clarification, workflow FCP

[Gunleik Groven]

I'm a bit confused, shouldn't be - I guess, but still am - as to the FCP route.

What I thought was that I could use the QT proxies with some raw plugin to FCP and edit on proxy rez, then make some proxy adjustments and get full rez for final render.

What I've seen is that it is not possible to send the QT ref files to Color, nor are they debayered in a good way inside FCP.

So what are the options as of today and in the future.

Will I need scratch to finish a project?

In case, what kind of scratch solution do I need, and does it intergrate well with FCP?

Gunleik

[Rob Lohman]

Quality of the current QT code is high, but not ultra high. Whether you need the last depends on a lot of factors.

Yes, you can adjust the proxy resolution for final render. This will be better integrated with FCP in the near future.

As the camera is in development, so is the post production software. We're working hard to give you the tools that you need, we can't do it overnight though.

For Color you can export a DPX sequence from RED ALERT! and load that for example.

[Nick Shaw]

Yes, you can adjust the proxy resolution for final render. This will be better integrated with FCP in the near future.

How do you adjust the proxy resolution? I thought each of the proxies was a separate file.

I suppose you could do an offline at 0.5k or 1k, then media manage the sequence to 2k, export as XML, then do a search and replace on the XML in a text editor to change the names of the files to those of the 2k versions (simply replace "_1" with "_2" if I remember the filename conventions right from IBC).

Slightly unwieldy, but I think it would work. I look forward to seeing Red's more elegant FCP integrated solution.

[Rob Lohman]

Nick: something like that would be the current workflow indeed