Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Capture One !  (Read 8079 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2012, 01:21:49 PM »
ReplyReply

...  I know this year we'll move to HP peecess for our main boxes as we move to premier...

James,

If you move to Adobe suite, make sure you get the Adobe Audition and not the Soundbooth.

(Soundbooth was included in the suite and very limited while Audition, a proper professional audio software, was sold apart).
Now it seems that you get Audition back in the suite production premium CS6, good news! because lots of sound artists had complained.

Cheers.


Cheers.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2012, 02:23:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Nuts.

I just got some frames and exported them from my FCP timeline as Tiffs

Opend them up in capture one

snip

Morgan,

I think your doing it the hard way.

Have you tried color and the presets like scones, and the color and fx presets in primary, secondary and fx sections?

I have some clips processing now and will add them to this post, once they're cleared.

Chris,

Once again I dig the enthusiasm, and  I somewhat like resolve but most people should keep in mind to get good, really good as they are in photoshop or as good as the coloring on a hollywood A movie takes a minimum of 6 years.

For good, pleasing color it takes less time, but it's still not the most intuitive software and as you say requires fast graphic cards and if your working RED raw a Rocket card.

The reason I mention Apple color is it does about 98% of what resolve does and the learning curve is easier, the presets and very workable, of course on some older machines it runs slower, but if you can find a week in todays, cell phone, e-mail, voice mail, test message world, you can learn it enough to present something quite stunning.

It's just 2k but so far Resolve only works 2k anyway (in output).

I'd rather forego raw on most projects for time/speed sake.  My test of the Sony FS 100 against my RED's lead me to believe I was only picking up about 10% more lattitude once we began grading and the Sony's are light weight and faster.

I think there is an impression here that to shoot professionally you need $50,000 in camera body, $15,000 in computer, $14,000 in drives and graphics cards with another $40,000 in lenses, plus all the other camera grip like support, cages, monitors, gizmos, wires, sound etc. which can easily hit 20 k.

It's really not true.

For the price of a fs camera (either the 2k or 4k) a few zeiss zooms, a good set of sticks, some led's, apple color (which is free with final cut pro 7), you can shoot, edit and finish a piece with equipment that is a/1/00th of the cost only 5 years ago.

Personally, I've really enjoyed the Sony, especially with the Zeiss glass.  I've learned to grade it to look like film, it turns on it 4 seconds, uses about 1/10 of the drive space and works in everything I've thrown at it, from London Rain, to Thailand heat.

I think two of those and you could shoot anything on the planet. Banding ?   Uh maybe, but you gotta go pretty nuts to see it and there are fixes.  Coloring, once again apple color is free, and free is kind of a cool concept when it comes to digital cinema cameras.

Once again, I'll post some still clips of Apple color grading for all to see.  I think You'll be surprised.

IMO

BC



Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2012, 03:23:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, yes there are some "fixes" for the Banding.

We can combine a dithering mask (bezier or chroma) combined with denoiser layer(s), or even more drastically but more costly, doing a frame by frame intervention.
But it's time consuming when it happens and honestly, the less post intervention, the better.

The Morgan's C1 is indeed a BDSM idea although it's understandable why it looked so interesting. But no, it makes sense only if the image sequence is ingested in PS to get all the capability of the big artillery and being able to do things impossible in editor but in a raw dev software it's really looking for hassles for free when all that can be done way faster in any modern editor.

About Apple Color, I don't really understand why people would complain about it. It's a very good software and it's powerfull, and you call it from the editor wich is a strong point too.
In fact, all those specialized suites haven't reinvented the wheel. The tools we have to color grade are basically the same for all, no miracle nor mystery. Then it's all about usability, implementation etc...

I remember that after spending awhile evaluating Scratch, that I was enthousistic at first, abandoned in the end the idea of putting 17.000 euros on the table because it didn't really give me
more power than what we find in a good editor, just that it was more comfortable.
I haven't opened my Autodesk software for months, same story, the grading tools are doing exactly the same than Edius or Avid or an Apple Color with the only difference that it has a physical film capability, wich I couldn't care less, it's none of my business.
Yes, it's got this fancy color 3D cube, (not easy to master at first) etc...but they don't do anything more, just differently.

