Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: need your advices guys  (Read 2328 times)
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785



« on: July 19, 2013, 05:04:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
Here is the situation:

Got an edit + dcp creation for FLAT output
I'll edit with Avid, then will create the
DPX  or TIFF sequence at the right dimensions
In Nuke, then create the 6 audio tracks for
Surround in Audition and finaly get to the
Dcp creation, probably with opendcp.

Here is the problem:

The only footage available is a lowres 720p made
For web, beleive it or not.
The reason of this, is that the company that did
The original material has closed because of the crisis
And nobody responds anymore.
It's mainly CGI material for arquitecture and
We only have this 720p qt as the raw material
To edit with...client is of course fully aware of the
Situation and still want to have this spot on theaters
Regardless of quality.

My question is: what would be the best way to upres
This 720p to 2k minimizing the degradation?
Because I got to create the image sequence
At this reso from the final edit before the dcp stage.
I'm concern about the fact that we are talking about
A serious upscaling from proxy.

Many thanks for your imputs on that.



« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 05:07:03 AM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1830



« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2013, 05:38:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Really an 'impossible' situation  Smiley

My first thought is to use the up-res abilities of Photoshop on multiple TIFFs. You will have a choice of 'smoother' for better gradients in skies etc. or 'preserve detail' which will help keep an appearance of edge sharpness - but alas will not actually create detail that is missing
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2013, 07:33:13 AM »
ReplyReply

If your going the do it yourself route, Chris is right photoshop is the answer.

A plug in like photozoom pro, will smooth the graduations and add fake detail, usually in the form of noise, which isn't "that" bad considering.

Another option is to make an image sequence in photoshop and build a script.

Convert the image in 16 bit lab color, overrezz it in steps to about 8k, then step it down to 2k, 12 bit srgb.  

Sometimes and I mean sometimes, this will build a more natural noise like look, though detail will suffer, (detail will suffer no matter what) but hopefully rasterization will be less and banding will be less (especially if you have blues).

(This above process takes some experimentation, though remember looking at a single image for a motion segment is different than playing it.  Playing it will sometimes correct for a lot of problems, sometimes it will make it worse and it will flicker.  

The other option is a company like And Transfer in Dallas

http://www.andtransfer.com/

I've worked with them before on "challanged" footage.

I had a client send some interview footage shot on mini dv from Jamaica that was shot in shadows and underexposed.    By going to the older DiVinci 2k suite and doing a faux 4k transfer they could open up the faces in stepped graduations and color the rest of the scene and really made the footage go from a disaster to something more than useable.

And Transfer has a new 4k and an older 2k Di Vinci suite.  The 2k takes the footage to 12 bit, in your case a faux 12 bit, but will allow opening of the shadows and some stepped uprezzing.  

And Transfer use to be huge (before the recession) and had a 4 or 5 story building and an amazing colorists named Peggy that could do wonders with anything.

Now Brandon and Dylan are good and still have the legacy 2k DiVinci suite and the biggest crt monitor you've ever seen (I think it's 12 ft. wide, 16x9) which allows you to see graduations and tone like no lcd can.

I would give them a call first.

The third option is to start calling post houses in Hollywood, I would try Method and Sony, but there are many sources and the answer probably lies in a dedicated output/conforming suite that purposes for different media.

http://www.sonypicturespost.com/digitalpicture/online.html

http://www.methodstudios.com/

(btw: Germany also seems to be very good at post production services with less hassel than most).

Hollywood is the master of optimization and has been using legacy footage for years for the big screen.  They know how to optimize for output better than anyone, that's why when you see a 2k movie on a huge screen like the cinerama dome it looks good, actually looks as good as 4k IMO.

Since so much work as moved to software only solutions and the one man band desktop, people think that a computer is a computer, 2k is just 2k etc. etc. and there is much more to motion imagery than file size.

The industry has changed with software only solutions and large houses like Asylum breaking up, it's now the wild west.  It's a shame because a lot of the buying clients believe if you have the software and a desktop, you have a solution and there is a reason that post work takes a large team and dedicated artists that have decades of experience.

Do some homework on post production houses that optimize and I'll bet you find a decent solution.   Also don't be afraid to negotiate a deal as some people look at "troubled" footage as a way to make a little extra profit.

Oh and one more tip.  Not that the Creative Cow doesn't have good sources and people, but like all forums there are a lot of people with a lot of skill/budget levels.    Look big first, like Hollywood and work your way down the list.

Sometimes the old ways, are the best, but Chris' idea is a good one.  I am always amazed that when I talk to post effects artists that have (had) millions of dollars of software and hardware at their disposal how much real work for motion imagery is done in simple old photoshop and three upgrades ago after effects.

One more thing.   Restoration is difficult no matter what the reason and the best way to make techically difficult footage work is to creatively design a new edit where the footage is moved around in a way that the issues and artifacts aren't really noticeable.

In other words I'd personally look for a creative solution before a technical only solution.

PS  If your doing surround sound I'd really call Sony as sound is their specialty.

PS 2.    I hope your client knows that any solution for any big screen regardless of original content, is expensive.  It either takes specialized equipment or a lot of time and sweat equity.

PS 3.    I'll bet at the end of the day, the real solution is to edit in your 720 source footage at 720 and call it a day.   It's interesting that when I travel I see edits we've done on in-store monitors around the world.
We take great care in optimizing for clients "requirements" in specified output, but I routinely see a 2k edit on a 40 inch screen that the client has pulled down from the web.  It's crazy to see rasterization, crushed colors, etc., but if you'll look around the store at the few people that are viewing it, it doesn't seem that they notice.  They're just looking at the message.

I think we've all seen a new standard in quality as the world is accustomed to streaming video from you tube to netflix some of it good, some of it awful but they watch it, they enjoy it and don't seem too bothered.

I'm not suggesting that a bad output is the goal or shouldn't be given attention, but without a doubt there is a new standard.

PS 4  The one thing I've noticed about source material  motion or still, is the better the capture, the better the look.  A 60mpx digital back might seem like overkill for print or broadcast, but drop a downsized 2k still into an edit from a digital back and compare it to a downsized dslr shot and you'll see a huge difference.  Same with the RED's vs. my 2k cameras.  We have to dumb down the RED footage a little if it runs side by side a 4k capture even if the edit is 2k.

Sorry for such a long reply.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 09:11:20 AM by bcooter » Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2013, 09:47:25 AM »
ReplyReply

"Sorry for such a long reply."

why apologise for all that on the button info in a forum that has a fair bit of guff from people who know nothing.
i thought it was a good read and learned a few things. Grin
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2013, 10:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Another option

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3965186?start=0&tstart=0

I've used this before, didn't see much difference than just putting 720 footage into a 1920 timeline and rendering, but some people do.

I think it depends on the source material but it's worth a try.

Also some people swear by red giant though my experience with al Red Giant software is less than what I could do myself with fcp 7 and some masking.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 10:52:33 AM by bcooter » Logged

smthopr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2013, 10:52:46 AM »
ReplyReply

The good news: 720p looks really good on a theater screen, believe it or not!

Your challenge is not the resolution, but compression artifacts if the material looks like a bad jpeg.

Try cutting some material into your timeline, render a short test dcp and project it. Maybe add a tiny bit of detailing to your 720p shots. You might be very pleasantly surprised.
Logged

Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2013, 10:56:16 AM »
ReplyReply

The good news: 720p looks really good on a theater screen, believe it or not!

Your challenge is not the resolution, but compression artifacts if the material looks like a bad jpeg.

Try cutting some material into your timeline, render a short test dcp and project it. Maybe add a tiny bit of detailing to your 720p shots. You might be very pleasantly surprised.

Bruce is right.

We all know that all the camera makers have 4k on the brain, (kind of reminds me the megapixel race in stills), but unless you have bad compression and low bit rate, solid 720 looks good.
Logged

fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785



« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2013, 11:37:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks guys,

Great imputs.

Well, fortunatly, apart from a specific scene with
Blue background that bands horribly,
All the rest stands still as it is CGI it does not
Look as a bad jpeg except for that part,

And I can do a roto with tracking on the conflictive
Background easily to recreate it with the correct
Definition.

It's good to know that a good 720p plays well on theater,
Although in my case it's a decent 720 but not ideal.

The other good news, is that the client is the
Government and the lady in charge knows well her
Job and the motion requirements and she was
Apologizing all the time about the situation. They
Have a fixed budget that does not allow some
Expensive restauration houses and she suggest me
To just not be worry about it cause I'm not responsable.

in fact, I do it for me. I beleive it's a good oportunity
To work on fixing this as well as I can, even if the
Client does not asking me to. The chalenge
Is interesting and I like to learn from those situations.

I just remember: got an old Genuine Fractal license on
A 32bit machine with PS3. I haven't used this since
The lastest ice age...but who knows. I will give it a try
On a few frames.

On the 5.1 audio, fortunatly there, material is top
Avid deals well with that (even if it's manual because
MC doesn't recognize a group), but as they have
PTools in veins, it's no brainer.
The only thing is to be very carefull of the pans
Assigned and levels.

Many thanks for your help.


Ps: i was wondering if for dcp you are generaly formating the
Drive to Linux? In this particular case, it's a 20 sec spot
And that can be easily transfered in their servers, or even
Using FAT. Many theaters here are just asking for the folders
Into a usb pen for short clips.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 11:55:01 AM by fredjeang2 » Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785



« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2013, 02:33:54 PM »
ReplyReply


Convert the image in 16 bit lab color, overrezz it in steps to about 8k, then step it down to 2k, 12 bit srgb.  


James, this caught my attention and I think that there is something there.

What I don't get fully is to overrezz+step it down to 2k stage instead of overrezzing directly to 2K
But I smell that this is an interesting step. Just I don't fully catch the reason of it, I only got a good intuition.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2013, 04:32:00 PM »
ReplyReply

James, this caught my attention and I think that there is something there.

What I don't get fully is to overrezz+step it down to 2k stage instead of overrezzing directly to 2K
But I smell that this is an interesting step. Just I don't fully catch the reason of it, I only got a good intuition.
I do this with Alien Skin "Blow Up" (3) and/or Photozoom Pro when I uprez my photos (uprez to 400% or 800% and afterwards downrez to the desired size).
Photozoom Pro (as well as Alien Skin "Blow Up") is rounding edges when uprezzing. When you first uprez larger than the desired size and afterwards downsize the image the somewhat "unnatural" look gets leveld out to some degree. The input file (the original file you are uprezzing that is) should NOT be be sharpened when doing this ... the smoother the original file, the better (IMHO).

@bcooter: GREAT tips - extremely valuable. Many, many thanks!!

BTW: Avid MC is rescaling small source files to the project size pretty smooth. 720 imported into a 1080 project should work just fine on a dircet import into Avid MC ... Haven't uprezzed on import with MC 7.0 yet... but with MC 5.5(.x.y) and MC 6(.x.y) it should work pretty good.


« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 04:40:54 PM by tho_mas » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2013, 07:47:27 AM »
ReplyReply

James, this caught my attention and I think that there is something there.

What I don't get fully is to overrezz+step it down to 2k stage instead of overrezzing directly to 2K
But I smell that this is an interesting step. Just I don't fully catch the reason of it, I only got a good intuition.


I'm not that smart, I just experiment.

When I bought our first professional digital camera, the kodak dcs 760 (great, great camera), it shot  a 6mega pixel file.

I was invited by a Kodak Rep (who was trying hard to sell me the Kodak digital back) to come to Hollywood for a demo they we're giving.

During a break I gave the Rep (her) some large 40 " prints I made.   There was a group of people standing around and looking at them and the rep was not pleased I was showing this from 6mega pixels.

She asked if I uprezzed them and I said yes and explained the 16bit lab colour trick.

She said I did it wrong and one person in the group, a nice man said, "actually James did it right."  

She snapped "and who are you?" and he replied a part owner of the company that writes the software for Kodak.

She didn't believe him and said "so . . . what are you working on now?"   and he replied "the mars rover project for NASA".

The crowd laughed and the Kodak rep stormed off.

Then the software engineer said to me "how did you know to do that?" and I explained I'm not that smart, I just tried it a billion ways and this way worked for me.

He laughed.

So I'm not saying this is the best way to uprezz though my feeling was if you take the image and as long as there is acceptable detail, uprezz in the least destructive way possible (16 bit lab colour) and turn the pixels into a bunch of pixels it "might" resemble film grain that is enlarged.

It kind of did and worked well enough.

The trick was in sharpening and not to rasterize or split the image when sharpening.  I've always sharpened on layers that have been color selected.

IMO

BC
Logged

Chuck Jones
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2013, 08:15:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
Here is the situation:

Got an edit + dcp creation for FLAT output
I'll edit with Avid, then will create the
DPX  or TIFF sequence at the right dimensions
In Nuke, then create the 6 audio tracks for
Surround in Audition and finaly get to the
Dcp creation, probably with opendcp.

Here is the problem:

The only footage available is a lowres 720p made
For web, beleive it or not.
The reason of this, is that the company that did
The original material has closed because of the crisis
And nobody responds anymore.
It's mainly CGI material for arquitecture and
We only have this 720p qt as the raw material
To edit with...client is of course fully aware of the
Situation and still want to have this spot on theaters
Regardless of quality.

My question is: what would be the best way to upres
This 720p to 2k minimizing the degradation?
Because I got to create the image sequence
At this reso from the final edit before the dcp stage.
I'm concern about the fact that we are talking about
A serious upscaling from proxy.

Many thanks for your imputs on that.




Take it to film, then bring it back to 2K.  It won't be perfect, but it will be real pretty and nobody will know the difference but you.
Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785



« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2013, 11:12:27 AM »
ReplyReply


I'm not that smart, I just experiment.

When I bought our first professional digital camera, the kodak dcs 760 (great, great camera), it shot  a 6mega pixel file.

I was invited by a Kodak Rep (who was trying hard to sell me the Kodak digital back) to come to Hollywood for a demo they we're giving.

During a break I gave the Rep (her) some large 40 " prints I made.   There was a group of people standing around and looking at them and the rep was not pleased I was showing this from 6mega pixels.

She asked if I uprezzed them and I said yes and explained the 16bit lab colour trick.

She said I did it wrong and one person in the group, a nice man said, "actually James did it right."  

She snapped "and who are you?" and he replied a part owner of the company that writes the software for Kodak.

She didn't believe him and said "so . . . what are you working on now?"   and he replied "the mars rover project for NASA".

The crowd laughed and the Kodak rep stormed off.

Then the software engineer said to me "how did you know to do that?" and I explained I'm not that smart, I just tried it a billion ways and this way worked for me.

He laughed.

So I'm not saying this is the best way to uprezz though my feeling was if you take the image and as long as there is acceptable detail, uprezz in the least destructive way possible (16 bit lab colour) and turn the pixels into a bunch of pixels it "might" resemble film grain that is enlarged.

It kind of did and worked well enough.

The trick was in sharpening and not to rasterize or split the image when sharpening.  I've always sharpened on layers that have been color selected.

IMO

BC


Great great tip James. Thanks.

Now I have to test all that.
What I'm also curious to see is how Nuke
Does it compared to PS.

I'll report my findings.

Bruce was right. In my case the biggest chalenge
Ain't that much the resolution but the compression
Artefacts of the original.
The only path i see is to make it "looks" like film.

Very interesting situation but very chalenging.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad