|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Geoff Boyle
I understand this only too well Mako, this was a “real” DIT who got carried away looking at all the material from all the different cameras and was momentarily distracted.
I won’t say who it was or upload their credits but this was a well established and experienced full on DIT.
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS Cinematographer Netherlands www.gboyle.nl
From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Mako Koiwai _._,_
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Robert A. Ober
Daniel Rozsnyó wrote on
7/16/18 14:55:
Point of clarification, x.264 is a version of a H.264 compliant encoder. The encoder can be whatever someone wants to program as long as the result can be decoded by a compliant decoder. The comparison would be the Main Concept version vs x.264 and others. According to the Moscow tests, x.264 is better. ProRes is of course a proprietary licensed codec. The non Apple versions are sometimes OK but they do sometimes fail distributors QC. So yes, be aware you may need to create deliverables on a Mac. Y'all take care, Robert Robert A. Ober IT Consultant, Vidcaster, & Freelancer www.infohou.com Houston, TX
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Bob Kertesz
On 7/16/2018 12:55 PM, Daniel Rozsnyó wrote:
And yet none of its three ProRes codec implementations would pass theOr AJA's for that matter. Generating a ProRes file with ffmpeg, then transferring it via network to an AJA KiPro or KiproRack will result in the file appearing in the deck's file list but not playing back. Bob Kertesz BlueScreen LLC Hollywood, California DIT, Video Controller, and live compositor extraordinaire. High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted them or not.© * * * * * * * * * *
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Bob Kertesz
As has been touched on, there are a few windows apps that do encodeI just went to the site and did a search on ProRes and ProRes codec, and came up with zero results. Which versions support exporting in proper ProRes? Any limitations? Will it output ProRes 4444 with alpha properly? Thanks. -Bob Bob Kertesz BlueScreen LLC Hollywood, California DIT, Video Controller, and live compositor extraordinaire. High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted them or not.© * * * * * * * * * *
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Paul Curtis
On 16 Jul 2018, at 20:55, Daniel Rozsnyó <daniel@...> wrote:
And yet none of its three ProRes codec implementations would pass the Apple's strict quality standards. Apple does rightfully stand against using ffmpeg here:I can't speak for ffmpeg specifically but there have been a few windows 'compatible' versions of ProRes sold as actual products and i can front line attest to the fact they're not the same and the encoding was not up to scratch. As has been touched on, there are a few windows apps that do encode proper prores, including Nuke. cheers Paul Paul Curtis, VFX & Post | Canterbury, UK
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Daniel Rozsnyó
But it is worth noting that ffmpeg is free, open-source, runs on Windows, and can encode Prores. I have used it for this purpose to encode both Prores LT and Prores 422 on Windows.And yet none of its three ProRes codec implementations would pass the Apple's strict quality standards. Apple does rightfully stand against using ffmpeg here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/ht200321 While the decoding process is correct in ffmpeg, in the encoding there are things which make up the quality (you could see that in H264 vs X264, which was constantly improved), such work on open-source ProRes ENCODER did not happen due to small target audience / interested developers. So the way ffmpeg does encoding into prores is either a bad approach on some codecs or an average "will do the job if the scene is not extreme" . Official and approved products have just better encoding quality due to having the secret sauce from the fruit garden :) Daniel Rozsnyo camera developer Prague, Czech Republic
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Mako Koiwai <mako1foto@...>
On Jul 15, 2018, at 22:59, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:
don’t tell me I should have had a DIT, last time this happened was the last time we had a DIT! *************** There are downloaders, there are dit's and there are DIT’s. One of the things a DIT Naturally does is to Double Check everything and to have a proper filing system. On a Big Shoot … like yours … one can’t be losing files … Respect … makofoto, s. pasadena, ca
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Zach Fine
My guess is that Geoff has his hands full and may not be interested in mucking about with installing ffmpeg and figuring out the proper set of command-line arguments to get it to output Prores 4444 xq, and I don't know if ffmpeg fits within his workflow. But it is worth noting that ffmpeg is free, open-source, runs on Windows, and can encode Prores. I have used it for this purpose to encode both Prores LT and Prores 422 on Windows.
According to the ticket in ffmpeg's bug tracker that was used to track the addition of Prores 4444XQ encoding to ffmpeg, the syntax for such encoding was to be:
It appears that ffmpeg added support for Prores 4444XQ encoding back in late June 2017. Best regards. Zach Fine Assistant Editor Los Angeles
323.470.6969
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Mako Koiwai <mako1foto@...>
Dp Bill Bennett, ASC lead us on that shoot … hopefully he will Reply.
Bill please check out this thread on CML. makofoto, S. Pasadena, CA 
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Miga Bär
Hi Mark,
I think you are looking for TrueMotion by Real D: https://www.reald.com/#/truemotion Although I did install a trial once, I didn’t have the chance to really test it and see if it performs as well as it promises. Best, Miga Bär DI specialist the Netherlands
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Florian Martin
Hello Mark.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Real D - True Motion The demo clip was shot on an ALEXA. The software can work directly on ARRIRAW frames. Best, _utsi.
