Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: wich codecs for grading ?  (Read 11357 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« on: August 11, 2011, 08:39:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'm finding that this workflow (that does not concern the Red workflow) works well for me:

It would be transcoding from the begining any kind of footage to the highest possible codec in order to be used further for grading. Problem: I want to avoid ProRes because of its Mac dependence.

So I ingest the files to AMA in Avid and batch transcode into another bin in DXxHD for smooth editing,

then just re-link the edited sequence with their originals (I mean the previously transcoded to a lossless format), wich only takes a few seconds.

export the sequence now containing the highest possible codec to another platform for grading or even to another NLE platform for other tasks.

I'm not so far very aware of all the "offer" available in the industry when it comes to choosing formats for grading.

A part from ProRes, I've been told that the Canopus codecs work well, are widely used and handle serious grading, Cineform comes also quite often in my researches.

So my question is: what are the best options possible if not prores? options that have made their proofs, multiplatforms and above all are rock solid stables.

and is it interesting to export tiff 32 bits image sequences just for grading? (thinking of it because Nuke has very good color corrections features, at least for my needs)

Then, what about Photoshop? Grading in PS. The think is that I like more and more image sequences workflow.

Thanks
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 08:52:17 AM by fredjeang » Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2011, 11:15:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred, I'm pretty new to this too, but my first guess would be DPX.. which is an image sequence format.  A lot of Resolve work that incorporates VFX shots is done in DPX.  I need to investigate formats more myself as this can all become very confusion.

Stills are so much easier... shoot raw / retouch tiff / deliver tiff

also, Resolve grades so quick, powerfully and easy that I'm going to experiment with it for stills.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2011, 12:30:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I'm tempted to go DPX, but there you have a clear advantage with Premiere because Avid's DPX workflow is something users are claiming for some time now.

And then the huge amont of HD required so another thing to look is the Raid config etc etc...it's just like crazy indeed.

What I'm observing (and end doing ) is that it's very rare that editors are using just one software. In fact all I met so far are runin Avid, Premiere, FCP7 and change alternatively when needed so they extract the best of all and avoid problems that way.

Today I was learning a multiplatform workflow between Avid and Premiere Pro, it's very easy and straighforward. Normally what I've seen is that the Avid guys who work with resolve use After effects to create DPX and they export an AAF from Avid to Premiere and copy-paste the footage in after effect. It sounds a mess but it's in fact fast. So you could object: why don't they use directly Premiere? Well, because for ex some want the Red Raw grading in Avid etc...so in the end it's like the ideal editor is having all of them, and that's what I'm seeing. Having Edius 6 with Avid saved me of problems with the AVCHD of the GH2 because for Avid, AVCHD is just crap and don't help the workflow.
It sounds like DNG and other still raws isn't it?...

Yeah, life was waayy more simple in still-land. Here we have to deal with tons of parameters and those naughty codecs and what really makes me think that this is a complete mess, is seeing similar questions that I'm asking as a newbee in motion, in many pro cine websites, asked by advanced people and answers really never answered as "this is how it works" but more like "try-this-that-and-the-other-but-you-might-want-to-end-with-those" ...

In the end, image sequences seem to be the way to avoid all that mess because all we need is HD.

I also need to experiment stills with Nuke because there is no limit format.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2011, 06:33:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I discover everyday novelties.

I just realised something I ignored so far in Edius6. I was doing some practice training with thr Red workflow, and this very good editor is capable of actually editing in real time 4096x2160 and not just stucked in 2k.
and accept any image sequence you ingest into it.

The Red workflow is very different from Avid. What Edius wants is image sequences from the Red, generated from RedCineX, not the raw files like Avid. Seems like a downside in a way but in fact it is rather interesting because in the end you will end with the grading or compositing in image sequences, so this is not a bad workflow at all considering the resolution you can reach within the editor.

I have to admit that at the Red res from RedCineX exported in tiff image sequence, the editing was slow (still better than AVCHD !!), so switching in proxy mode and it was perfect to edit and degradation negligeable for the editing task.

In the real world application, I could create a project done with the 4k image sequences that generates the Panasonic GH2 (unfortunatly, very unfortunatly, this wonderfull GH2 capability is limited to very short time) with the real dimensions in the timeline and the IQ even in the viewer was stunning.

Edius 6 is indeed a very powerfull editor and a very good complement to Avid or Premiere.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 07:11:00 PM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2011, 09:19:07 PM »
ReplyReply



Stills are so much easier... shoot raw / retouch tiff / deliver tiff


Workflow in motion in dependent on time, editorial system and most important  . . . money.

If your going to outsource everything, then the only workflow you have to be concerned with is dailies so you know what ya got and dailies are usually best done in prorezz, so you can easily batch them to mp4 for web viewing and drop the prorezz in almost anything for a quick edit.

Past that most film makers work from the backend forward.  They know which system they're going to work in and shoot, process accordingly.

It's funny that since FCP 10 was announced a lot of people are finding ways to speed up their use of FCP 7, kind of like they didn't know how good they had it until it was taken away.

I'm not saying FCP 7 is the final answer because as most of us have learned . . . there is no final answer for everyone.

I do know that estimating and shooting a motion project is way different than a still project and you gotta price in a lot of time in pre and post production whether your a hand it off type of guy or do it yourself type of guy.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 09:22:31 PM by bcooter » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2011, 04:26:36 AM »
ReplyReply

ProRes, ProRes...

it seems that there is no way to escape the ProRes plague, like the Standard & Poor's agencies are ruling the economy, this codec bloody rules the editing.

So the story is to get a Mac and a Final just to be able to write to ProRes. Very nice Mac manouver! It makes me want to rebuy their cool stuff... Each time I hear this name now I can feel the dark side of the force growing in me...

Seriously,

Most of the independant filmakers and editors I knew before entering motion where on FCP except the very big prods that where in general runnin Avid in Europe but they had fcp units also.

After the #10 tsunami, still a lot are using FCP7, in fact I'm saying a lot and I should say all. Nobody has abandoned this editor. They added Premiere, Edius, Avid or Sony but are working with FCP7.

One of the reason is...guess what...ProRes...

the other reason is that they really like this editor and are familiar to it.

James you are right. Money is the keyword. To be honest, if I'm doing all those trainings is because I can't delegate and because in the end knowledge has money value and also because somewhere I'm masochist and I like new chalenges and techniques. It's like this beautifull wild horse, you see it and think that you will end to dominate. It's exciting.
On the other end, I consider that knowing the post-prod helps a lot to delegate and supervise the work, so it's not lost time at all even if we outsource everything.  

But what I like less and less about that masochist learning, is that I have the wired feeling that the gravity center is NOT well located. I mean all that is time consuming but I realise that where the gravity center should be is in the lightning, the casting, the story, the music and sound takes. And those also require time and dedication. So in the end, the search for a stable and simple but efficient post-prod workflow is not an option but an obligation to be able to focus on much more important things.

I'm going (seriously) to explore the Photoshop way. I'm fed-up of softwares more complicated than a space shuttle board that should be runned by artists-engineers. Look, the other day I did a shooting with a model, and made it such a way that I was using all the knowledge learned so far. Technicaly it was superior to anything I did before in motion, more refined, but I was completly dissatisfy because the model wasn't working well, I wasn't working well...bad casting ruins everything, wether you are on Flame, Alexa or whatever magic unit.

In fact I would have shoot 720 with a compactcam or a mobile phone BUT with a real inspiring top model, real lightning, real story etc...the result would have speak instead of what I had and no special fx can recuperate.

When based material is bloody good, editing is a breeze and post-prod works by itself with whatever.

Lesson learned, changing the gravity center.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 05:15:46 AM by fredjeang » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2011, 07:00:20 AM »
ReplyReply

As a long-time respector (my spell checker says its not a word but I say it should be) of all the contributors to this thread, I sense a pissed-off attitude to having to learn myriad new systems/softwares/ad nauseam. We have to stay on the ball, keep abreast, etc, but bloody hell, it seems to get more complicated when surely the aim/hope is for it to get easier. I'm also moving into movies... and it's taxing my tiny brain more than I like.

The big bummer is that the more time we WASTE/invest on this (necessary) geeky/techno stuff, the less energy, as in creative energy, we have for our message. And it's our message that feeds us - literally, and probably more importantly (to us but maybe not some wives/partners..) intellectually. We have to do it but it lowers our performance levels. Jesus, I'm beginning to sound like a nerd.

I wonder if the answer is to make a big investment in time/effort to learn a good combination of current state-of-the-art equipment and workflow that gets us the result we need, and then stop using forums like this for maybe four years and think only of what we want to produce and how best to produce it.

I love the freedom and extra possibilities that digital in all its manifestations has brought us, but what a bloody load of extra work.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2011, 09:24:54 AM »
ReplyReply




I love the freedom and extra possibilities that digital in all its manifestations has brought us, but what a bloody load of extra work.

We just finished shooting a long project.  A month of pre production, a month of shooting, another month of post.

Yes we can all become nerds and get caught up in software, hardware, codecs, formats, cameras, dollies, movement, etc. etc. though really all this stuff is only there to add to the creative process, not detract.

In fact the best motion advertising I've seen in 15 second play is made from a still image with a voice over and a small title.

Beautiful stuff and it works as well for the ad as if they had shot it on 35mm film with 2 million dollars in production.

The one thing I've learned about motion (and I have a lot to learn) is the story makes the difference.  If you don't have a writer, or can't write yourself do start making friends with one, or two or three, because the story is king, no matter how short or long.

The second thing I've learned is find the right talent for the job.  Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.    Even if the talent is real people, make them comfortable with their lines, treat them as if they are the highest paid hollywood star and listen to their suggestions.

The written word doesn't always translate into believable or interesting dialog.

The third thing I've learned is a good sound technician, better put a good sound artist is vital.  We've worked on location for the month and two days ago was the perfect example of a the perfect storm.  We scouted a restaurant because it had a quiet day street, a covered overhand for weather, was fast to light as we had multiple talent per shot and had simple beautiful lines which made multiple camera set ups easier.

Then the day to shoot happened and it rained then stopped, then they started construction next door then they started digging a hole in the street to fix a water main break, just when we were ready to shoot.

By asking everyone would hold most of the racket down durning our takes and the sound tech saved so many takes I can't begin to explain.  When we get to final cut we may have to loupe a few but all in all the sound guy saved us from disaster or moving the schedule which was almost impossible.

Now as far as equipment, I haven't tested and used everything but I love the look of the RED's I own.  I don't like the cost, especially don't like the form factor, but damn they look like cinema film.

I also have a full set of 5d's which are great for low light and the new Sony fs100.  I love shooting that Sony with Zeiss lenses, because I think it is the perfect size and weight for about anything you could imagine, but damn the file is sensitive.  It's always on the edge of blowing a highlight and the menu system offers a lot of color/tone settings but getting a handle on them takes a while, just setting the shutter speed takes the patience (which I have little of) and the hand coordination of a brain surgeon, (which I also don't posses), but the camera can be a life saver just like the 5d's.

Still, (no pun intended) there are two ways to look at this still to motion convergence.  We can be overwhelmed with the learning curve or be positive and use what we know to shoot differently than film crews but maybe more creatively.

I'm personally stoked and like shooting motion, love the challenge, love the control, find every bit of it interesting, though I must admit directing, shooting some and setting composition and movement for three cameras leaves me totally drained by the end of the day.

There is a reason most directors have double dark circles under their eyes.

Now I go into post and I'm just as excited about that as the shoot, because that's where all the hard work is rewarded, or (heaven forbid) any mistake is glaring.

Either way, it's moving forward and I love it.

Maybe I'll feel different in 30 days.

IMO

BC


Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2011, 09:46:37 AM »
ReplyReply

The one thing I've learned about motion (and I have a lot to learn) is the story makes the difference.  If you don't have a writer, or can't write yourself do start making friends with one, or two or three, because the story is king, no matter how short or long.

