Fcp 7!!!
- Thread starter RicFic
- Start date
RyanBellaCine
Well-known member
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Apple's h.264 codec is kinda lacking in quality. It just looks awful when I create low bandwidth streaming versions for our QTSS. I switched to the x264Encoder and it looks tons better. ( Again on VersionTracker.com )
I suspect it's because iPods can't decode the more advanced settings you can use in the root h.264 standards. ( check out the chart at the bottom of the Wikki Page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 ) To keep things simple Apple only uses one config of their codec, but the non-iPod videos suffer in quality i think. Apple's h.264 codec can't match the Blu-Ray spec of the h.264 codec. Which is probably why there is a Blu-Ray specific template in Compressor now that will burn h.264 "Blu-Ray" ready files you can source out to any "3rd party Blu-Ray burning software"
As far as streaming, very few networks can handle the huge bandwidth of Blu-Ray. which is why the "HD Streaming", which really isn't HD, is so low quality. But most consumers don't know any better to realize it. They just get giddy at the marketing terms and think they are watching quality video.
studio1972
Well-known member
The Apple TV HD downloads are 720p which is HD. I don't know about the US, but over here nearly all HDTVs are actually 720p, not 1080p anyway (although they will play a 1080p disk they only have 720 or 768 lines of pixels. Obviously the bitrate is also lower than a BR disk (just like HDTV broadcast is), but it is high enough to give a great picture. I'm sure that in time it will improve further and 1080p downloads will also be available.
Even in it's current form 720p downloads are noticeably better on a HD set than DVD 576i. I don't know what people are talking about when they say the downloads are not HD or are low quality, I don't think that's true.
RyanBellaCine
Well-known member
I was referring to "HD Streaming" not iTunes or even QuickTime trailer downloads. The difference being that you download the iTunes / QuickTime trailer footage to your computer before you watch it.
Streaming being the live feed that usually isn't stored on your computer. Generaly, it takes longer to download the HD footage then the total run time is watching it. That's because the average network can't sustain a high enough bitrate. You get dropped frames or buffering pauses big time trying to do so as a live stream.
Apple chose 720 because the download times and file sizes for 1080 are so much greater. 720 allows for a larger consumer audience by using the smaller download sizes of 720. not to mention that some older systems can play 720 but not very well with 1080.
These "HD streaming" i've seen are actually 480p. Ok, so 480p Technically is "HD" but that's watering the truth down quite a bit. It's not the True HD big boys that everyone thinks they are getting.
I've got DirecTV with 1080i channels. it looks good. But when we popped in The Dark Knight IMAX Blu-Ray version, it quite frankly kicked the shizzit out of anything off DirecTV. And that's just talking picture quality, not even getting into sound quality. Right now Apple HD downloads or any of similar kind can't even touch Blu-Ray.
I can definitely see the difference using a higher end 50" Panasonic Plasma. And to go a bit further on that, I can also see the difference between 1080 and 720 on the 50". 720 just looks slightly soft due to the uprezzing.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I understand exactly what 720p is. There is lots of it on cable (FOX is all 720p as I understand it, and it often looks just fine). I also own an HVX200a, so I have shot lots of 720p, and it also looks fine in spite of the HVX's 'prosumer' pedigree.
But Apple TV? Ick. I mean, BIG ick. It's technically 720p, as in it has 720 vertical lines of resolution (x1280) that are progressively scanned, but the bitrate is so decimated for the sake of streaming speed that it really can't be called "HD" by my account, any more than a 128 Kb MP3 music file can be called "CD quality". Plain and simple - it's not.
tbob
Active member
I'm confused... on this page:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/specs/#finalcutpro
...it says:
"Native editing for DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO, DVCPRO 50, and DVCPRO HD"
And filmguy123's not the first person to post about a DVCPRO-HD lack. Do you mean no support for the P2's MXF files? There's a Raylight tool that allows native MXF editing...
http://dvfilm.com/raylight/mac/index.htm
RyanBellaCine
Well-known member
They also say "Improved rendering management" but i've seen at least one review already stating this is a farse. WTF. Apple is really stretching the truth on this release.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/kicking_the_tires_on_final_cut_pro_7/
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/kicking_the_tires_on_final_cut_pro_7/
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
It does support those CODECS natively. What it doesn't support is the P2 file format. So you can't edit the footage as the camera recorded it; you have to run through the "log & transfer" step to convert the files from MXF to Quicktime.
