RAW evaluations and graded versions
Until (literally) anyone comes out with a simple drag-and-drop (and folder structure free) alternative. I highly doubt that Prores is going anywhere.
I'm still at a loss as to why not a single codec manufacturer has picked up on the significance of Prores's drag and drop simplicity. It's the central pillar upon which its success stands.
0400 044 500
"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.
The only codec I needed to load externally was Cineform. Used to be I just installed the GoPro app and it included the libraries, but the most recent version didn't. I found the last versions on Cnet.
I'm definitely not in a class with you guys, so I'm mostly just a fly on the wall observer here. Audio and Video systems engineer by trade. Serious hobby filmmaker mostly shooting simple docs.
I am currently shooting with a Digital Bolex and my workflow is a combination of Davinci Resolve for raw processing, Cineform DI out of Resolve, edit with Lightworks from "best light" corrected Cineform DI's.
I use FS4k for transcoding compressed video formats to Cineform, Mostly casual footage shot with an iPad and Iographer rig.
Recently been experimenting with Slimraw "lossless" 10 bit log compressed raw. It is a Cineon log curve and works well with the color managed transforms in Resolve.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Yes. Exactly the reason I recommended Scratch as opposed to the reverse engineered ffmpeg ProRes.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:16 AM Clark Graff <clark@...> wrote:
I think they've output since v9, we're on v11 at the moment. I think all the product versions write prores (base Nuke upwards)
They output all flavours properly, including alphas and 4444 and even 4444XQ and they're Apple sanctioned.
I did mention to them at one point that they really ought to make a bigger deal of this because i stumbled on it by accident not marketing.
The only negative is that QT is quite slow under windows (in general, not Nuke specifically)
Paul Curtis, VFX & Post | Canterbury, UK
I did have a plugin for Resolve that produced wonderful ProRes files.
Unfortunately when I went for a complete reinstall on a new machine I couldn’t reinstall the plugin. It needed to be registered to work and Apple had had a word with them and they no longer offer the plugin.
Scratch have kindly sent me a 30 day license for Scratch but unfortunately my machine doesn’t work with this license. I will chase this up once I am further down the road.
All the raw files are ready for upload, I’ve trimmed every shot to 1 second except for faces where they’re 5 seconds.
I’m waiting until Kodak get me the scans of the neg 😊
After they are all up and properly linked I’ll get back to making compressed versions, slightly compressed and very compressed.
I’ve done several of these already but I’m having second thoughts about the way I’m doing them.
Basically, decide which exposure is nearest to “correct” and mark it, then match every other take to it using offset only and only matching the grey patch on the Kodak chart.
I have been doing a timeline colour correction based on the selected frame, no exposure change but neutralising any colour shift. If anyone wants to see what it all really looks like then they can get the raw files.
The complication is that I’m doing this on the sequences lit with “real” tungsten, with the “substitute” ones I’m in two minds, I’m obviously not altering colour as we want to see the shift but do I match exposure to the one from the tungsten set or do I match all the substitute shots to the same stop as I used for the real light even though it may well be the wrong exposure?
I think that we need to see the difference.
I’ll also post a chart of each camera with exposure variation from measured and also what rating gives the most exposure for the lowest noise, i.e. the point where the waveform stops being fuzzy 😊 or, do I post the amount of NR at “correct” exposure that is needed to give a clean waveform?
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS