|
|
Unfound Codec Hardware..... what?
FCP 7.0.3
MacPro 2.8GHz Quad Core
Dual HP monitors - 1920x1080
OS-X 10.6.6
We are cutting a several-minute long piece in Apple ProRez 422 HQ, 854xx480, 29.98. The Sequence settings match and we've been doing similar jobs for a couple of weeks.
The editor produced a fade-in at the front of the piece and it immediately lit up red for rendering. When we try to render we get an error message (in part) [Codec Not Found. If you have a hardware codec, it may be disconnected.]
That triggered at least three blank looks so far. Are they not talking about Apple ProRez 422? Are we misunderstanding the error messages?
Koz
854x480? That's not a normal dimension. 720x480... 720x486... I haven't seen 854x480. Where did this footage come from?
www.shanerosseditor.com
Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[ itunes.apple.com]
What Shane said. Your frame size does not conform to specs and is not supported by FCP's RT engine. If you are trying to edit widescreen, edit in a 720x480 sequence and make sure the anamorphic checkbox is ticked for both the sequence as well as any anamorphic footage. You can probably get away by dropping render precision to 8 bits, but I wont advise it.
www.strypesinpost.com
OK. We can fix that.
Thanks,
Koz
<<<OK. We can fix that. >>>
Or maybe not.
The clip is a rip of one of our older anamorphic DVDs. It's Apple ProRez 422 23.98 854x480.
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, DV/DVCPro NTSC compression
That renders
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, Uncompressed 8-bit
That renders
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, Targa
That renders
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, Apple ProRez 422 HQ
-- Fails --
Codec Not Found
You may be using a compression type without the corresponding hardware card.
Koz
I just set up a 854x480 ProRes sequence in FCP 7.0.3 and encountered no difficulty rendering effects. My OS is 10.5.8, unlike Kozikowski's 10.6.6. 854x480, even if ripped from a DVD, shouldn't be unnecessarily down-rez'd.
Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany
Quote
Kozikowski
<<<OK. We can fix that. >>>
Or maybe not.
The clip is a rip of one of our older anamorphic DVDs. It's Apple ProRez 422 23.98 854x480.
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, DV/DVCPro NTSC compression
That renders
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, Uncompressed 8-bit
That renders
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, Targa
That renders
Sequence:
DV, 720x480, Square, 23.98, Apple ProRez 422 HQ
-- Fails --
Codec Not Found
You may be using a compression type without the corresponding hardware card.
Video is stored on a DVD as 720 x 480. Why would you want to extract it to a size larger than NTSC frame specifications? Make sure the ripping process is being done correctly.
When you edit in FCP, why are your sequences set to "square"?
I did a quick test (OS X 10.6.6, FCP 7.0.3 on a 2010 Mac Pro with ATI 5870 graphics card) with 23.976 anamorphic footage ripped from a DVD. I ripped it so that the frame size was 720 x 480 and used the ProRes 422 codec. In FCP, I create a new sequence using a ProRes 422 (HQ) NTSC Anamorphic 23.976 preset. I opened the sequence settings and changed the frame size to 720 x 480 (from 720 x 486). I dropped the ripped ProRes 422 clip into this sequence and no rendering was required.
Koz, it seems like the people doing the ripping and the editors running into issues (as per your other posts) are a bit weak in understanding how to use FCP, etc. Or, am I misunderstanding things?
Quote
dcouzin
854x480, even if ripped from a DVD, shouldn't be unnecessarily down-rez'd.
I understand that if you convert a 720 x 480 anamorphic (16:9) frame by expanding the pixels horizontally you end up with 854 x 480. That is changing the "resolution" (or pixel aspect ratio, at least) from the native 720 x 480 on a DVD.
When an anamorphic SD video is played back on an (4:3) SD TV from a DVD player, the effective frame size is 720 x 404, which yields letterboxing.
If 854 x 480 is what is extracted from a 720 x 480 image on the DVD, how is it really "down rez'd" when put back into a SD frame size sequence (720 x 480). Why wouldn't you simply extract the material "properly" as 720 x 480 from the DVD and just use that?
-----
Something is definitely amiss with Koz's setup, as I can confirm that dcouzin's 854 x 480 sequence settings work okay for me, as well. It's curious that all of these issues are happening on new machines...
-Dave
I've had issues with graphics not rendering (especially the large ones), and I don't have issues when I switch render precision to 8 bits. I suspect it may be related to the graphics card.
www.strypesinpost.com
D-Mac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If 854 x 480 is what is extracted from a 720 x 480
> image on the DVD, how is it really "down rez'd"
> when put back into a SD frame size sequence (720 x
> 480). Why wouldn't you simply extract the material
> "properly" as 720 x 480 from the DVD and just use
> that?
Whoever did the rip, could have extracted the material as anamorphic 720 x 480 from the anamorphic 720 x 480 DVD, but didn't. Instead he extracted a non-anamorphic 854 x 480 clip. The image information in the 854 x 480 is essentially the same as the image information in what it came from. However, now that it's 854 x 480, to down-rez it to 720 x 480 does sacrifice information. The image does not go back to the original 720 x 480 image. Even if the algorithm used to make the 854 pixels from the 720 pixels is theoretically reversible, that is not how the down-rez'ing will be done, so there will be some loss of horizontal resolution. (I can explain this further offline.)
Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany
dcouzin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> D-Mac Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If 854 x 480 is what is extracted from a 720 x
> 480
> > image on the DVD, how is it really "down rez'd"
> > when put back into a SD frame size sequence (720
> x
> > 480). Why wouldn't you simply extract the
> material
> > "properly" as 720 x 480 from the DVD and just
> use
> > that?
>
> Whoever did the rip, could have extracted the
> material as anamorphic 720 x 480 from the
> anamorphic 720 x 480 DVD, but didn't. Instead he
> extracted a non-anamorphic 854 x 480 clip. The
> image information in the 854 x 480 is essentially
> the same as the image information in what it came
> from. However, now that it's 854 x 480, to
> down-rez it to 720 x 480 does sacrifice
> information. The image does not go back to the
> original 720 x 480 image. Even if the algorithm
> used to make the 854 pixels from the 720 pixels is
> theoretically reversible, that is not how the
> down-rez'ing will be done, so there will be some
> loss of horizontal resolution. (I can explain this
> further offline.)
I have to disagree with you.
When the image is changed to 854 x 480 from 720 x 480 during the ripping (and transcoding), the image is being processed beyond simply reshaping the pixels as you imply.
And, depending on how that new size (854 x 480) is resized back to a 720 x 480 frame will affect the quality of the resulting image. Having FCP resize it is probably not the best way.
So, the image is changed in both steps. The point to make here is to avoid any additional degradation of the image by ripping the DVD source without changing the frame size.
I believe this stuff is instructive to those who are interested, so if you have further explanations feel free to post here. Going "offline" doesn't help anyone, as the thread then just "ends."
-Dave
Quote
D-Mac
I have to disagree with you.
You haven't disagreed; you've effectively restated my post.
I certainly didn't imply that the 854 x 480 image was made by "simply reshaping the pixels". There are 64320 new pixels in it!
Underlying my post was a consideration about reversible, 1-directional uprezing. Instead of making a row of 854 pixels from a row of 720 pixels, it is enough to imagine making a row of 6 pixels from a row of 4 pixels. The original 4 pixel values are A, B, C, D. The 6 new pixel values will be P, Q, R, S, T, U. Imagining the rows side by side, observe the alignments and overlaps and calculate P, Q, R, S, T, U by prorationing. P = A. Q = (1/2)A+(1/2)B. R=B. S=C. T= (1/2)C+(1/2)D. U=D. (Calculating 854 pixels from 720 pixels involves more arithmetic, but likewise each new pixel value is either an original pixel value or a weighted sum of two original pixel values.) This kind of uprezzing is decent looking and commonly done. It happens to be reversible. If you know P, Q, R, S, T, U, the equations show how you can calculate the original A, B, C, D that begat them. That is theoretical reversibility. But if the downrezing is also by prorationing -- decent looking and commonly done -- the algorithm will achieve something different. It will make A = (2/3)P + (1/3)Q; B= (1/3)Q + (2/3)R; C = (2/3)S + (1/3)T; D= (1/3)T + (2/3)U. Notice how these values differ from the original A, B, C, D.
Quote
D-Mac
I believe this stuff is instructive to those who are interested, so if you have further explanations feel free to post here. Going "offline" doesn't help anyone, as the thread then just "ends."
Well, should it have been allowed to just end?
Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany
Ah, it's the 8-bit/10-bit quandry-- 8 bit is so 2000's; 10-bit is today. Yet the machines which run it smoothly are........ tomorrow, for many of us.
I asked Grant Petty to include 8-bit flavors of ProRes and DNxHD for internal transcode from his beautiful new Cinema Camera just for post, with the ability to conform to the high quality archived near-line. It's the familiar offline/online model.
He said if enough people shout he'll put it into a firmware upgrade.
Start shouting now! These things take time.
- Loren
Today's FCP 7 keytip:
Advance to next/previous keyframes in a clip with Shift/Option-K !
Your Final Cut Studio KeyGuide™ Power Pack
with FCP7 KeyGuide --
now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com
|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