Or, just step outside of FCP itself and get Calibrated's MXF importer, and it's all good to go.
Does anyone here own a SACD player? I bet very few have one, if anyone at all.
For those not familiar, SACD is Sony's successor to the CD. It's been out for a few years now and also involved with a format war with the DVD-A format (which is part of the DVD standard).
SACD is technically a superior format to CD, but the difference isn't as big as was between CD and analog cassette. Most people can't justify the upgrade cost so the format isn't going far outside of the audiophile circle. Furthermore, people these days are more than happy with downloading music online as MP3 or AAC even if they know it's worse quality.
Sound familiar?
---
Personally, I care about quality so when I can I buy Blu-ray. I also plan to eventually get a SACD player for classical music. That's just me. Web downloads and streaming might be the future, but at this point it's not delivering the quality compared to something like Blu-ray.
If you have the right gear, you can see a difference between DVD, Blu-ray and say a download from AppleTV. Will most people care (or even have the right gear)? Probably not, but that doesn't mean we have to stop aiming for the best!
For those not familiar, SACD is Sony's successor to the CD. It's been out for a few years now and also involved with a format war with the DVD-A format (which is part of the DVD standard).
SACD is technically a superior format to CD, but the difference isn't as big as was between CD and analog cassette. Most people can't justify the upgrade cost so the format isn't going far outside of the audiophile circle. Furthermore, people these days are more than happy with downloading music online as MP3 or AAC even if they know it's worse quality.
Sound familiar?
---
Personally, I care about quality so when I can I buy Blu-ray. I also plan to eventually get a SACD player for classical music. That's just me. Web downloads and streaming might be the future, but at this point it's not delivering the quality compared to something like Blu-ray.
If you have the right gear, you can see a difference between DVD, Blu-ray and say a download from AppleTV. Will most people care (or even have the right gear)? Probably not, but that doesn't mean we have to stop aiming for the best!
high quality audio, downloaded or streamed or played back on small audio devices is much easier than video, so u can get really high quality audio.
video on the other hand, especially when streamed, you need to take a quality hit to have a nice balance between speed and quality. if the consumer wants to stream something, he would want to play it as soon as possible. but that wont be a problem in a few years.
if there was 2 versions an option between speed and quality that the user could choose, that would be a better solution for everyone.
video on the other hand, especially when streamed, you need to take a quality hit to have a nice balance between speed and quality. if the consumer wants to stream something, he would want to play it as soon as possible. but that wont be a problem in a few years.
if there was 2 versions an option between speed and quality that the user could choose, that would be a better solution for everyone.
studio1972
Well-known member
I think the bitrate is about 4mbps, which is lower than DVD, but then the codec is much better and it is progressive. So the resulting image is pretty good from a user perspective. I must admit I haven't looked at it really closely looking for problems, but from my sofa it seemed fine. For what it's worth, I have found that when encoding SD footage into H.264 you can get a pretty decent picture at 1.5mbps if you use a 2 stage encode, it gets better up to 2.5mbps and higher than that doesn't seem to make much difference, so 4mbps seems reasonable for 720p.
On the other hand, I have a 16mbps internet connection, so if they were to up the bitrate, that would be even better, but I think the difference wouldn't be that noticeable. When I'm watching a film, to be honest I'm too engrossed with what is happening to be thinking about the image quality (as long as it isn't irritatingly bad, like VHS).