If I pay extra money to what I have already, it's to get something more, not something differently. (and we could enter in the debate that sometimes differently can be more...but in the end more is more and diffently is differently)

All those, Autodesk, Assimilate, Nucoda etc...are costly and not easy to learn and to be good at it when you got an intuitive Apple Color that work just about the same and mastering it wouldn't take so much practise.


I agree that it's possible to build a really good motion workflow from prod to post-prod without billionaire budgets. Absolutly.

I think that the move to Adobe's Production suite is a clever one. It's more than possible that it will become the PS of motion, I mean by that a standart in the industry.
And the Speed Grade to color correct has a very good reputation. (never used it).

I'll evaluate Lightworks but probably also going to move to Adobe at one point.



Ps: I've forgot to mention about the 8bits banding: for the ones who have the 8bits AVCHD/H.264, the Rarevision's 5DtoRBG convertion to Prores reduce the banding impact.
It's a very good converter: http://rarevision.com/5dtorgb/


« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 03:45:51 AM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2012, 01:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply



All shot with Red One, color graded through Apple color.

First round of 15 set ups.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2012, 01:57:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh yeah!

Great look and filmic (as expected from the R+R studios).

So those are R1 only if I understand. Did you find issues to emulate similar grade with the Sony files when mixing footage Red-Sony ?
Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2012, 08:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I opened Color up once and was totally confounded, hated it.  I'm pretty comfortable with Resolve now and spent the morning working on the latest short.  Did tons of power windows, which it can track beautifully and all working from the Raw R3D's.  No transcode downtime, realtime performance, just flawless.  And resolve will actually output any rez you setup.  We did a teaser of the new film that I output from Resolve at 4k, projected at RED Studios (in 4k) and it was just gorgeous.

There's no reason to limit your projects to HD... all the technology is in place to take advantage of the highest resolution footage available... and I'm doing this shit out of my house, not some multi-million-dollar post facility.  Ok, maybe I have more capital than the average Indie filmmaker, but it just goes to show... we have freakin phenomenal tools at our disposal nowadays.  There's no excuse for making crap work anymore.

Etc..
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2012, 10:08:24 PM »
ReplyReply

The only two groups I hear are pushing 4k are RED and Sony.
Sony because they're going to make a 4k screen and their TV set sales are in the dumper.
Red because  . . . well they make 4k cameras.

It took broadcast nearly a decade to adopt high def, to go super high def, especially as the world is moving to a world of streaming convergence makes me wonder if we'll ever see 4k on a TV or computer screen.  In theatres I'm sure Peter Jackson or James Cameron will, but that's a different animal.  What they spend on 2 days of pre production is most independent productions full budget.

I'm not against it, but I do work for commerce which means most of what I show was paid for and 90% of the motion we've shot in the last year I haven't shown on our site but the day somebody says they need 4k on screen we'll be ready.

Our editor is not over the moon about cutting to 4k, personally I don't care because even well shot 2k is as much as any real world client is asking of us.

As far a Resolve, it's ok, somewhat goofy (they all are) but so is Apple Color.  It makes no difference to me what anyone uses, in fact I would imagine the new CS6 with it's speed grade or some other grading tool will probably become more of a standard than anything else in the market.

Adobe has a longer reach, more client base and we all know it takes the enthusiasts and smaller players to fund the higher end.

The only reason I mention Apple color is the preset scones are a great starting point and it's free.  

I'm under no misconceptions that Apple Color will go no further, but I like the interface better than Di-Vinci and for many independents it hits the magic software costs . . . free.

As I keep saying, shooting motion is the black hole in time and money and I try to get across that to shoot something worthwhile and unless your a card carrying RED Userista who goes to bed at night and whisper "way to go Jim", you don't have to spend $250,000 in camera equipment.

Fred,

I don't know if these images would match the Sony or not, I don't even find the RED 1 and Scarlet to match out of the can and motion is so much different than stills because we shoot so many more angles.

The difficulty isn't matching them exactly, it's matching them so they fit the mood of the scene, though you know that.

When the Sony is shot dead on, it's very close to the RED footage as far as moving it around in post, when it's over exposed it's impossible to work where with RED it's easy if your over . . . so with the sony you never, ever shoot over, because even if you can pull it down you get a cast, especially in faces.  You can fix it, but it takes a lot of time, so shoot it 1/2 dark and life is good.

Really, like still cameras you have to test them in what you do.  With care and thought and a little pre planning on layering images on difficult exposure changes you can make any of these cameras work.  The Sony is the easiest, the new one with ND's will be even easier though the jury is still out on the raw file.

The Scarlet, I kind of have buyers remorse and would feel a lot better about the camera if the interface was simplier and it accepted Nikon Mount lenses.  As far as reliable autofocus I don't think we'll ever see that on the Scarlet.  It's just too far off at the moment.  The cost of the Scarlet is fine, some of the implementation like a glossy screen is crazy in real world use.  

It depends on what you do, how your going to do it and how much time you have to light properly.  

I have to add that In reality I'm enormously happy with my R-1's and if they would shed a few points and offer some kind of image stabilization, I'd be over the moon.

Still, when the budget is higher and your willing to work a little slower the R-1's are much easier to set up, the file is to me very, very pretty and (where's that piece of wood to knock on), I find that very reliable.

I'm working very hard to change the way we shoot motion.  I'm bored with the establishing shot, the reverses, the medium shot, the tight, the reverse tight, etc.

Heavy and complicated cameras can force you into heavy and complicated production and just like stills, when you lock it down, say hold it, let me ____ and _____ and_____,
ok now we're ready, the humanity gets washed off the project.

I'm not a documentary photographer or filmaker, but I love the look, expecially in motion.

As you mentioned my favorite piece is this, and I did it mostly with still cameras.  i wish I'd had the sony at the time because it would have been a lot better result.

magic_man

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 03:25:00 AM by bcooter » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2012, 03:00:41 AM »
ReplyReply

The only two groups I hear are pushing 4k are RED and Sony.
Sony because they're going to make a 4k screen and their TV set sales are in the dumper.

BC


I dont know if 4/6/10k are really needed for 'cinema' but in a way it seems more relevent to commercial stills/vid people

For example if you are making something that can air at 16.9 but you need an upright centre crop of the same shot for a display or bank of displays in a store then I guess he resolution becomes your friend..

S

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2012, 03:12:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I dont know if 4/6/10k are really needed for 'cinema' but in a way it seems more relevent to commercial stills/vid people

For example if you are making something that can air at 16.9 but you need an upright centre crop of the same shot for a display or bank of displays in a store then I guess he resolution becomes your friend..

S



Morgan,

I've learned something about this biz, especially in the last few years.

I'm all for giving more, offering more than the next guy and trying to have an edge, but handing out stills from a video camera, or video from a still camera, or even future proof 6k video to a client, probably isn't going to make you any more money.

I'm not saying to dumb it down, but let's be real.  We make potato chips (crisps in your neck of the woods) and giving about a 10 oz. back for the cost of a 5 oz. bag doesn't add to the bottom line.

Since we've worked together, you saw that hired a still photographer to mimic our motion imagery but with the style of stills.  That worked great, we kept them fairly separate and the client had to buy two 10 oz. bags of chips, instead of one.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 03:17:46 AM by bcooter » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2012, 06:00:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Magic man is my fav too.

I've said it many times in this forum.

I'm not sure it would have been a lot better with the Sony.
This video is spot-on in every aspects and I've watched it several times, never asked myself any questions on the how and the with-what.
That's, IMO, the sign it's working. When we start to "see" the gear viewing a video, bad sign.
This is a perfectly acheived motion peice as it.

The Red would have definatly be a downside. Maybe even the Sony. It would have not work either with one of my hacked GH2 (thinking about a similar camera form) because
the bloody hacked GH2 is massively too detailled and can easily look surgycal and cold. Holy crap, it captures more details than a Sony F3 ! (prooven)

In the end, it's even possible that to get this, Magic man, you'd need exactly the set-up involved at that time and nothing would enhance it if you had the oportunity to reverse time and do the same with another camera.

This video is great as it.

Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2012, 06:38:29 AM »
ReplyReply

..hired a still photographer to mimic our motion imagery but with the style of stills.
BC

Absolutely a way of getting it done.

Maybe I should have said this..

Those marketing 6/8/10k should be waving the 'upright screen in a store' argument rather than 'your cinema/tv needs this' argument

Hopefully I was one of the first to experiment with two cameras on one head which is another approach http://vimeo.com/7087825

Best

SamMM

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2012, 04:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

James,

If you move to Adobe suite, make sure you get the Adobe Audition and not the Soundbooth.

(Soundbooth was included in the suite and very limited while Audition, a proper professional audio software, was sold apart).
Now it seems that you get Audition back in the suite production premium CS6, good news! because lots of sound artists had complained.

Cheers.


Cheers.

The buster of moving to Premier from FCP 7 is in premier 5.5, using xml to move a complete edit is just not stable, or better put doesn't really work.

You constantly get error codes and we don't have time for that so we move back to fcp.

Talk to most FCP editors and they're slow to give up on FCP 7, none will move to X and a few that are familiar with avid have gone that route.  There is more acceptance of Premier and adobe has a complete suite, but we have a hundred projects in FCP and if we can't move them seamlessly then we have to run two stations, two suites, two mindsets and that's just a lot for a small company.

Not to go off topic, but for the life of me, I don't have a clue what Apple was thinking when they moved to FCP X.   Not in a world where they had 75% of the professional market.   

All any FCP editor asked for was faster renderings, a better browser and multi format, including 4/5k capable ingestion of footage without shutting the system down to a crawl.

Had apple made these changes and upgraded color to a more friendly round trip, they could have easily asked a grand more for the system and it would have sold.  Not I phone profit sales, but profitable sales none the less.

This is beating a dead horse, (literally), but it's a big change in a lot of peoples workflow and business model and honestly most freelance editors and just kind of stuck as to where to go next..

I have a series of 10 edits in house that we absolutely cannot do in FCP X, not without round tripping continually back to 7.  But once again, moving to premier is not an easy task when you've got years of the original fcp.

Nobody wants to spend $15,000 on a new billion gigs of ram, 3 video card, fiber optic, HP system when they still have to sit next ot a FCP station to move things back and forth and in today's economy nobody wants to spend any money to replace something that works.

As far as coloring, I'll admit DiVinci is a better all around system than Apple color, but it'll cost you in time and money.  Just a simple tangent board is $3,500 and if you shoot with RED you'll need a RED Rocket which tacks on a few thousand more.

The thing about coloring in Di Vinci is in a few weeks, or a month you can get to the point of producing pleasing color, but don't expect to pull out Lord of the Rings Hollywood color in 2 months because most colorists will tell you it takes 5 to 6 years to really master the system..

When it comes to really amazing color in Di-Vinci, I strongly suggest hiring a colorist..  Right now they are falling out of the trees because editors have been asked to make it look "acceptable" due to budget and time limitations.

Some colorists will only work in AE especially digital artists that work to finish with effects and titles, so though AE is a slower process, it does more than about any single product on the market.

Though lately we've been coloring in house, I'm inches away from contracting out with a colorists.  When I first worked with him he was in a 4 story film/tape/digital transfer house working one of those di-vincis that cost a million and used up a room.

Then it went to 1 floor in a rented building to now he's freelance working on the desktop with a wave board.

That's the way the industry is going, just like editorial has gone from block long houses, to trailers that reside between sound stages for almost real time editing for episodic TV.

The thing is if your coming from a still photography world, with still photography clients, they're is a learning curve on both sides.

Just moving a clip and recoloring, transitioning and then transcoding for approval can be many hours, where in stills adding complete retouching and coloring on full high rez images can be a lot less time.   

But that's another topic.

IMO

BC


Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2012, 06:27:12 PM »
ReplyReply

....Talk to most FCP editors and they're slow to give up on FCP 7, none will move to X ....

Yep, me too. At this point I am keeping my options open - working in FCP7, dabbling in PP and FCPX - and will likely only decide which way to go once Apple allows the MacPro workstation to die/fade away or, less likely IMO, re-vamps it to new processors and fully pro expandable box. If they do commit to pro video hardware, I will concentrate on FCPX. If they do not, then Premiere & a mega$$ PC.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2012, 06:21:09 AM »
ReplyReply

What I find completly unproductive, and somewhere surreal in 2012, is the lack of an affordable all-in-one high-end software. Adobe is a suite, and a suite means softwares and learning curves.

AE is in the end an equivalent of Nuke differently implemented.

Now, not always we need a proper compositing software. Not always we need to ad smoke, particules and explosions. If we just want to grade, but with a truth advanced grading interface, the fact to have to leave the editor and enter another application in the time being, seems to me a complete absurdity because every manipulation is time consuming and prone to problems.
This sort of workflow is a reminicence of a time that is disappearing where zillion of people are involved in the chain but we still do not have what we should.

It's all very fine this Adobe suite, but it's a mess. One software for editing, one for compositing-grading, one for the sound etc...this is NOT integration and we're back in the same configuration as always: separation between tasks in a world that is going exactly the opposite way! The only real software that does that to some extend is Smoke...expensive, not intuitive at all.


So in the end,

The closest "direct" solutions I can think of are FCP7 with Apple color and Edius with native very good integrated colorists tools. But I wrote: the closests.
And we don't even know today wich route will keep those 2 players, as Chris and James pointed.

The errors codes, in short, the tedius compatibility between platform is also a plague that needs to be fixed. No industry is accepting such a situation and this industry should watch maybe closely what they do in aeronautics when it comes to standarts, rules and compatibiliyty. Coot said many times it's the wild west, I think the wild west is short indeed, all that looks clooser to the wild Afganistan 5000 years ago.

I have some (limited) hope with lightworks, as open source if people are writing the codes, a little bit like the hacked GH2, we might get in the end what this industry refuses to give to us, " la carte".


Nota: to me it remains a mystery, why Red, instead of cutting an orage in 1/2, is not bringing from RCX an all-in-one application with real editing capabilities, keeping the same photographic spirit for the grading and the capacity to work on layers like AE.
That would be indeed powerfull instead of a free raw dev software. I'd buy it for the price of an Avid editor or an Adobe's suite.
It would allow the Red, and non Red users to work to delivery without any more hassles. That woulkd be the fastest and more powerfull system on earth, from cameras to final product, all inside house. JJ should like this. But no...
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 08:27:58 AM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2012, 01:25:19 PM »
ReplyReply

snip
Nota: to me it remains a mystery, why Red, instead of cutting an orage in 1/2, ...snip

Motion imagery, (I really hate the term video) is going through the same changes as still photographers.

Still photographers went from artists, lighting experts (gaffers) camera operators (they actually do run a camera)  to processors, effects artists, retouchers and some areas of pre press of image prep.

Not by choice, but by budget.   If there had been a monotised business model for labs, retouchers and a new field of effects artists been possible, photographers would have shot digital like film, hand it over and never look back.   It was like that at the start of digital capture, but economic pressure compressed it down to the photographer in most cases.   

Some still work this way where they shoot and leave, but most of those have gone by the wayside, unless they shoot retail for one large account that has in-house post produciton.