The second thing I've learned is find the right talent for the job.  Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.    Even if the talent is real people, make them comfortable with their lines, treat them as if they are the highest paid hollywood star and listen to their suggestions.

The written word doesn't always translate into believable or interesting dialog.

The third thing I've learned is a good sound technician, better put a good sound artist is vital.  We've worked on location for the month and two days ago was the perfect example of a the perfect storm.  We scouted a restaurant because it had a quiet day street, a covered overhand for weather, was fast to light as we had multiple talent per shot and had simple beautiful lines which made multiple camera set ups easier.

Totally agree.  I experienced exactly the same things.

We can be overwhelmed with the learning curve or be positive and use what we know to shoot differently than film crews but maybe more creatively.
This sentence could resume all. This is exactly my thoughts now: use what we know, and I'm changing the workflow gravity center now to apply it and focus on creativity and not this tech bondage that was pumping all my energy and putting me on nerves, doubts and restlessness. Actually starting to work in image sequences I just feel it's right, clean, no hassle. I feel "at home". I'm re-born, move forward and more motivated than ever. Suddenly, my head full of datas, confused and frustrated is cleaning-up. As Georges Clinton says: free you mind and your ass will follow.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 10:56:29 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2011, 12:20:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not a fan of Apple or any of their products or codecs. An alternative is Cineform, but I'm not a big fan of that either. I've tried both Prores and Cineform, and for feature film work, they are an unnecessary transcode-step - as far as my personal workflow is concerned.

My workflow is TIFF based. With today's computers, 32-bit TIFFS are great for grading work. Working in DPX is an option if the project is intended for film out.

To keep it simple:
1. Edit Native (NLE edits are non-destructive)
2. Output the edit to TIFF for grading - for heavy grading work
3. For light grading, grade native! If you are in 32-bit mode, light grading won't 'destroy' your footage.
4. For VFX - TIFF and EXR sequences are best (The latter for 3d work).


 
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2011, 01:14:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not a fan of Apple or any of their products or codecs. An alternative is Cineform, but I'm not a big fan of that either. I've tried both Prores and Cineform, and for feature film work, they are an unnecessary transcode-step - as far as my personal workflow is concerned.

My workflow is TIFF based. With today's computers, 32-bit TIFFS are great for grading work. Working in DPX is an option if the project is intended for film out.

To keep it simple:
1. Edit Native (NLE edits are non-destructive)
2. Output the edit to TIFF for grading - for heavy grading work
3. For light grading, grade native! If you are in 32-bit mode, light grading won't 'destroy' your footage.
4. For VFX - TIFF and EXR sequences are best (The latter for 3d work).


 

I agree Sareesh,

I'm discovering this workflow and indeed it's much more my cup of tea and also results are really top and stable.

In fact I'm not a video guy and probably never will, and understand more, or feel more attracted to work with image sequences since I started to dig into it. At least the cine approach is something natural and I enjoy it.

Video tech is too much for techs, buttons lovers and consumes cpu, always need sofisticated and delicate electronics...cine is brutal, big images, lots of Ks but it just consumes hard disks and does not consumes the brain with those tiny little codecs and other annoyances that I ended to feel exactly like when a fly is bodering you while eating, you know...

video post prod learning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGpfwTTvpVI&feature=related

I really prefer the big heavy Tiff stuff but more importantly, cine is much closer to what we are familiar with and that changes a lot.

About open EXR, I know a fx stud here that want exr, I've been diging in ILM and I don't get it. It seems that Maya can generate them for ex, but what do you use to convert to EXR ?

I'm also testing the PS workflow. It works bloody well. The only downside I'm seeing, but it's not because of motion but something I'd like Photoshop to improoved years ago also in stills, is that the scripts don't work the way they should be with certain filters-and-or plug-ins. As a result, if a specific image required a parametered filter applied in a third-party plug-in, the process end to be completly automatized and with a few images it's not a big deal, but with a lot of images that's another story. Despite, it's still very manageable and not always this problem appears.

I beleive that Nuke in that aspect will be a time saver, but it's summertime, clases are closed until october.

ps: I agree on editing native, except when what you get is AVCHD...it's horror to edit natively.

On those screen shots I volontarly applied a series of layers+filters in PS scripting it to make it look like a drawing, I wanted something drastic very easy to recognized from original so aesthetic wasn't my concern. No problem at all in ps then ingest into AE or Nuke. This was a short jpeg sequence from camera.  Same, no problem at all in any NLE to work with them. Very stable and pleasant workflow.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 03:57:28 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2011, 10:58:34 PM »
ReplyReply

About open EXR, I know a fx stud here that want exr, I've been diging in ILM and I don't get it. It seems that Maya can generate them for ex, but what do you use to convert to EXR ?

Use Nuke. However, the advantage of EXR is the meta data that it contains, and the way it can handle multiple channels from different renders from a 3d application like max or maya. If you're not into 3d, then EXR is unnecessary. In Nuke, you can create additional channels when required when working with any file system, not just EXR.

Quote
I'm also testing the PS workflow. ... Despite, it's still very manageable and not always this problem appears.

PS is great but can't handle moving masks, layered grading and other motion effects. Plus there's no real-time feedback and you can't 'see' it from a holistic standpoint. The color grading tools of any NLE are good enough for any job. More tools, hardware or plugins don't make the grade better, only faster.

Quote
ps: I agree on editing native, except when what you get is AVCHD...it's horror to edit natively.

The way to edit tough codecs is to create proxy files in Standard definition - so the file sizes are lower than what they originally are. These proxy files must be labelled correctly, and must precisely match the original footage in terms of frame rate.

Once you finish editing, just replace all the footage in your edit with the actual AVCHD footage - piece of cake. This is way more easier than converting all your footage into large files in Prores or Cineform.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2011, 03:50:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's see if I get it in the search of simplifying everything.

Those are the steps I've been trying, they all work fine (some questions appeared), the goal is trying to be as simple as possible and if you see wicknesses please feel free to comment

AVCHD:
1- edit in proxy
2- re-link to the original
3- create a 16 bits tiff sequence or any other image sequence
4- grade from tiff.
Doubt at that stage: In Nuke or Combustion the bit depth can be floating and the colorspace linear. I've noticed that when I'm in linear colorspace, the grading is way smoother.
5- compositing
other doubt: What about when certain transitions where used in the editor stage? (I hardly use transitions anyway but the question came because it seems that the only transition recognized is disolve) does than means that being back in the editor stage can be necessary if we want to use all the range possible of transitions?
7- render to whatever


RED WORKFLOW (new discovery workflow)
1- From RedCineX export to DPX at full res.
2- import in the editor at full res and edit in proxy mode to handle it
3- if in Avid, grade directly in Raw, edit in 2k and relink to raw, if not, grade the image sequences in other app
4- compositing
5- render to whatever


the latest (dispaches discovery) Fred's workflow codec-eraser that works for everything... or that's what I think...mmm
1- import in editor any native R3D or AVCHD and edit the sequences in proxy mode
2- Export/convert the cut to image sequence without any weired video transition at all
3- grade directly in the NLE or in another app
4- compositing
5- Render to whatever
« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 04:04:02 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2011, 12:45:40 AM »
ReplyReply

4- grade from tiff.
Doubt at that stage: In Nuke or Combustion the bit depth can be floating and the colorspace linear. I've noticed that when I'm in linear colorspace, the grading is way smoother.

Nuke allows LUTs. It is always 32-bit floating linear. Once you calibrate it you don't have to worry ever again.

Quote
5- compositing
other doubt: What about when certain transitions where used in the editor stage? (I hardly use transitions anyway but the question came because it seems that the only transition recognized is disolve) does than means that being back in the editor stage can be necessary if we want to use all the range possible of transitions?

Transitions from the NLE are not carried forward. Even between Premiere and AE, a lot of effects are left behind, and even the timing tools don't match.

Nuke is NOT a finishing platform, unlike After Effects. You can use AE to composite, key, grade, title and master. Nuke is not designed for that kind of workflow. Ideally you should not use Nuke for grading, titles, transitions and other motion graphics.