I actually think your example of MP3 music is a very good one. I can tell the difference between a 128kb mp3 and a CD, but generally only if I'm thinking about it. It's not something that would bother me and I (like millions of others) enjoy mp3s without having a problem. I used to listen to tapes when I was a kid, I can assure you, mp3s are much better.
I think most people are like me. For most people the benefits of mp3 over CDs far outweigh any disadvantage in sound quality. I think it's the same for video, which is why internet downloads will succeed and BR probably will just be a niche product for a few years before it disappears. In the long run, internet downloads will probably increase in resolution and bitrate as technology moves on, but then there will be somebody who isn't happy unless they are watching their movie in 8k at 500mbps on their ultra violet ray disk :grin:
filmguy123
Veteran
I can tell the difference at 128kbps but not at all at 192kbps, which is still a far cry from original CD; you're absolutely right - and someone said it before - convenience will be the determining factor, and most ppl just can't tell the differences once quality crosses a certain threshold. The thing is, by the time internet streaming/dloading of HD is mainstream, the slowest of connections will be 20mbps FiOS speed downstream rates and new compression schemes that make h.264 look like crap will have been developed.
Me! I've got one! Ad the benefit is marginal, partly because there's a limited range of SACDs around. There *is* a quality difference but, even on decent gear (which I have) it's hard to justify the extra cost of the system. I got it because I wanted a Sony DVD Player, and it also provides SACD, so it was a kind of free extra for me.
The difference between DVD and HD is much more discernible (IMO) than between CD and SACD.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
SACD was absolutely, positively stillborn, as was DVD-A. Market share-wise in all of music sales totals I'd be shocked if both combined ever represented more than .01%. It unfortunately has become little more than a reprise of the late 70's era "quadraphonic" fiasco.
Back then, all hi-fi gear hardware manufacturers decided that "Quad" was The Next Big Thing, and invested heavily in new equipment. Quad LPs and tapes were produced in considerable numbers. Pro audio gear manufacturers jumped right in too (many quad-era mixing consoles, by MCI in particular, are in use to this day, but of course, never for 'quad' music...although 5.1 film mixing can make use of some of those features). Problem was, consumers avoided the whole thing in droves. It tanked horribly, at breathtaking speed. Within a year or two (IIRC) the whole colossal clusterf*ck was called off, and stereo carried on in its rightful place.
Until...
SACD/DVD-A content providers made the same mistake, and tanked (even worse, actually) in spite of a fairly robust user base of mutichannel home theater systems in place that could take advantage of them with little or no hardware upgrade cost. Why? Well, IMPO (as an audio pro), nobody (still) wanted to listen to music where instruments and voices were coming from four places (or 5.1, in the latter-day case). Basically the most naturalistic way to experience music (or a movie, TV, a play, the opera, or a baseball game...) seems to be "me: over here, entertainment: over there". Being "surrounded" by it never cut much mustard with the public. The lesson was learned in the 70s. Why it had to be repeated a few years ago is beyond me.
What's a little sad (to me anyway) is the missed opportunity to do multichannel music right: put the listener in *concert hall ambience* - not in the middle of the damn band. This is mostly what 5.1 theater sound does - immerse the listener in a more naturalistic 3-d environment: rainfall surrounds you naturally as do other ambient effects like large reverberant interior spaces, aircraft flyovers etc. Sometimes music is in the surround channels too, but somehow it works much more unobtrusively in films, probably because it isn't happening *all the time*. If SACD/DVD-A had used the extra channels mainly for naturalistic ambience, a listener could have been brought into a real concert-like experience at home. I know some titles did do this, but for the most part, producers got suckered into the gimmicky "instruments and vocals coming from everywhere" thing. The result was one of the largest group yawns in history...
Regarding the other aspect of SACD/DVD-A, the higher fidelity, IMO the multichannel thing was irrelevant enough to override it on it's own, but it didn't help that the systems were developed at the beginning of the MP3/iTunes era, when fidelity was greatly *reduced* for the sake of downloading speed. So a time when it was being amply proven that Joe 6-Pack was Pretty Darn Satisfied with degraded MP3 audio might not have ben the best to try to sell expensive, higher quality discs, almost all of which featured gimmicky quinto-phonic audio that, demonstrably, nobody ever wanted anyway.
Thus, a fiasco was...repeated. What is it they say about those who fail to learn from the lessons of history?
Back then, all hi-fi gear hardware manufacturers decided that "Quad" was The Next Big Thing, and invested heavily in new equipment. Quad LPs and tapes were produced in considerable numbers. Pro audio gear manufacturers jumped right in too (many quad-era mixing consoles, by MCI in particular, are in use to this day, but of course, never for 'quad' music...although 5.1 film mixing can make use of some of those features). Problem was, consumers avoided the whole thing in droves. It tanked horribly, at breathtaking speed. Within a year or two (IIRC) the whole colossal clusterf*ck was called off, and stereo carried on in its rightful place.
Until...
SACD/DVD-A content providers made the same mistake, and tanked (even worse, actually) in spite of a fairly robust user base of mutichannel home theater systems in place that could take advantage of them with little or no hardware upgrade cost. Why? Well, IMPO (as an audio pro), nobody (still) wanted to listen to music where instruments and voices were coming from four places (or 5.1, in the latter-day case). Basically the most naturalistic way to experience music (or a movie, TV, a play, the opera, or a baseball game...) seems to be "me: over here, entertainment: over there". Being "surrounded" by it never cut much mustard with the public. The lesson was learned in the 70s. Why it had to be repeated a few years ago is beyond me.
What's a little sad (to me anyway) is the missed opportunity to do multichannel music right: put the listener in *concert hall ambience* - not in the middle of the damn band. This is mostly what 5.1 theater sound does - immerse the listener in a more naturalistic 3-d environment: rainfall surrounds you naturally as do other ambient effects like large reverberant interior spaces, aircraft flyovers etc. Sometimes music is in the surround channels too, but somehow it works much more unobtrusively in films, probably because it isn't happening *all the time*. If SACD/DVD-A had used the extra channels mainly for naturalistic ambience, a listener could have been brought into a real concert-like experience at home. I know some titles did do this, but for the most part, producers got suckered into the gimmicky "instruments and vocals coming from everywhere" thing. The result was one of the largest group yawns in history...
Regarding the other aspect of SACD/DVD-A, the higher fidelity, IMO the multichannel thing was irrelevant enough to override it on it's own, but it didn't help that the systems were developed at the beginning of the MP3/iTunes era, when fidelity was greatly *reduced* for the sake of downloading speed. So a time when it was being amply proven that Joe 6-Pack was Pretty Darn Satisfied with degraded MP3 audio might not have ben the best to try to sell expensive, higher quality discs, almost all of which featured gimmicky quinto-phonic audio that, demonstrably, nobody ever wanted anyway.
Thus, a fiasco was...repeated. What is it they say about those who fail to learn from the lessons of history?
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Apologies for contributing to one of the larger topic spin-outs I've ever seen here, btw...
bikefilms
Well-known member
Ah, that's a bummer. Can you post any examples of your work with the new Speed Controls? Do you use Motion or Shake at all?
I use speed ramping quite a bit, and bring my clips from FCP into Motion to fine tune them. It would be much faster to stay inside of FCP, I agree with you.
I think a new Speed plug-in is needed.
-Andrew
I use speed ramping quite a bit, and bring my clips from FCP into Motion to fine tune them. It would be much faster to stay inside of FCP, I agree with you.
I think a new Speed plug-in is needed.
-Andrew
filmguy123
Veteran
No reason to post examples; the effects look the same in FCP6 and FCP7. Still need to go to motion for optical flow. This is just a comment on the interface of the new speed controls, which don't truly do a non-ripple speed change (see other NLE's such as Premiere). Disappointing.
I try to plan ahead and shoot 60p on my HVX200 when I want to do slow motion and then just speed up the rest of the clip around it before ramping into slow motion.