Now you see the same thing with motion.  Who's the director, camera operator.?  In entertainment it's usually multiple people, but in advertising, especially web video, the camera operator can be the director, sometimes part time producer, sometimes the gaffer.

Depends on budget and web video where most of what most of us shoot, is a strange one to price because it flies in the face on convention because there is no media buy.  In other words traditional advertising like Television and Print Media there was x number of dollars spent on media, so a set percentage of that went into image production.  That model still exists but it gets smaller and more compressed every day.   

If the web ever finds a way to actually charge real media rates equal to print (preferably broadcast) you'll see the budgets rise.

No when it comes to editors, most independent filmmakers can edit to some extent, some better than others, but for long form or multiple projects a director/camera operator/dp cannot work on set and edit if they have a busy schedule.

Our studio took the risk to go in house with adding editorial.    Every busy model is different.

Now to my original point.  Everything has changed and editors that 6 years ago refused to color anything are now asked to be some kind of colorists and do some effects. 

When you attend a seminar on any NLE, effects or coloring software the questions are always the same (so are the answers).  First question, how many here do the editorial . . . 85% of the hands are raised.   Second question, how many here use FCP 7 . . . (70% of hands are raised).

third, How many do their own coloring  . . . 60% of hands are raised, fourth, how many do their coloring in the NLE and another 60% of hands are raised, how many in apple color 20% of hands are raised, how many do their own coloring in Di-Vinci . . . 4% of hands are raised how many color in AE, 15% of hands are raised.

So you'd think colorists would be swamped, but as I mentioned the color and transfer house I previously used 5 years ago was well funded, had a huge 4 story building, could show you real time coloring on line so you didn't have to sit in the booth, and we're full service all the way down to transcoding and conforming for tape, film, digital play, etc.   They were also about $5,000 per 8 hour day.

Then they went to a suite of offices in a rented building, now their colorists are working at home calling for business.

So since every image video or still, usually needs some work (especially at the rate of speed we work on set), that means somebody is doing it and everyone does it differently.  Some in the NLE, some in third party software, some just ship it to the client and wash their hands of the whole process.

The correct way to do it is to first edit the story, lock the edit and send an EDL or xml file or the master clips to a colorists, have them colored and effected properly, put back into the edit then transfer out to the desired media.

That's the correct way, but not how it really works today as everyone is squeezed to wear multiple hats.  As the producer you usually work from a bottom line so you can choose to hire and use any number of specialists you want, the issue is if you do, is their a profit?

Fred,

Back to your original question about RED upping their software to NLE, coloring and transcoding.   I don't think that will ever happen and if I was RED I'd never do it.   They're a camera maker and all Red CineX needs to do is produce the equivalent of One light dailies for client review and in some cases for editors to start working, because there are too many post production models to compete with.  Some editors only work or care to work in 2k, some find that overkill, some want 4k/5k editing, coloring and output, some want it all.

Fred, what you want is standards and in digital if motion imagery follows stills there never will be exact standards until we get to final delivery.   Try to run a Hasselblad file in C-1, or a Nikon file in Phocus.   Only third party processors attempt to handle all files and really only adobe covers everything.

I think you want a moving lightroom and I probably think Adobe feels they have that covered in After Effects, the problem is lightroom is easy to learn, After Effects takes a long time.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2012, 03:11:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah.
Who adopted DNG in still? Pentax and Leica. All the rest went a personal path, for magic property reasons (officialy) and each time they release an update, nothing reads it until the softwares keep -up. It will probably be the same in motion as you point.

The very beautifull workflow of motion imagery:
If you want to send an edit from edius to Avid, from Avid to FCP, from FCP to Premiere, there is not just one time when there isn't an hassle at one point or another. Just opening the forums gives an instant idea of the complete desaster and lost of precious hours involved. Most of the time there are fixes, solutions, but it's always at the expense of spending long researches and testings.  An incredible amount of time and efficiency lost just to fix silly problems that have nothing to do with the product it self but the tools.

It's completly ilarious (in fact no when in the middle) to read the high-end pros motion forums: "guys, I have this problem with this EDL, this other with those XMLs...please send me a fix...bla bla...", and not one answer is giving  the same fix. I've never seen such a disorganized mess in any industry, past and future. Digital imagery is the emperor of the chaos.

Then the beautifull webs: Flash or not to Flash, who reads who, differences in navigators that eventually would or would not read this or that, unconsistence between Mac-Pc-Linux,  differences in broadcast standarts according to the location when we are supposed to live in a globalized world, differences in fps, in voltage, in elec frequencies...bloody f.....g hell !!

Imagine you take a plane to go in one assignement in Paris. L.A  to CDG.
Well, 30 minutes before the landing, the captain advice that it's impossible to land in Paris because... the procedure aren't the same, the lenguage isn't standart,  the runway doesn't have the lengh required for a Boeing but only Airbus, so you'd land in Moscow first, then you'll transfer all your cases for a flight to Helsinsky but you'll travel in a different plane at a different time, from there a little plane to Lausane, a night in one of those horrible unpersonal airport's hotel, then another transfer in another plane to finally reach Paris 3 days later. Absurd isn't it? Well, that's exactly how motion imagery workflow works today. It makes think.

I beleive we are unfortunatly in this mess for quite some time. You're right, nothing will be fix. We are in deep mud (to be polite).

We need a visionary and rules-breaking person to save this absurd situation.
Because the supreme irony is, as you pointed, we need to be more efficient, and we never havd been obliged to spend so much time to do things the slow way that could be done 10 times faster if all that was a little bit more under control. There is a paradox there that I don't end to understand.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 03:15:46 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Chris L
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2013, 01:59:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The basic mission is to grade a clip or sequence using Capture One.

Using FCP this is the basic workflow..

Export the bit you want to grade as Tiff image sequence

View that sequence in Capture One

First frame of a shot create a look using curves WB clicker desat

Copy that look to all frames in the shot

Move to next shot repeat

Export new (graded) tiffs from C1

Use QTime7 to creat movie from image sequence

Export that sequence as ProRezz

Import that clip into the FCP project and place it on the timeline where the original ungraded clip was.

--

Might be a dumb thing to do but seems that C1 offers fine control over the image through an interface I have been using for 5=10 years

(and that is the key point fine control over the look of the image using an interface that I know inside out - using software I own and works on my machine today)

I think its also 'non destructive'

While I get along OK with apple colour - it can get me in a tangle - when you have more than one track on the TL or maybe want to add another shot to the sequence after you graded or other boondangle non linear ways of editing..

For example Im working on a short and a long piece at the moment where some but not all of the short edit makes the long edit

S




I am interested in grading BMC dng's in C1 Pro and then exporting to FCPX for edit. One question; after grading the files and then processing the dng's, do you output as 300 dpi or 72 dpi? I would think 72dpi. I am going to export as jpgs and try to do something like the Prolost guy did here in Lightroom: 

http://prolost.com/blog/2012/12/19/lets-cook.html
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2013, 10:25:27 PM »
ReplyReply


I am interested in grading BMC dng's in C1 Pro and then exporting to FCPX for edit. One question; after grading the files and then processing the dng's, do you output as 300 dpi or 72 dpi? I would think 72dpi. I am going to export as jpgs and try to do something like the Prolost guy did here in Lightroom: 

http://prolost.com/blog/2012/12/19/lets-cook.html


I can't say much about C1, but at this time Resolve is still a good workflow, since you'll need to roundtrip for final grading via XML or AAF. First light in Resolve, transcode proxies to whatever, edit and round-trip to Resolve for final grade and mastering.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why do you want to grade footage that might not make it in the final cut? And, are you planning to transcode again just to bring it back to C1 for final grading?

Regarding ppi, 300ppi will give you 8 inches horizontally, approximately the size of an iPad Retina (which is 264ppi). I wouldn't recommend anything lower than this.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad