#Par vs Options
16 messages in this thread
To All,
I'm presently using a Targa 16/32 card and a Panasonic AG-7750 VTR for all my
animation work, but now I'm considering the purchase of a DPS PAR card.
However, there a few questions that I'd like to get answered before I do. I
would like to keep using my ISA machine so the PVR is not an option.
* How does the image quality of the PAR compare with other systems using
real-time decompression like the Animation X-Treme Motion X card from TVOne
Multimedia Solutions and DVision's CineWorks package using the Intel Action
Media (AM2) card ?.
* Does the PAR have any real competition in it's price range and if so, what is
it ?
* The PAR uses compression to store images. Will my output actually look
better using the PAR's 752×480 resolution vs the Targa's 512×486 frame by frame
recording technique ?
* Will the Sound Blaster Pro (16 Bit Stereo Sound Card) work with the PAR and
Razor Pro ?
* Would a non-linear digital video system be a better value such as the
D/Visions CineWorks kit or the ///Fast MovieLine system with the Motion-JPEG
option, or is image quality compromised with these solutions.
Just thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance.
Don
>* Will the Sound Blaster Pro (16 Bit Stereo Sound Card) work with the PAR and
Razor Pro ?<
Of course. Any compatible Windows 3.1 card. The docs for RP recommends Turtle
Beach line since it definately have better quality than the rest now.
As you consider your options, I wanted to let you know that Matrox has a
product called the Animation Xpress, which is a digital animation recorder. It
eliminates time-consuming frame-by-frame recording by playing back
broadcast-quality animations directly from hard disk in real time. It
features digital component 4:2:2 video processing at 720×486, 30 frames (60
fields) per second. There is also a direct connection to 3D Studio.
If you would like a brochure on the product, please e-mail your address and I
will send one to you.
Regards,
Lori Smordin[Matrox]
Hi Lori,
Glad you're here as there seems to be some debate about whether drivers will be
available for Ill Pro running under NT. In particular…
1) an independent device driver
2) a driver to support 3DS R5 directly
Both of which I have been told are in development and both of which I could
use. The device independent driver is needed to support paint programs and
frame grabbing. And of course it would be nice to be able to output directly
to a variety of recording devices when R5 is available.
Can you confirm this?
Also, while I don't have the MAX I do have an Ill Pro and there seems to be
some debate about whether the MAX actually supports 720×486. Some engineers
have claimed that in fact it only puts out 720×480… If you're interested I
can follow up e-mail on the particulars. I don't know how I'd go about
verifying this for sure but it does seem to me that my Ill Pro is outputting at
the correct resolution as I think I am seeing the entire image. Is this problem
confined to the MAX or ? is there something else that these people don't
understand… (My thought was that the MAX drivers might be written to leave
those 6 lines blank for VTR's that record time code in the vertical interval…
FWIW)
Thanks, hope you can help clear this up… it'll make me look better. <G> (And
Matrox products too for that matter. <BG>)
John
>>I don't know how I'd go about verifying this for sure but it does seem to me
that my Ill Pro is outputting at the correct resolution as I think I am seeing
the entire image.
Hi John:
I just went through a similar test on a consulting engineering job recently.
Here is what I did to verify the output was _not_ 486 but actually 480. (This
was not the Ill Pro but another FB in a video system. I created a black
graphic 648×488 in Photoshop. I then used a 4 pixel yellow line and drew this
line at the edge of the top and bottom of the graphic. Then I displayed the
graphic. The FB has several ways to handle this. First, if it is truly a 486
vertical output it will show the 2 pixel lines on an underscan monitor. Verify
with the WFM set to 2V magnification and you can count the number of scan lines
of the yellow line at the edge of the picture. It should be 3 pulses each. IF
the FB chops off the vertical at 480 the underscan monitor will be totally
black with no lines and the WFM will not have any pulses either. If the FB
scales the video vertical to 480 from any vertical picture then the yellow
lines will be visible as before but this time you will need to verify very
carefully by the WFM as a pulse count of less than two each.
If vertical scaling is occuring then any vertical dimension will probably be
squashed to the 480 height rather than be lobbed off. Unfortunately, the
picture subject height gets scaled as well.
For some interesting information try using the lines at the extreme left and
right of the picture. One can get some really strange readings from various
frame buffers being sold.
Don,
It was pretty easy to check out per your suggestions and their is no doubt that
my Ill Pro board is running at 720×486. And I'm not even using the latest set
of drivers, so I can only conclude that something else is amiss with the Max or
the way its been set up.
I used 3DS to generate a blue background at 720×486 and rendered to disk, no
screen display. I checked with the file info button and the rendered image was
listed at 720×486… then I went into QFX using SVGA and turned the ruler with
pixels on and again the image showed 720×486. Then I used a brush at 1 which =
2 pixels and painted a white board 2 pixels wide all around the image, saved it
out. Then using the Ill Pro utility LoadTGA I loaded the test… The top and
bottom showed half the first scanline and the full width of the second line…
now that is tight if you ask me. The left boarder on my monitor is probably not
quite in registration because I could see a 1/4 of the boarder from upper left
down about a 1/8th of the screen… the right side was a complete white
boarder.
