Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Macbook pro questions

Expand Messages
  • Steve Watkins
    I ll add a few things that probably arent too important but I ll say em anyway... Yes the new 17 is 1920 res, but unlike the 15 it is still available in a
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 20, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I'll add a few things that probably arent too important but I'll say
      em anyway...

      Yes the new 17" is 1920 res, but unlike the 15" it is still available
      in a matte version as wel as glossy. To be honest 17" is a bit small
      for that res anyway. There are some nicely priced 22 and 24" monitors
      that can do that res, and apart from colour-related issues which Brook
      was talking about, they are a pretty good match for editing 1080p
      footage. Stille ven 24" feels small for 1080p sometimes, I have a 720p
      projector and watching films on that is great, even though its a lower
      res - 720p aint bad at all.

      Brooks advice about deinterlacing is very good, although if you are
      publishing to the web in resolutions that are half your source res,
      you can skirt round the issue (if you export to half the vertical res
      than it makes deinterlacing irrelevant because you are throwing away
      half the vertical lines which eliminates the issue). Also if you are
      lucky enough to have a 720p or 1080p camera then you dont need to
      worry about deinterlacing as the footage is already progressive.


      Steve Elbows
      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irene Duma <irene@...> wrote:
      > Ok. Thanks a lot for your detailed response. Very helpful...
      > Irene Duma
      > Strange Duck Media
      > Web Design and Creative Marketing
      > Blogging easy computer tips http://www.strangeduck.com/blog
      > and comedy at http://www.bittertonic.com
      > St. John┬╣s Address:
      > 12 Allan Square
      > St. John's, NL
      > A1C 4A8
      > T. 709-726-6178
      > C.709-699-8205
      > From: Brook Hinton <bhinton@...>
      > Reply-To: <videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:21:22 -0800
      > To: <videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Macbook pro questions
      > The only way you would edit HD while viewing it at its native
      resolution is
      > with an external monitor no matter what. And plenty of us do most of
      our HD
      > editing on portable systems, though Rupert's ergonomic advice is indeed
      > sage.
      > Also, if you are thinking you need "HD resolution" to see what your
      > actually looks like, keep in mind that even an external monitor won't do
      > that. You need either a tower with a video-video (as opposed to computer
      > video) card going out to a broadcast monitor (VERRRRRRY expensive
      for HD),
      > or a system like a Matrox MXO that lets an external Apple Cinema Display
      > (the LCD versions - I don't know if the the LED's can display interlaced
      > video or if they're compatible with the MXO) emulate a broadcast HD
      > You have to be able to calibrate color bars and a blue only switch -
      its not
      > the same as color calibrating for other work on a computer (The MXO, and
      > probably some other solutions, let you do this).
      > If your final output is just for the web, it's not so much of an
      issue - you
      > just need to calibrate whatever monitor you use, compensate for the
      > differing gamma between systems, and REMEMBER TO deinterlace or use some
      > other method to convert any interlaced material to progressive so
      you don't
      > get those horrible interlace artifacts on output.
      > Brook
      > _______________________________________________________
      > Brook Hinton
      > film/video/audio art
      > www.brookhinton.com
      > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.