Workprinter XP computer systems?

Post by **O. Knights** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:25 pm

Hi,

I recently took delivery of one of Roger's legendary workprinter XP's for my S-8mm reversal needs but am having some trouble getting a computer that fits the requirements, I have a Mac dual G5 and a new MacBook Pro which I use for post but am trying to put together a dedicated PC system (I'm a PC virgin) for the workprinter running Cinecap. The problem is finding a system that can work with ultra ATA raid as this seems to have been taken over by Sata which has problems with rapid frame capture (something I find difficult to understand) so all new PC's seem to be unusable??? Can any other workprinter owners give me any wisdom? Cheers....

Oliver

YouTube · Post by **Andreas Wideroe** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:30 pm

Why not just use your Macs? Should work just as fine as a PC. You just need a frame grabber program. (Hint: Search the archives here)

If not, ANY new PC is fast enough. Get a Raid-0 and 1GB RAM and some hundred Gigs of HDD and you should be fine. Oh, don't forget a firewire input or a card if you're using a DV camera.

/Andreas

Post by **MovieStuff** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:09 pm

O. Knights wrote:Hi,

I recently took delivery of one of Roger's legendary workprinter XP's for my S-8mm reversal needs but am having some trouble getting a computer that fits the requirements, I have a Mac dual G5 and a new MacBook Pro which I use for post but am trying to put together a dedicated PC system (I'm a PC virgin) for the workprinter running Cinecap. The problem is finding a system that can work with ultra ATA raid as this seems to have been taken over by Sata which has problems with rapid frame capture (something I find difficult to understand) so all new PC's seem to be unusable??? Can any other workprinter owners give me any wisdom? Cheers....

Oliver

Hi, Olly!

Don't worry about whether the motherboard likes ATA or Ultra ATA drives. Just get a cheap Raid card from Adaptek, Promise, Fast Trak or a host of others and plug it into an open PCI slot. Problem solved. You can capture to your Mac but the post/batch processing features in CineCap really streamline the process on the PC.

Contact me if you need any assistance.

Roger

Post by **tornsprocket** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:34 pm

I really wish someone would create or port CineCap for Mac. It really would be a dream come true.

Post by **BSMaier** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:00 pm

Has anyone tried using Cinecap through parallels? I recently switched over to a mac as well, but already owned a copy. Would love to be able to keep using it.

Post by **johnnhud** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:38 am

I own both Cinecap (PC) and Capturemate (Mac) and they both work pretty much the same. The only difference is that Cinecap has a playback tool that I never use. If you already have Cinecap for the PC but want Capturemate, just buy it. These guys worked hard to make the programs work, it's worth the money. Also, Capturemate is cheaper!

Post by **tornsprocket** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:21 am

The issue is in the pulldowns. Cinecap is great for doing accurate pulldowns, not to mention being able to create your own. The pulldowns do not interpolate the frame which is important in my type of work. Capturemate does not do any type of pulldown. It was never designed for this type of work outright. No matter what Cinecap won't use Quicktime codecs, only Microsoft DirectShow or Video-for-Windows codecs. So that forgoes using it on a Mac under VirtualPC or on a Windows partition.

It all comes down to a problem of efficient digital workflow.

Post by **jhoneycutt** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:14 pm

BSMaier wrote:Has anyone tried using Cinecap through parallels? I recently switched over to a mac as well, but already owned a copy. Would love to be able to keep using it.

A Intel Mac will let you load XP on it. Can you run Cinecap on XP under a Max OS on a Intel machine? I think it can be done.

jack

Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:03 am

tornsprocket wrote:The issue is in the pulldowns. Cinecap is great for doing accurate pulldowns, not to mention being able to create your own.

It all comes down to a problem of efficient digital workflow.

I thought the purpose of the Workprinter was to capture frame by frame.
Why would you have to apply a 3:2 pulldown?

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:27 am

MoonstruckProductions wrote:
tornsprocket wrote:The issue is in the pulldowns. Cinecap is great for doing accurate pulldowns, not to mention being able to create your own.

It all comes down to a problem of efficient digital workflow.
I thought the purpose of the Workprinter was to capture frame by frame.
Why would you have to apply a 3:2 pulldown?

To make your film footage play at the correct rate on video. Let's say that you want to transfer your film to NTSC video, which ostensibly plays at 30fps. If you shot your film at 30fps and transferred each frame of film to each frame of NTSC video, then it will be playing at the correct rate. But let's say that you shot your film at, oh, 15fps. If you transferred each frame of that film to NTSC video, the new frame rate for playback would be 30fps, which would be twice as fast as you want. So the easiest pulldown pattern would be to simply double every video frame or, rather, to spread each frame of film across four video fields. There is a special pulldown pattern for all the various frame rates (such as the 2:3 for 24fps on NTSC) and the pulldown patterns for NTSC are different than that required for PAL.

Roger

Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:41 am

Hey Roger,

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. When people mention pulldown they are talking about adding pulldown flags for output to an NTSC device for playback. But the capture software really does capture 1 frame at a time, so when I place my file in my NLE, I will see each frame individually. Correct?

-Scott

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:24 pm

MoonstruckProductions wrote:Hey Roger,

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. When people mention pulldown they are talking about adding pulldown flags for output to an NTSC device for playback. But the capture software really does capture 1 frame at a time, so when I place my file in my NLE, I will see each frame individually. Correct?

If looking at the original file, yes. If looking at the file with the pulldown, sorta yes. You will see interpolation on the pulldown frames, which are the additional frames that spread, say, 24 our to 30. If you tell the software not to interpolate, then it will simply double frames where needed. 24 would be spread out to 30 by just doubling every fourth frame, for example. 15 would be spread out to 30 by doubling every frame. So you would see the original captured frames on every other frame, etc.

Roger

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:20 pm

Though these results might not be the same for everyone.. Using cinecap I've noticed less compression artifacts when doing whole frame pulldown patterns (as opposed to interlaced pulldown patterns). Slighty more stuttery playback as a result of whole frame patterns though.

Might be better off just throwing it into After Effects on a 24fps timeline or a 18fps timeline and exporting it that way.

Filmshooting

Workprinter XP computer systems?

Workprinter XP computer systems?

Re: Workprinter XP computer systems?

Mac Vs PC?