrier medium of some kind. Therefore, there is a difference between a series of images EVENTUALLY meant to be played back sequentially and a series of images that, by their function, allow IMMEDIATE playback. And to facilitate that function, the more immediately accessable playback images need to be smaller in file size using current technology; "smaller" being relative to what consitutes film resolution. HD TV certainly exists, but is not yet quite film resolution, despite all the hype, which is why film effects places currently scan their images to files bigger than that which appears on HD video, the only known form of "hi-resolution" video that allows immediate playback. Even the people doing effects for Lucas don't scan their film images to the same format he is shooting his HD field footage on. They want bigger file sizes and greater resolution.

Therefore, in the context of this disussion, a clear distinction is being made between what constitutes a standard "video" frame and a "hi-rez" frame intended for cinematic printing to film. Video frames created by a Rank are designed to be played back "at the press of a button" (to use your terms) immediately after transfer while the hi-rez frames referred to by Matt earlier in the converstion can not be played back at hi-rez until after they have been assigned to a carrier medium, such as film, due to their enormous size or unless they are on a very high powered graphics work station set up for that kind of conversion to a playback state. But, even then, playback is not immediate as the images have to be compiled into a playback form and some resolution is lost in the process to facilitate the preview. More to the point, the effects being produced by ILM for Lucas wouldn't be as high a rez if reduced to the HD medium he uses in the field. Why? Because, relatively speaking, the HD system he uses incorporates file sizes, per frame, that are still smaller than the ones scanned from film for effects work.

So, in that context, the "video frames" do differ from the the "hi-rez" frames in that the video frames are, by their function, designed to playback instantly while the hi-rez frames are not. For video frames to playback instantly using currently technology, they need to be smaller than the hi-rez frames. There will, no doubt, be a time when today's "hi-rez" frames are tomorrow's "video frames" and can be played back at the press of a button; but that time is not here yet.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 24, 2001).]