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Nick Shaw
On 16 Jul 2018, at 12:32, Colin Elves <colin@...> wrote:
You can do that in Adobe After effects. ‘Interpret motion blur’ or something it’s called. I’m sure you can keyframe it too. What Tessive did with TimeShaper is a lot more sophisticated than anything (I believe) After Effects will do. TimeShaper uses sophisticated filter kernels, similar to those used for high quality image resizing, but applied in the dimension of time rather than space. Nick Shaw Workflow Consultant Antler Post Suite 87 30 Red Lion Street Richmond Surrey TW9 1RB UK +44 (0)7778 217 555
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Mark Kenfield
That's the one! Thanks Nick, finding it was beyond my google keywording abilities!
On 16 July 2018 at 21:30, Nick Shaw <nick@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Colin Elves
You can do that in Adobe After effects. ‘Interpret motion blur’ or something it’s called. I’m sure you can keyframe it too.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Colin Elves Director of Photography Currently Bucks
|
|
|
|
Re: Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Nick Shaw
I'm guessing it may have been RealD TrueMotion. What Was previously Tessive TimeShaper Nick Shaw Workflow Consultant Antler Post Suite 87 30 Red Lion Street Richmond Surrey TW9 1RB UK +44 (0)7778 217 555
On 16 Jul 2018, at 12:08, Mark Kenfield <mark@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Controlling HFR Motion Blur in Post?
Mark Kenfield
Hi everyone, I'm trying to track down a link to a HFR software demonstration I saw not too long ago. They'd shot demo material (of dancers in an airplane hangar I think) on an F65 at 120fps. And their software allowed you to take the 120fps footage, and adjust the frame rate and attendant motion blur in post. So you could restore a 24fps @ 180 degree shutter look, to 120fps material, and ramp smoothly between the two. Can anyone remember the name of that software, or point me in the direction of the tech demo for it? Cheers, Mark Kenfield Cinematographer Melbourne
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Geoff Boyle
Yeah and I can fly to Australia to do the tests in consistent daylight.
It all costs money.
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS Cinematographer Netherlands www.gboyle.nl
From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Virgil Kastrup
You can produce ProRes files on a windows computer with Assimilate Scratch, so no need to transfer everything to a mac.
_,_._,_
|
|
|
|
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions
Virgil Kastrup
You can produce ProRes files on a windows computer with Assimilate Scratch, so no need to transfer everything to a mac.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:59 AM Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
RAW evaluations and graded versions
I’m in the process of cutting the rushes down to 1 second clips. It’s easy in some software to cut the raw files down. It’s not so easy with others, it’s a brute force job and with 50 folders per camera to trim and zip it’s time consuming and I need to get out on my bike after a few hours of it. Of course I can’t trim compressed folders without going through an edit so I’m uploading the compressed files as they are. As always there appears to be one lot of rushes missing/faulty, don’t tell me I should have had a DIT, last time this happened was the last time we had a DIT! I’m hoping the manufacturer, who was there, has a copy. We do have 2 variations of the camera concerned just not the third so it’s not the end of the world.
I’ll put the raw files up first and then add pages of UHD QT next, I’m going to try not putting them on YouTube or Vimeo and host them on cmltests.net directly as h264 that I create. The full res QT files will be DNxHR 444 12 bit because I’m not going to play musical computers and transfer everything from a blazingly fast Windows machine to a sluggish Mac just to produce ProRes. I’ll probably use Handbrake to produce the h264.
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS Cinematographer Netherlands www.gboyle.nl
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: What’s the difference?
Geoff Boyle
OK,
I’m closing this thread. Any more posts about lighting will be in the lighting list.
I don’t understand the constant sniping at doing the tests with different light sources, we’ve been through this again and again.
I can’t do the tests in daylight, which is what I’d like to do, this is due to unreliable light in my location and the limited windows in which we can test if we want constant colour. I offered to go to central Australia for 3 weeks to do this but nobody offered to pay so you don’t really care that much.
Second choice is tungsten, it’s a constant and traditional light source, it may be a bit harder for sensors which are inherently sensitive to light at 5k or so but hey! The manufacturers say they’re good with it.
I included a tungsten LED that is the most prevalent LED out there. Yes there are many that are better, I usually used them in tests particularly BB&S and Cineo not forgetting the Photonbeard Redheads 😊
The main evaluation is the tungsten, to compare cameras look at the tungsten tests. That’s it, just look at the tungsten tests. Yes, they are on preset but that’s part of the tests and anyway the RAW files will be available if you really care rather than just want to make noise.
For those of you who care about images the LED versions are there to scare the hell out of you.
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS Cinematographer Netherlands www.gboyle.nl
From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Daniel Drasin
Mitch writes: So this camera comparison test morphed into a light source comparison test, which is exactly what I cautioned against beforehand.
|
|
|