That's it, Ill Pro running at 720×486 as advertised… in tandem with the Max
may be another thing and may have more to do with what the Max is sending it, I
really don't know… but the Ill Pro is right on!
BTW I've been meaning to ask… how clean is a first generation dub of Hi-8 to
Beta SP… would you say very acceptable, almost indistinguishable from a Beta
Sp dub or… you've mentioned with regard to acquisition and I know quite a few
tv stations have gone to using it on hand-held… so I'm curious as to what
your perception is…
John
Hi8 to beta SP?
I feel that the degradation process gets halted when any format is copied to
beta SP for the next 6-7 generations as long as the beta to beta dubs are done
component (Y, R-Y, B-Y). Hi8 will still look Hi8 on beta sp but editing can be
achieved for the next several generations without usual loss. Using the best
color under format BVU-950 dub mode, in my opinion, still shows degradation
along the way with each generation.
I just completed a :30 TV commercial with a layered look using 3 layers of A/B
roll. The back layer was at generation #7 in the final master and #8 in the
distribution. The back layer in distribution dub was only very slightly
fuzzier than the camera original. Try that with any other analog edit format
other than 1". Comments from my client, an ad agency was… WOW!. It took me
two days of editing to do the 12 seconds of analog composits. I did the
commercial for 1/10 the cost of the local D2 suite quote which would have used
digital compositing. I first tested this idea in 3DS using rotoscoping and
the PAR at 13:1 compression ratio going in and out at 9:1. This looked
significantly worse than the beta SP multi generational with respect to JPG
artifacts. I did use the PAR for the animation however as simple output of 9:1
compression is pretty clean. It's unfortunate that the PAR must operate at
such a high compression ratio for the video input. I guess this is where the
PVR will save the day.
Speaking of the PVR, I have decided to hold off until things shake out on the
PVR and NT before making any investments in the Razor PRO product. It's not
the Razor Pro but this double compression with the PAR that bothers me. If I
had more significant clients for 3/4 Umatic I would consider it but for betacam
the quality hit of double compression on the PAR video is way too much.
Animation output with only one JPG pass is holding its own with my betacam
clients so far. I recently read that this double compression issue is creating
some concern with the DTV sattelite boys. Seems they are well aware of the
hits taken by video using multiple CODECS in the process from camera to viewer.
You may be aware of this but the DTV is adding another jpg type codec and I
have noticed this on some shows, particularly the infomercials where the
artifacts start to show on my screen. Most infomercials do not have the budget
for on line edit and therefore get dumped from the NLE off line editor system
to distribution tape. Thing is the DTV is so good with respect to other usual
earth bound transmissions and cable that these artifacts show up just like
looking at video tape direct.
Kind of got off the subject but I know you are interested in these things.
Done striping and have to go back to work now,
CUL
Don Landis
>> Hi8 will still look Hi8 on beta sp but editing can be achieved for the next
several generations without usual loss… <<
That was really more to the point than my question. So you got it. 🙂
So I guess it makes sense that you could go three generations with Hi-8 on beta
sp and have a decent product even if you're keying animations on the third
generation to be edited on the master… that sounds really shakey, but that is
what AE is anticipating as well. I don't really want to think about it… I
know you work with this multi-format stuff all the time so if you say it'll
work, I'll go with it. Apparently it is not an unreasonable expectation…
either that or people who do this sort of thing have different expectations.
I'll still voice my concerns but real low key and that should take care of
it… (at what level was really the insight I was looking for which you seem to
have grasped right off).
Thanks much,
John
>>either that or people who do this sort of thing have different expectations.
Most of the time when dealing with the pros this is true, but then I always
seem to get the shi* clients that look at a production done on beta SP and
choose 3/4-Hi8 to do their show because of budget constraints then cry like a
spoiled child when the finished product doesn't look like beta SP. I worked on
a running (as in joggers) show last spring that was shot on beta SP from side
cars on motorcycles. We told him to rent steady cam operators but no he
couldn't afford it. Then he went around town bad mouthing the 5 shooters
because they couldn't hold the camera steady. Then he couldn't afford the beta
suite for post so he did the show on 3/4 Umatic. Then badmouthed the edit
facility (one of my clients) for ruining the quality of the beta SP he paid so
much for. I just love this business!
Don,
>> I just love this business! <<
Don't we though? <g> Hey ya gotta love it, right? 🙂 So who's the patron saint
of editors and animators? Its time to make a healthy contribution. <BG>
I'll be sure to give generously on your behalf. 🙂
Thanks again, I think thanks to your insight I'm on fairly stable ground,
course you never know, out here in California. <G>
John
Don,
I think you're going to like this one. Show's there is poetic justice in the
world. <g> I spoke of the client who ordered the shoot, well as I think I
mentioned I like the guy, but the AE whom the agency sent to handle this thing
is a total boob. Well I told the client about my options one of which was to
take the hi-8 and transfer it to D1 and do the composite… to which he agreed,
that being the best possible alternative… of course it was coming out of his
pocket…
Well I didn't check my machine until late this morning but I had a message, the
client had called pretty late around 10 pm or so…
In the message he reiterated that in my contract I was told I would have a beta
sp copy on which to do the animation composite… he knew I did because I had
told him that… he said he didn't see how a hi-8 to beta sp copy qualified….
<G> yeah well that was my complaint… so aparently he called the agency and
told them as much, he told them that he expected them to deliver what was in
the contract and couldn't believe that they would have shot the stuff on
hi-8… (this btw was done for a national amusement park, and the job has a
fairly high budget…) They spent two days shooting and at least a day and a
half on setup… on a variety of rides including one of the high speed roller
coasters… I don't know what they're called but I'm sure you've seen one, like
a twisty windy corkscrew… anyway, the animation sequence covers some of this
roller coaster portion… which means they're going to have to re-shoot that
section and the rest, which is going to cost alot for the amount of tape I
need… but here's the real kicker… if they're smart they'll just re-shoot
the whole thing… if they don't my portion is going to look so much better
than the rest of it, that he'll complain the quality is not consistent… he
said as much in the message… so this AE is finished as far as I'm concerned.
I've got no worries, the client really liked the animation portion and get
this… he thanked me for explaining the situation to him. Oh boy am I one
happy animator… this guy is going to be a good client for whatever comes down
the pike… not that I expect that much but… it sure is nice when you get to
work with someone like that. And the AE.. who knows, if they're smart they have
someone else handle the shoot… my portion is basically done, except for the
final transfer…
I'm pretty amazed because I was kind of concerned this thing was going to blow
up in my face, especially with the agency, as they hired me… but no they're
happy because he's happy… and I've got some decent work to show for it… the
final transfer won't happen for several weeks yet but it sure is a load of my
mind… I worked really hard on that project and to have it screwed up that way
would have been a collosal disappoinment…
Thanks again for your help, if nothing else it gave me the basis on which I
felt comfortable stating my case… as I kinda knew this wasn't going to cut
it… but hey big time agency says this is the way they're going to do it, who
am I to argue… right? <g> The trick is knowing when to call it, and I think I
got lucky… really especially considering all the money involved… this is a
promo peice for some international investors, which makes it all that more
interesting… big stakes and all that.
John
Glad things are working out. Isn't the first time some have tried to fake it
with a dub to the contracted format. Eventually they all get discovered.
One thing I'm concerned about with the rollercoaster ride. When the betacam is
being jostled around the recorder will probably loose sync due to inertial and
centrifugal forces on the servo. Surprize! surprize! The head on the Hi8 is
smaller and faster so it isn't affected as much. The best way to do this is
use a camera and a microwave link to a remote recorder. These you can rent.
They transmit about 5000 feet I believe. Maybe they'll get lucky and the
recording will be OK. I've had personal experience on this one.
Don,
>> I'm concerned about the rollercoaster ride… <<
I understand this is a problem… fortuneately its not *my* problem. <g> The
hi-8 stuff looked good and he's got a good crew, so I'm sure they'll do what
they have to… this could get even more expensive the second time around… I
may not work with this agency again, but they could also really mess me up…
so its probably for the best anyway.
John
Hey John,
Me again, I can confirm that my 1st gen dubs to BetaSP are very clean. I use a
Sony EV0-300 for all the pro stuff, but for vacations and stuff I use a TR-700.
The 700 is a good little camera, but the single CCD will easily get overwhelmed
on highly saturated reds etc. This is not a problem with the 3 CCD 300 camera.
I have also been using the new Fuji ME position tapes, seems to fix most of the
drop out problems of earlier tapes. IMHO thats the biggest problem with the
Hi-8 format. Sony also has a new tape formulation but haven't had a chance to
try it yet.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom,
Thanks for passing along your info on the Hi-8 beta question…
I'd been sweating this one for a couple of days because I didn't realise the
magnitude of what would come of this whole situation… it all started off with
a third generation tape on which I was to lay my animation… <g>. The extent
of my involvement was suprisingly small… the animation was produced several
weeks ago and won't go to edit for several weeks yet… but my concerns had the
result that the production will be re-shot on Sony BetaCam, as though the hi-8
was a dry run… (almost unimaginable..)
However my standing with the Agency has survived in tact if not better for the
result and the client has insured that the agency was happy about its decision
to reshoot… apparently more production work in the pipeline… So I'm feeling
a sense of relief about what could have turned into a very messy situation…
and very grateful to a client who stuck by me as well.
Thanks,
John