Also I feel, to color grade it is easier to have an NLE-like timeline for quick reference. My preferred finishing system is After Effects. If I had a project with a myriad of challenges, effects and graphics, here is how I would approach it:

1. Lock native edit in Premiere Pro (after redirecting proxies)
2. Select the shots that need Nuke's capabilities - keying, compositing, rotoscoping, etc.
3. Render the selected shots to 32/16-bit TIFF and work in Nuke
4. When finished, render/export the shots with the same properties.
5. Import shots in Premiere Pro and lock final edit.
6. Open premiere pro project in AE
7. Add transitions, graphics and titles w or w/o animation, etc. Where necessary, export shots to TIFF and import back again for really heavy processing. But most of the time it in unnecessary.
8. Lock final edit in AE
9. Grade in AE with basic tools or Color Finesse
10. Render out Master Image Sequence as 16-bit TIFF for archival - use LTO tapes if necessary.
11. Use the master to make further variations for DVD/Blu-ray/Web/DCI whatever.

Quote
RED WORKFLOW (new discovery workflow)
1- From RedCineX export to DPX at full res.
2- import in the editor at full res and edit in proxy mode to handle it

When you shoot on RED ONE, you get MOV files recorded simultaneously to help edit. It is kind of like a proxy and you can follow the same steps as above. Here's a link for further info; http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/premiere/pdfs/red-workflow-guide.pdf

Quote
3- grade directly in the NLE or in another app
4- compositing
5- Render to whatever

One must be careful about grading prior to compositing, or vice versa. Compositing always takes place in final color. When one changes the color, the effect might look 'off'. Changing color spaces makes it worse. You might have noticed how an effect in the cinema hall looks perfect but the same scene on DVD or Blu-Ray looks weird. Managing color data and precision throughout the post pipeline is one of the greatest challenges ever.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2011, 03:44:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for those very usefull lines Sareesh,

I definatly agree that the grading is easier and more consistant with a NLE-like timeline.

When you grade in Avid, you get automatically 3 displays with the previous, the cut you are working in, and the next so you see immediatly the consistency and I found that very helpfull more than once.

About AE, I have a prob with that software. I don't know why, it's not rational, it's like that girl that everybody's attracted to and you never end to feel her; I really really don't like the interface and felt totally hostile each time I used it. It became a prejudice I admit, I know it's good, but I can't help it.

I'm surprised that you don't consider that much a good idea to do some color grading in Nuke, although I understand some logical reasons and it's not its essence, I find that the color tools in Nuke are particularly well featured, powerfull and complete. In some ways they are calling you to use them.

But finding a proper and good workflow for each individual is a real chalenge indeed and I guess it also evolves and matures with practice and each project involved.

Thanks a lot for sharing your workflow experience. That's always very usefull when somebody like me is learning in a new world and still insecure in some fundamental aspects of the pipeline.
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2011, 07:02:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for those very usefull lines Sareesh,
...
I'm surprised that you don't consider that much a good idea to do some color grading in Nuke, although I understand some logical reasons and it's not its essence, I find that the color tools in Nuke are particularly well featured, powerfull and complete. In some ways they are calling you to use them.


You're welcome. On this forum - I mostly ask for advice when it comes to photography. I'm grateful that I can also contribute to it somehow.

I come from a feature film background. Nuke has color tools because when you comp you need to do it in final color. But unfortunately, it's always shot by shot.

On a feature film, color is an important element, and you want to play back scenes with different shots in them to match the grade. One scene might have several shots. Imagine doing that in Nuke. It's possible - Nuke has a 'kind-of' timeline - but its not easy or intuitive. It's like someone reading a book with instructions on page 10 and the reference image for it on page 560. Imagine doing that for the whole book.

Also, when one grades, one wants to play back a sequence (several scenes) in real time to gauge its emotional effectiveness. If you are on an Avid, its color grading tools are perfectly adequate for professional use.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2011, 08:24:18 AM »
ReplyReply

So what's the point to get a dedicated grading software like Scratch or DaVinci?

Is it mostly a question of time-efficiency factor?

I ask this question because I have the feeling that you seems to say that it's not about quality at all, that any pro NLE or AE grading tools would in fact do the same but just taking more time?

If so, the dedicated grading software is only justified if you are a color artist and have regularly a lot of volume to grade but they are in fact not necessary to have a better quality. Is it really truth?

So then again if all that is true, we have to be carefull and keep the mind cold when softwares and vendor's sirens songs tempt us with something that we may not really need and acheived ecual with cheaper softwares.

That point is important I think for most of us who are doing the transition or adding motion, because when you don't know from deep experience, it's easy to fall into some unnecesesaries purchases. And with any new software added, comes obviously a new learning curve to eat, and quite frankly, I have more important things to do than sit on the academies schools benches again unless it's absolutly necessary, so it's very important that we end to know what really matters to what can be a lost of time and money better used in for ex hiring a sound tech or whatever.

And the siren song trap is very easy to fall into because those softwares are so good, so complex and bloody attractive that it's hard to think you won't get a better workflow and aesthetic results with them...knowing the real contribution they can add is not easy.

When I saw for ex the DaVinci interface-workflow for the first time, I must admit that I was blowned and said "Whao! I want one".  And it's hard not to beleive that if every colorist folks in the industry works with those beasts, it's not for a good reason and therefore we also should get the train right now as newcomers.

Reading your posts from the beginning and some of Chris Sanderson too, I have the feeling that it's not as simple as that and that in fact we need less than we imagine, even for a high-end workflow.

I sort of smelled that with Scratch. Not a long time ago I evaluated Scratch in its trial version that I worked on with during all the trial duration. I liked the interface very much, it's very plaisant in use BUT...I have never been able to see a real difference with when I was grading in Scratch to when I was using Avid. When came the time to decide if the money asked for the software AND the learning curve was justified or not, I was feeling this "mmmm..." intuition and finally decided not buying it. But as I don't have a long time experience, I always doubted if my evaluation had been correct or if in fact there where huge differences I couldn't detect because of this lack of experience.

That IMO is the very strong contribution the experienced cine-video pros can share to us. Because that's bloody important.

I sort of like when someone says to me: "come on! you don't need that" because in the end it's always a lot of time saved and everything that works simple to me is really a good sign.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 09:06:49 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1899



« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2011, 02:26:02 PM »
ReplyReply

About AE, I have a prob with that software. I don't know why, it's not rational, it's like that girl that everybody's attracted to and you never end to feel her; I really really don't like the interface and felt totally hostile each time I used it. It became a prejudice I admit, I know it's good, but I can't help it.
I think that almost anyone face to face with AE's unattractive UI for the first time will run the other way.

It is only after you have started to use it and scratch around a little that you realize how good the brain is. Then the 'body' disappears.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2011, 03:21:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that almost anyone face to face with AE's unattractive UI for the first time will run the other way.

It is only after you have started to use it and scratch around a little that you realize how good the brain is. Then the 'body' disappears.

Why on earth there is always a conflict between attractive bodies and brilliant brains...?
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2011, 04:44:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Why on earth there is always a conflict between attractive bodies and brilliant brains...?

Just came in from 34 hours of traveling so my writing is probably gonna be a little fuzzy.

Anyway, I'm not for blowing money just to spend it, but I tried AE a few years back and got pretty deep in it, mostly for grading and tracking.

I was told AE was photoshop on wheels.   I always thought it was photoshop's ugly sister in a truck.

I know it does a lot, but damn it's the most unintuitive hunk of code on the planet.

It's like everything they know about photoshop gets 10 times more complicated.

I also demoed scratch and didn't see the point as the version I tested was for RED files only and it didn't do that much more than cine-x which comes in at a good price . . . free.

I have an appointment next week in LA to review the di-vinci suite.

I'll know more soon.

IMO 

BC


P.S.  Why don't they just configure lightroom for motion clips, either image sequences of full clips?  It seems like there is a hole in the market for something between a $39,000 di-vinci suite and AE.


Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad