Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4865127 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:38:54 +0200 Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id p5so947459lag.28 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0iiEj2RRMmbRm5STSWz/81EczbylL/moq8m05kaEESI=; b=ttwJ1CeLlkaGXav4lBNivAzCHFM+1x1+KvLuuHJGLPDpljoL5KPlcmazwXwvfqPh5s u6W4G/qstcqERfrfsjnU3ASwf8m46B3sjFdRW6Z5ryhWwPGQG2sHbT5IVr/fn8ppu+L+ 0/UjAny+YHJqtz71bNKo9JINXUH+RDYMnzsFKaIDHNDH7woA/Mzoqapu2AcwUdYVdCI+ 9S8PvZclfuRGcMyZiP1c0LjoodZYpTTe/MTEcWvNEcFxR/PMeMM44P51ikuyNLB0jx3/ yU6Hvn9Su+B0lbqO0+qyc4rB8X5yRtRQ8ium8+h5s31EdghoxZW64gZV8/K0bs2C9/TA nqtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.106.15 with SMTP id gq15mr7398487lab.42.1349458854818; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.88.35 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.88.35 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:40:54 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] incorrect colors on output to client From: Teddy Gage To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0407115dae34c504cb535ff5 --f46d0407115dae34c504cb535ff5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I usually just spit out bw track matte sequences along with the jpg if I need alpha. On Oct 5, 2012 1:35 PM, "Greg Balint" wrote: > Thanks everyone for the help. > > I ended up rendering everything out at PhotoJPEG 98%.. file-sizes went WAY > down and the client loves the quality.. plus!!!!!! it fixed/didn't show the > QT Gamma issue! So I'm now a big fan. My entire render folder was 5.59Gb. > vs nearly 25Gb+ previously. My client actually called to ask if it had a > hiccup in the uploads because of how small the folder was. > > Does anyone know a similar QT codec to PhotoJPEG that can do Alpha Channel > and doesn't disable MultiProcessing in AE like PNG codec does? > > Basically I need an embedded alpha channel codec which looks pretty much > uncompressed, 8-bit is probably fine, is useable with FCP on Mac and > Premiere on PC, and doesn't take up a TON of space like Animation codec > does, which also takes advantage of AE's MP capabilities. > > ///Greg Balint > //Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer > /321.514.4839 > delRAZOR.com/ > > On 10/5/2012 7:11 AM, Darren H wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > The only difference is bit rate. HQ gives better quality at bigger file > sizes, though in some cases where I've compared frames, I've struggled to > see the difference. They're both 10bit. > > D. > > On Friday, 5 October 2012, Greg Balint wrote: > >> >> Can anyone, off hand, tell me what the diffs are between HQ and non-HQ? >> >> >> ///Greg Balint >> //Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer >> /321.514.4839 >> delRAZOR.com/ >> >> On 10/4/2012 7:54 PM, Gary Berendsen wrote: >> >> I've been haing that as well, since cs6, well 5.5 as well. >> prores non hq solved it for me. >> >> >> *Gary Berendsen - VFX Generalist* >> *Czaar Peter Straat 157-159* >> *1018 PJ Amsterdam* >> *garyberendsen.com* >> *gary@garyberendsen.com* >> *+31614385398* >> *skype: garyberendsen* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 5, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Brian Maffitt >> wrote: >> >> I missed the detail about it showing up in the final edit. If that's >> true, this is something else. >> >> Brian >> >> Also this. I was gonna mention that. But if they see the shift in fcp >> for final edit I guess it does matter. They can't just gamma shift it back? >> On Oct 4, 2012 7:46 PM, "Brian Maffitt" wrote: >> >> Before you completely panic, I think you may be seeing a fairly well-know >> Quicktime-on-Windows display bug. It only affects how the movie looks when >> played in Quicktime, not when used in another application. Take a look at >> the same clip in VLC and see if it looks OK. >> >> > Hey all, >> > >> > I'm running into some gamma issues or something, which I've never seen >> before. >> > >> > I've previously had issue with the H.264 bug, where renders would come >> out lighter, almost looking like their gamma was bumped up. I know what >> that looks like and how to alleviate it. >> > >> > This however, is a completely different ball of yarn. >> > >> > Basically.. I can take a ProRes 422 HQ file from my client (who wo >> >> > --f46d0407115dae34c504cb535ff5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I usually just spit out bw track matte sequences along with = the jpg if I need alpha.

On Oct 5, 2012 1:35 PM, "Greg Balint" = <greg@delrazor.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Thanks everyone for the help.

I ended up rendering everything out at PhotoJPEG 98%.. file-sizes went WAY down and the client loves the quality.. plus!!!!!! it fixed/didn't show the QT Gamma issue!=A0 So I'm now a big fan= .=A0 My entire render folder was 5.59Gb. vs nearly 25Gb+ previously. My client actually called to ask if it had a hiccup in the uploads because of how small the folder was.

Does anyone know a similar QT codec to PhotoJPEG that can do Alpha Channel and doesn't disable MultiProcessing in AE like PNG codec does?

Basically I need an embedded alpha channel codec which looks pretty much uncompressed, 8-bit is probably fine, is useable with FCP on Mac and Premiere on PC, and doesn't take up a TON of space like Animation codec does, which also takes advantage of AE's MP capabilities.

///Greg Balint
//Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
/321.=
514.4839
delRAZOR.com/
On 10/5/2012 7:11 AM, Darren H wrote:
Hi Greg,

The only difference is bit rate. HQ gives better quality at bigger file sizes, though in some cases where I've compared frames, I've struggled to see the difference. They're both 10bit.=A0

D.=A0

On Friday, 5 October 2012, Greg Balint wrote:

Can anyone, off hand, tell me what the diffs are between HQ and non-HQ?


///Greg Balint
//Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
/321.=
514.4839
delRAZOR.com/
On 10/4/2012 7:54 PM, Gary Berendsen wrote:
I've been haing that as well, si= nce cs6, well 5.5 as well.
prores non hq solved it for me.


Gary Berendsen - VFX Generalist
Czaar Peter Straat 157-159
1018 PJ Amsterdam
skype: garyberendsen






On Oct 5, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Brian Maffitt <bri= an@totaltraining.com> wrote:

I missed the detail about it showing up in the final edit. If that's true, this is something else.

Brian

Also this. I was gonna mention that. But if they see the shift in fcp for final edit I guess it does matter. They can't just gamma shift it back?

On Oct 4, 2012 7:46 PM, "Brian Maffit= t" <brian@totaltraining.com> wrote:
Before you completely panic, I think you may be seeing a fairly well-know Quicktime-on-Windows display bug. It only affects how the movie looks when played in Quicktime, not when used in another application. Take a look at the same clip in VLC and see if it looks OK.
> Hey all,
>
> I'm running into some gamma issues or something, which I've never seen before.
>
> I've previously had issue with the H.264 bug, where renders would come out lighter, almost looking like their gamma was bumped up. I know what that looks like and how to alleviate it.
>
> This however, is a completely different ball of yarn.
>
> Basically.. I can take a ProRes 422 HQ file from my client (who wo

--f46d0407115dae34c504cb535ff5--