Return-Path: Received: from mta21.charter.net ([216.33.127.81] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4908572 for ae-list@media-motion.tv; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:39:25 +0100 Received: from imp09 ([10.20.200.9]) by mta21.charter.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.09 201-2260-151-124-20120717) with ESMTP id <20121125224303.OISF10448.mta21.charter.net@imp09> for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:43:03 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.3] ([71.94.133.66]) by imp09 with smtp.charter.net id Tyj21k00V1S6qBK05yj21N; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:43:03 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=8o//B4IucHYBKSw6ZzJ5BKvhDmK8HQmI5fv+ogTc58g= c=1 sm=1 a=yUnIBFQkZM0A:10 a=Vx6aIzdhH7H4BIXK4xUDUQ==:17 a=HHGDD-5mAAAA:8 a=egIAeEBIAAAA:8 a=9vJpb7oMAAAA:8 a=5ZAtUU1-AAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=bWdBkzTTAAAA:8 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=p_PXJn1oBCjvI8PeWV8A:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=AI-rRs6mfk8A:10 a=RFaxJ1YKWH0A:10 a=p3b_eOXHgIUA:10 a=4otmpbfoP3gA:10 a=e-v-Azo_0WUA:10 a=i1zE5R4R5dEA:10 a=zK-kTSD7Vr8A:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=hUswqBWy9Q8A:10 a=sIy2Dmn6R0Z7GLAzzzMA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=LR_Pbx5pSbboPtIO:21 a=Vx6aIzdhH7H4BIXK4xUDUQ==:117 From: Jonathan Penzner Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-112--233455844 Subject: Re: [AE] Arri flat Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:43:02 -0800 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: <1A2C6263-EDE5-40C1-BD74-273662C27FF1@charter.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) --Apple-Mail-112--233455844 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Teddy, My suggestion is to get in touch with the person on the project who is = doing the final grading and see what they want. I doubt the editor is = going to know. The person doing the grading will be tweaking the various = sources to make them all look like they are part of the same shot. FCP = doesn't natively know anything about the Alexa color space. There's = information on the ARRI site about how to work with luts, create your = own, and so on. There's also a forum on the site that may be able to get = you some answers. Jonathan On Nov 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > Also wondering, how does FCP handle the arri footage color space? does = the output in FCP natively look like the AE footage with the LUT = applied? Or would all the footage need to have the LUT applied in color = correction? Should I work with the LUT applied and then disable for = render? or does the effect only work like a color space preview and not = affect output? >=20 > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Jim Curtis wrote: > If you're just adding FX to select shots, they're likely going to want = the same format they gave you, so it will intercut with the non-effected = shots. >=20 > As I mentioned, there is purportedly a path to ProRes from Windows, = but I haven't done it. I'm Mac: >=20 > http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/30139 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:56 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: >=20 >> These are all fantastic questions for the director / online = editor that have not been addressed. This is my first time working with = Arri footage so all this info is extremely helpful. It is made a bit = more complicated by the fact that AE on PC cannot export ProRes. Worse = comes to worse I could export lossless visuals in 10bit QT and then = transcode back to prores on my MBP. Hopefully though I can export video = gamma and they can deal with it on their end. =20 >>=20 >> I am adding blood splatters, muzzle flashes, bullet holes and set = extensions on a good deal of the footage, mostly sourced from the Video = Copilot Action Essentials HD kit. There is a lot of tracking, cloning, = and roto as well. There is also a fair amount of particle work, but = luckily no CG on my end (that is being handled in LA). Do I need to = apply any kind of color space conversion on the stock footage, or would = the LUT on the plates bring them more in line with the stock footage?=20 >>=20 >> And lastly I have a few annoying questions about the LUT generator >>=20 >> Should I choose legal or extended for Range input / output? It's an = indie film so I don't think it's going out for broadcast. This has to do = with black level? >>=20 >> normalized or photometric scaling? My gut says photometric=20 >>=20 >> Do I need to alter dimension or bits for the LUT output? >>=20 >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Brian Higgins = wrote: >> No no no...you most likely want to convert the LogC footage into = video gamma color space. We used to call this "linear," ala Log->Lin, = but linear these days generally means scene-referred linear, which is = another ball of wax entirely. Go here, go to the post-production = section, and make an AE LUT: >> = http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/tools/lut_generator/lut_generat= or.html >>=20 >> What are you doing to the footage? Adding some CG/VFX? Adding = graphics? Color correcting? And what is your client expecting as a = deliverable? If you need to deliver LogC files back, then you'll need = to work in a color space with high enough bit depth to hold the ~14 = stops of range in that source file. I suggest working in float either = way. If they want LogC ProRes files, add a LUT at the end to squish = your work back down. If you're going this route, test it and get it = working before you do any other work on the project. If they're fine = with getting video gamma images from you, you can deliver as DPX or = DNXHD or whatever. =20 >>=20 >> $.02, >> Brian >>=20 >> --=20 >> brian higgins | creative director >> Sol Design >> 312.706.5500 >> higgins@soldesignfx.com >> soldesignfx.com >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Teddy Gage = wrote: >> OK that helps. That's sort of what I was doing already- but I'd = really like to avoid having to work on the effects directly in c-log, = it's gonna be a huge headache with color space conversion and preview. I = was thinking maybe a round trip through dnxHD 10-bit may be the answer. = The final deliverables are going to be HD5 for broadcast as far as I can = tell, and maybe a DCP. Looks like I need to have another conversation = with the director and online editor to figure out this workflow and how = they're doing the color correct. I wish they'd just shot dnxhd in the = first place... >> -TG >>=20 >>=20 >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jim Curtis wrote: >> I touched on this already, but what I've done is to put a first = instance of levels on the clips or an adjustment layer to get the levels = on a WFM in the ballpark of 1-100. Then, I add a second instance of = other plugs (I like Frishchluft FL Curves best) for fine tuning. >>=20 >> What you render to depends on where you're going. I was doing = broadcast spots, so I rendered to ProRes422 (in RGB color space) and = made MPEG2 for distribution via DG and ExtremeReach from those. >>=20 >> To be honest, I don't know if that's a great method, but the footage = looks great, and I love the expanded dynamic range and the minimizing of = clipping in the whites that I often see with lesser capture formats. =20 >>=20 >> Monitoring: I have a calibrated HP DreamColor display and a Sony = Trinitron CRT hooked up to a Kona for accurate monitoring. I use an = Apple Cinema Display for my computer monitor, and I can attest that the = images are vastly different between the computer display and the = broadcast monitors. What looks right on the broadcast monitors is = super-saturated on the ACD (using the default Cinema HD Apple profile - = not flat).=20 >>=20 >> You can check yourself by looking at the scopes in Ae bundled Color = Finesse, if you don't have any other scopes available. Or, you can = check your work by using the scopes in Pr, if you have that. I run = Synthetic Apps Test Gear full-time in Ae. >>=20 >> I'm sure you're aware that home HDTVs have picture settings that = alter the contrast, saturation, etc. Whether your HDTV gives you an = accurate look depends on many settings and the hardware feeding your = HDMI signal. But, if that's all you have, then see if your output = compares favorably to what you watch on TV. If it looks right, maybe it = is right. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Nov 25, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Teddy Gage wrote: >>=20 >>> ok looks like it is 4444, 276 mbps. I wasn't aware the arri encoded = directly to prores so that solves one problem, namely what I thought was = a bad transcode. Looks like these clips are direct from camera. >>>=20 >>> Now what's the best way for this footage to make the round trip, = FX-wise, without destroying the integrity of the 10bit 4444? I'm = thinking: >>>=20 >>> - convert to log c color space / 32bpc to work in. Match all FX = footage / roto / stock elements to the log c preview? >>> - render back out to lossless QTs in 10bit YUV from AE=20 >>> - do I render in video color space or should I render out in the log = c profile?=20 >>>=20 >>> I don't have an HD monitor, I have a high-end "graphics" monitor = (the eizo CG222, extremely flat response, color accurate, 99%+ of adobe = RGB) but to get an accurate final preview I may throw it onto my HDTV = (not ideal, I know, but at least should give me an idea what I'm looking = at, right?) >>>=20 >>> Any other tips / gotchas would be greatly appreciated. >>> -TG >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jim Curtis = wrote: >>> You can tell if it's 422 or 4444 by looking at the clip info in the = Ae Project pane, or by using Get Info in QT Player. >>>=20 >>> The Alexa footage I've worked with (just three projects, so I'm no = expert), the camera was connected to a cinedeck via 2 BNC cables, and = the native footage was ProRes4444+, or IOW, no transcoding was done or = necessary. =20 >>>=20 >>> If it was recorded to ArriRaw and transcoded with settings "baked," = you have been robbed of the post-production benefits of recording in = RAW. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Teddy Gage wrote: >>>=20 >>>> OK so j. Penzer said the arri is using log c color space. This is = the answer I was looking for. Here's my concern. I am ingesting prores = transcodes, not the original camera files. The histogram for this = footage in 32bpc is compressed on both sides and very clipped in the = middle >>>> a) I am concerned the editor didn't do the transcodes properly. I'm = not even sure whether they were converted to 8 bit 4:2:2 or 10bit 4:4:4. = I am, unfortunately, one of the more tech savvy people on production. Is = there any way to figure this out? >>>>=20 >>>> B) how should I handle final outputs? Should I use color space = conversion back to log c on export so it's consistent in fcp? Does fcp = do this conversion automatically?=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks! >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> Animator & Editor >>> www.teddygage.com >>> Brooklyn >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> Animator & Editor >> www.teddygage.com >> Brooklyn >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> Animator & Editor >> www.teddygage.com >> Brooklyn >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn >=20 JONATHAN PENZNER SUNDANCE/REALTIME VIDEO EDITING =95 MOTION GRAPHICS =95 DESIGN | STUDIO 626 345-0285 | | CELL 818 321-2890 | SUREAL@CHARTER.NET --Apple-Mail-112--233455844 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Also = wondering, how does FCP handle the arri footage color space? does the = output in FCP natively look like the AE footage with the LUT applied? Or = would all the footage need to have the LUT applied in color correction? = Should I work with the LUT applied and then disable for render? or does = the effect only work like a color space preview and not affect = output?

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Jim = Curtis <jpcurtis@me.com> wrote:
If you're just adding FX to select = shots, they're likely going to want the same format they gave you, so it = will intercut with the non-effected shots.

As I = mentioned, there is purportedly a path to ProRes from Windows, but I = haven't done it.  I'm Mac:

=




On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:56 PM, Teddy Gage = wrote:

    These are = all fantastic questions for the director / online editor that have not = been addressed. This is my first time working with Arri footage so all = this info is extremely helpful. It is made a bit more complicated by the = fact that AE on PC cannot export ProRes. Worse comes to worse I could = export lossless visuals in 10bit QT and then transcode back to prores on = my MBP. Hopefully though I can export video gamma and they can deal with = it on their end. 

I am adding blood splatters, muzzle flashes, bullet holes and set = extensions on a good deal of the footage, mostly sourced from the Video = Copilot Action Essentials HD kit. There is a lot of tracking, cloning, = and roto as well. There is also a fair amount of particle work, but = luckily no CG on my end (that is being handled in LA). Do I need to = apply any kind of color space conversion on the stock footage, or would = the LUT on the plates bring them more in line with the stock footage? =

And lastly I have a few annoying questions about the LUT = generator

Should I choose legal or extended for Range input / = output? It's an indie film so I don't think it's going out for = broadcast. This has to do with black level?

normalized or photometric scaling? My gut says photometric =

Do I need to alter dimension or bits for the LUT = output?

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:28 = PM, Brian Higgins <higgins@soldesignfx.com> wrote:
No no no...you most = likely want to convert the LogC footage into video gamma color space. =  We used to call this "linear," ala Log->Lin, but linear these = days generally means scene-referred linear, which is another ball of wax = entirely.  Go here, go to the post-production section, and make an = AE LUT:

What are you = doing to the footage?  Adding some CG/VFX?  Adding graphics? =  Color correcting?   And what is your client expecting as a = deliverable?  If you need to deliver LogC files back, then you'll = need to work in a color space with high enough bit depth to hold the ~14 = stops of range in that source file.  I suggest working in float = either way.  If they want LogC ProRes files, add a LUT at the end = to squish your work back down. If you're going this route, test it and = get it working before you do any other work on the project.  If = they're fine with getting video gamma images from you, you can deliver = as DPX or DNXHD or whatever.  
=

$.02,
Brian

-- = ;
brian higgins | creative = director
Sol  Design
312.706.5500
higgins@soldesignfx.com
soldesignfx.c= om


On Sun, = Nov 25, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
OK that helps. = That's sort of what I was doing already- but I'd really like to avoid = having to work on the effects directly in c-log, it's gonna be a huge = headache with color space conversion and preview. I was thinking maybe a = round trip through dnxHD 10-bit may be the answer. The final = deliverables are going to be HD5 for broadcast as far as I can tell, and = maybe a DCP. Looks like I need to have another conversation with the = director and online editor to figure out this workflow and how they're = doing the color correct. I wish they'd just shot dnxhd in the first = place...
-TG


On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at = 12:58 PM, Jim Curtis <jpcurtis@me.com> wrote:
I touched on this already, but what = I've done is to put a first instance of levels on the clips or an = adjustment layer to get the levels on a WFM in the ballpark of 1-100. =  Then, I add a second instance of other plugs (I like Frishchluft = FL Curves best) for fine tuning.

What you render to depends on where you're going.  I = was doing broadcast spots, so I rendered to ProRes422 (in RGB color = space) and made MPEG2 for distribution via DG and ExtremeReach from = those.

To be honest, I don't know if that's a great method, but = the footage looks great, and I love the expanded dynamic range and the = minimizing of clipping in the whites that I often see with lesser = capture formats.  

Monitoring:  I have a calibrated HP DreamColor = display and a Sony Trinitron CRT hooked up to a Kona for accurate = monitoring.  I use an Apple Cinema Display for my computer monitor, = and I can attest that the images are vastly different between the = computer display and the broadcast monitors.  What looks right on = the broadcast monitors is super-saturated on the ACD (using the default = Cinema HD Apple profile - not flat).  

You can check yourself by looking at the scopes in = Ae bundled Color Finesse, if you don't have any other scopes available. =  Or, you can check your work by using the scopes in Pr, if you have = that.  I run Synthetic Apps Test Gear full-time in Ae.

I'm sure you're aware that home HDTVs have picture = settings that alter the contrast, saturation, etc.  Whether your = HDTV gives you an accurate look depends on many settings and the = hardware feeding your HDMI signal.  But, if that's all you have, = then see if your output compares favorably to what you watch on TV. =  If it looks right, maybe it is right.
=




= On Nov 25, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Teddy Gage wrote:

ok looks like it is 4444, 276 mbps. I wasn't aware the = arri encoded directly to prores so that solves one problem, namely what = I thought was a bad transcode. Looks like these clips are direct from = camera.

Now what's the best way for this footage to make the round trip, = FX-wise, without destroying the integrity of the 10bit 4444? I'm = thinking:

- convert to log c color space / 32bpc to work in. Match all FX = footage / roto / stock elements to the log c preview?
- render back = out to lossless QTs in 10bit YUV from AE
- do I render in video = color space or should I render out in the log c profile?

I don't have an HD monitor, I have a high-end "graphics" monitor = (the eizo CG222, extremely flat response, color accurate, 99%+ of adobe = RGB) but to get an accurate final preview I may throw it onto my HDTV = (not ideal, I know, but at least should give me an idea what I'm looking = at, right?)

Any other tips / gotchas would be greatly = appreciated.
-TG



On Sun, = Nov 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jim Curtis <jpcurtis@me.com> wrote:
You can tell if it's 422 or 4444 by = looking at the clip info in the Ae Project pane, or by using Get Info in = QT Player.

The Alexa footage I've worked with (just three projects, = so I'm no expert), the camera was connected to a cinedeck via 2 BNC = cables, and the native footage was ProRes4444+, or IOW, no transcoding = was done or necessary.  

If it was recorded to ArriRaw and transcoded with = settings "baked," you have been robbed of the post-production benefits = of recording in RAW.


On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Teddy Gage = wrote:

OK so j. Penzer = said the arri is using log c color space. This is the answer I was = looking for. Here's my concern. I am ingesting prores transcodes, not = the original camera files. The histogram for this footage in 32bpc is = compressed on both sides and very clipped in the middle
a) I am concerned the editor didn't do the transcodes properly. I'm not = even sure whether they were converted to 8 bit 4:2:2 or 10bit 4:4:4. I = am, unfortunately, one of the more tech savvy people on production. Is = there any way to figure this out?

B) how should I = handle final  outputs? Should I use color space conversion back to = log c on export so it's consistent in fcp? Does fcp do this conversion = automatically? 

Thanks!





--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn

=




--
Animator = & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn










--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn

=




--
Animator & = Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn



JONATHAN = PENZNER
VIDEO EDITING =95 MOTION GRAPHICS =95 = DESIGN
| STUDIO 626 = 345-0285  CELL = 818 = 321-2890 SUREAL@CHARTER.NET

= --Apple-Mail-112--233455844--