Magic Bullet Suite 2.0 with the Z1u

S

scenedirector

Well-known member
If I get these 2 tools together, will I get a pretty good 30p or 24p 1080 HD picture that will be pretty good?

Native 1080p footage is best, but I am starting a project now and need to know if this will work until I can get my hands on an HVX200.
 
mediamilitia said:
THis will not give you 30p or 24p. It will still look like 60i video, no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

Sorry, incorrect. You must be thinking of Magic Bullet for Editors, but this question regards the Magic Bullet Suite v2.0. This is a set of plugins for AE, and will in fact render your 60i footage into 24P, in addition to having all the CC options of Magic Bullet for Editors.
 
So to answer my question, will Magic Bullet or any other deinterlacer give me a decent (I know not best, native progressive footage is best) progressive HD image?
I have Magic Bullet Editors. It is a WONDERFUL tool, but I am aware in doesn't do anything to the frame rate or format for that matter.

Thanks for all your input guys!
 
AspectHD from Cineform does indeed deliver an excellent deinterlacing.

From there you can re-encode in MPEG2 (Program or Transport format, le later to re-record on miniDV at 25MB/S ) or in WMV ( excellent , and supports 1080 ) or Divx or Quicktime, without having to use the (rather insatisfactoty d) deinterlacing of these codecs.
 
Magic Bullet in AE will perform this very well. I used it back at school and a few jaws dropped. Could get you very spectacular results...
 
And yes, the CF30 and CF24 options are very much to be avoided.
Click to expand...

I'm curious glassblowerscat - do you actually have an FX1/Z1U, and have you actually used these modes? I've found them exceptionally useful.

-Spiff
 
Spiff_2 said:
I'm curious glassblowerscat - do you actually have an FX1/Z1U, and have you actually used these modes? I've found them exceptionally useful.

-Spiff
Click to expand...

No, definitely I don't have either model, and I have not used either of these shooting modes.

I wouldn't dispute with you over what you might find "useful." However, speaking according to the standards, anyone wishing to use their footage in a production should avoid the non-standards-compliant "progressive" that Sony has implemented here. While particular people may find it useful ("useful" being a completely subjective term), the format is not going to work in any professional application, by definition.
 
speaking according to the standards
Click to expand...
So far as I'm aware the only professional "standard" is that you get paid for the work. It doesn't matter if you shoot it on SVHS or 35mm - if you got paid it was professional.

the format is not going to work in any professional application, by definition.
Click to expand...
Since you haven't actually provided any meaningful definition, your statement is pure nonsense.

The CF modes - in particular CF25 and CF30 are extremely useful in terms of realising a progressive workflow out of the camera. The sacrafice is simple: 1/2 of the vertical resolution... which gives you 1440x540 4:2:2 worth of information in a 1440x1080 4:2:0 box. I'm sorry if you can't see the utility in this - but...
a) It's plenty of resolution to down-convert to either 1280x720p or the SD standards.
b) You don't have to deal with chroma sampling artifacts.
c) You don't have to blow hundreds of computer cycles doing adaptive deinterlacing.
d) It's easier on the MPEG-2 compression.

I'm not going to say it's better than a real progressive solution - that would be bollocks... but it's got time saving and subjective quality benefits that are non-trivial.

-Spiff
 
Spiff_2 said:
So far as I'm aware the only professional "standard" is that you get paid for the work. It doesn't matter if you shoot it on SVHS or 35mm - if you got paid it was professional.

Since you haven't actually provided any meaningful definition, your statement is pure nonsense.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Bad semantics on my part. You of course can speak most accurately to whether you have used the camera professionally by this definition.

But here is what I actually meant: if the production requires 24P, CF24 doesn't do it. It does something else. So no one who wants your footage to be 24P is going to be happy.

Spiff_2 said:
I'm not going to say it's better than a real progressive solution - that would be bollocks... but it's got time saving and subjective quality benefits that are non-trivial.
Click to expand...

Again, I won't speak to what any particular person may find "useful." All I was really saying is that you can't deliver this to someone as 24P.
 
And so far as I know, no one ever has. But certainly CF25 material has been delivered well, as has CF30. As for CF24... well... it can and should be delivered as a 23.976 fps file - but no one calls it 24p. Of course, precious few would realize the difference, but there ya go.

-Spiff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top