Web Analytics

RAW evaluations and graded versions


Geoff Boyle
 

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

 


Virgil Kastrup
 

You can produce ProRes files on a windows computer with Assimilate Scratch, so no need to transfer everything to a mac.

Virgil Kastrup
Post Production Supervisor
Denmark

+45 28181579


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:59 AM Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

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

 



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


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
Sent: 16 July 2018 08:12
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] RAW evaluations and graded versions

 

You can produce ProRes files on a windows computer with Assimilate Scratch, so no need to transfer everything to a mac.

 

Virgil Kastrup

Post Production Supervisor

Denmark

 

+45 28181579

 

 

_,_._,_


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:

ffmpeg.exe -i input -c:v prores_ks -pix_fmt yuv444p10le -profile:v 4444XQ output.mov

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

On Jul 15, 2018, at 11:12 PM, Virgil Kastrup <vkastrup@...> wrote:

You can produce ProRes files on a windows computer with Assimilate Scratch, so no need to transfer everything to a mac.

Virgil Kastrup
Post Production Supervisor
Denmark

+45 28181579


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


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


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


Bob Kertesz
 

As has been touched on, there are a few windows apps that do encode
proper prores, including Nuke.
I 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.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Bob Kertesz
 

On 7/16/2018 12:55 PM, Daniel Rozsnyó wrote:
And yet none of its three ProRes codec implementations would pass the
Apple's strict quality standards.
Or 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.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Robert A. Ober
 

Daniel Rozsnyó wrote on 7/16/18 14:55:

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 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

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







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
Sent: 16 July 2018 21:04

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 …

_._,_


Clark Graff
 

>>>As has been touched on, there are a few windows apps that do encode
>>>proper prores, including Nuke.

 

 

I believe that Scratch can OUTPUT ProRES correctly. I have done it on a few jobs without issue.

 

~clark

 

Clark Graff

Film Maker- Production Designer – VFX Sup – DIT – Workflow – Editor – Propellerhead

SoCal ~ Toronto ~ Vancouver

805-253-5496 cel

www.4nr.com

 


simon@...
 

On 2018-07-16 20:55, Daniel Rozsnyó wrote:


Official and approved products have just better encoding quality due to having the secret sauce from the fruit garden :)
 
I too would have mentioned ffmpeg as the tool to use to avoid a Mac-Windows round trip, had I not been busy when I first saw Geoff's post.
 
But respectfully, I completely disagree about "approved" or "licensed" products automatically having better encoding quality. Take, for instance, commercial h264 encoders vs open source x264. x264 beats everything else I've ever tested hands down for quality at similar bitrates and can be an order of magnitude faster.
 
Of the three Prores encoders in ffmpeg, one stands head and shoulders above the others and that is prores_ks, as shown in the example Zach posted.
 
All lossy encoders generate artifacts, that's a given. ffmpeg's prores_ks encoder just generates different artifacts to the Apple Prores encoder. In my experience, neither stand out as being worse than the others, just different.
 
Some time ago, I spent some time working on some improvements for the DCP encoder we developed in-house. We started with an open source JPEG2000 encoder which consistently made better pictures than a couple of (incredibly expensive) hardware DCP encoders and our work improved things further. So it's definitely not a case of you get what you pay for :-)
 
Simon
 
 
--
Simon Burley
RPS Film Imaging Ltd
Direct: 01342 395 003
Mobile: 07702 732 655


David Rasberry
 

Footage Studio 4k is a practical inexpensive easy to use transcoding utility that I've found very useful for a couple of years now.  Transcodes pretty much any common encoded video format (not raw) . Writes all flavors of Prores, DNXHD/HR. and Cineform DI's from proxy to 4:4:4:4  16 bit. Acrovid - FootageStudio - Format conversions, Video Standard conversions, Frame rate conversions, SD-HD conversions, Video Denoise, Overcrank.




David Rasberry
 

Personally I prefer Cineform.


Leonard Levy
 

Let’s get real guys . Instead of overloading beleaguered Geoff with more & more ideas he won’t use, let’s just chip in for his favorite booze . He needs a serious break. Just $10 bucks from each of us should yield something better than I’ve ever even tasted . I’ll start in with $10 if Geoff can provide a PayPal address . Jesus it’s the least we can do for putting up with all these insane suggestions . 

Geoff are you still drinking ? If so Post a PayPal address ?Dont be shy .  If not alcohol then go out for an incredibly fine dinner ! We all owe you . Thank god I didn’t have to do these tests ! 

Who’s with me ?

Lenny Levy , DP
San Rafael , CA 


Bob Kertesz
 

The Video Output Formats section listing, including ProRes, has a footnote saying "video codecs may require installing additional libraries or drivers."

What libraries/drivers (if any) have you found that it needs to use the various ProRes output flavors it supports?

The product looks good on the site, lots of features, is inexpensive as these things go.

-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.©

* * * * * * * * * *

On 7/16/2018 7:37 PM, David Rasberry via Cml.News wrote:
Footage Studio 4k is a practical inexpensive easy to use transcoding utility that I've found very useful for a couple of years now.  Transcodes pretty much any common encoded video format (not raw) . Writes all flavors of Prores, DNXHD/HR. and Cineform DI's from proxy to 4:4:4:4  16 bit. Acrovid - FootageStudio - Format conversions, Video Standard conversions, Frame rate conversions, SD-HD conversions, Video Denoise, Overcrank.






Geoff Boyle
 

Not drinking.

 

https://cinematography.net/subs.html

 

It takes one off donations as well 😊

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Leonard Levy
Sent: 17 July 2018 05:29
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] RAW evaluations and graded versions

 

Let’s get real guys . Instead of overloading beleaguered Geoff with more & more ideas he won’t use, let’s just chip in for his favorite booze . He needs a serious break. Just $10 bucks from each of us should yield something better than I’ve ever even tasted . I’ll start in with $10 if Geoff can provide a PayPal address . Jesus it’s the least we can do for putting up with all these insane suggestions . 


Geoff are you still drinking ? If so Post a PayPal address ?Dont be shy .  If not alcohol then go out for an incredibly fine dinner ! We all owe you . Thank god I didn’t have to do these tests ! 

 

Who’s with me ?

 

Lenny Levy , DP

San Rafael , CA 


Paul Curtis
 



On 16 Jul 2018, at 22:01, Simon Burley <simon@...> wrote:
Some time ago, I spent some time working on some improvements for the DCP encoder we developed in-house. We started with an open source JPEG2000 encoder which consistently made better pictures than a couple of (incredibly expensive) hardware DCP encoders and our work improved things further. So it's definitely not a case of you get what you pay for :-)

There's a lot to be said for open source and lots of developers contributing when it comes to quality/features/innovation.

But reverse engineering a proprietary 'standard' is probably not ideal in this case - there's no guarantee of broad compatibility or future robustness IMHO.

Personally i'd still prefer to see Cineform take over because i do believe it's better quality. However it doesn't have a fruit behind it and also now that Adobe integrated it into their applications their version of the codec appears slightly different to the previous one and caused me some issues with past footage. Also i don't know if the codec itself is standalone anymore.

cheers
Paul

Paul Curtis, VFX & Post | Canterbury, UK



Jeff Kreines
 

I also am a fan of Cineform RAW. It’s now open-source and well supported in Resolve. 

Jeff Kreines

Sent from iPhone. 

On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:13 AM, Paul Curtis <paul@...> wrote:



On 16 Jul 2018, at 22:01, Simon Burley <simon@...> wrote:
Some time ago, I spent some time working on some improvements for the DCP encoder we developed in-house. We started with an open source JPEG2000 encoder which consistently made better pictures than a couple of (incredibly expensive) hardware DCP encoders and our work improved things further. So it's definitely not a case of you get what you pay for :-)

There's a lot to be said for open source and lots of developers contributing when it comes to quality/features/innovation.

But reverse engineering a proprietary 'standard' is probably not ideal in this case - there's no guarantee of broad compatibility or future robustness IMHO.

Personally i'd still prefer to see Cineform take over because i do believe it's better quality. However it doesn't have a fruit behind it and also now that Adobe integrated it into their applications their version of the codec appears slightly different to the previous one and caused me some issues with past footage. Also i don't know if the codec itself is standalone anymore.

cheers
Paul

Paul Curtis, VFX & Post | Canterbury, UK