Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: fredjeang on August 11, 2011, 09:39:22 am
-
Hi,
I'm finding that this workflow (that does not concern the Red workflow) works well for me:
It would be transcoding from the begining any kind of footage to the highest possible codec in order to be used further for grading. Problem: I want to avoid ProRes because of its Mac dependence.
So I ingest the files to AMA in Avid and batch transcode into another bin in DXxHD for smooth editing,
then just re-link the edited sequence with their originals (I mean the previously transcoded to a lossless format), wich only takes a few seconds.
export the sequence now containing the highest possible codec to another platform for grading or even to another NLE platform for other tasks.
I'm not so far very aware of all the "offer" available in the industry when it comes to choosing formats for grading.
A part from ProRes, I've been told that the Canopus codecs work well, are widely used and handle serious grading, Cineform comes also quite often in my researches.
So my question is: what are the best options possible if not prores? options that have made their proofs, multiplatforms and above all are rock solid stables.
and is it interesting to export tiff 32 bits image sequences just for grading? (thinking of it because Nuke has very good color corrections features, at least for my needs)
Then, what about Photoshop? Grading in PS. The think is that I like more and more image sequences workflow.
Thanks
-
Fred, I'm pretty new to this too, but my first guess would be DPX.. which is an image sequence format. A lot of Resolve work that incorporates VFX shots is done in DPX. I need to investigate formats more myself as this can all become very confusion.
Stills are so much easier... shoot raw / retouch tiff / deliver tiff
also, Resolve grades so quick, powerfully and easy that I'm going to experiment with it for stills.
-
Yes, I'm tempted to go DPX, but there you have a clear advantage with Premiere because Avid's DPX workflow is something users are claiming for some time now.
And then the huge amont of HD required so another thing to look is the Raid config etc etc...it's just like crazy indeed.
What I'm observing (and end doing ) is that it's very rare that editors are using just one software. In fact all I met so far are runin Avid, Premiere, FCP7 and change alternatively when needed so they extract the best of all and avoid problems that way.
Today I was learning a multiplatform workflow between Avid and Premiere Pro, it's very easy and straighforward. Normally what I've seen is that the Avid guys who work with resolve use After effects to create DPX and they export an AAF from Avid to Premiere and copy-paste the footage in after effect. It sounds a mess but it's in fact fast. So you could object: why don't they use directly Premiere? Well, because for ex some want the Red Raw grading in Avid etc...so in the end it's like the ideal editor is having all of them, and that's what I'm seeing. Having Edius 6 with Avid saved me of problems with the AVCHD of the GH2 because for Avid, AVCHD is just crap and don't help the workflow.
It sounds like DNG and other still raws isn't it?...
Yeah, life was waayy more simple in still-land. Here we have to deal with tons of parameters and those naughty codecs and what really makes me think that this is a complete mess, is seeing similar questions that I'm asking as a newbee in motion, in many pro cine websites, asked by advanced people and answers really never answered as "this is how it works" but more like "try-this-that-and-the-other-but-you-might-want-to-end-with-those" ...
In the end, image sequences seem to be the way to avoid all that mess because all we need is HD.
I also need to experiment stills with Nuke because there is no limit format.
-
I discover everyday novelties.
I just realised something I ignored so far in Edius6. I was doing some practice training with thr Red workflow, and this very good editor is capable of actually editing in real time 4096x2160 and not just stucked in 2k.
and accept any image sequence you ingest into it.
The Red workflow is very different from Avid. What Edius wants is image sequences from the Red, generated from RedCineX, not the raw files like Avid. Seems like a downside in a way but in fact it is rather interesting because in the end you will end with the grading or compositing in image sequences, so this is not a bad workflow at all considering the resolution you can reach within the editor.
I have to admit that at the Red res from RedCineX exported in tiff image sequence, the editing was slow (still better than AVCHD !!), so switching in proxy mode and it was perfect to edit and degradation negligeable for the editing task.
In the real world application, I could create a project done with the 4k image sequences that generates the Panasonic GH2 (unfortunatly, very unfortunatly, this wonderfull GH2 capability is limited to very short time) with the real dimensions in the timeline and the IQ even in the viewer was stunning.
Edius 6 is indeed a very powerfull editor and a very good complement to Avid or Premiere.
-
Stills are so much easier... shoot raw / retouch tiff / deliver tiff
Workflow in motion in dependent on time, editorial system and most important . . . money.
If your going to outsource everything, then the only workflow you have to be concerned with is dailies so you know what ya got and dailies are usually best done in prorezz, so you can easily batch them to mp4 for web viewing and drop the prorezz in almost anything for a quick edit.
Past that most film makers work from the backend forward. They know which system they're going to work in and shoot, process accordingly.
It's funny that since FCP 10 was announced a lot of people are finding ways to speed up their use of FCP 7, kind of like they didn't know how good they had it until it was taken away.
I'm not saying FCP 7 is the final answer because as most of us have learned . . . there is no final answer for everyone.
I do know that estimating and shooting a motion project is way different than a still project and you gotta price in a lot of time in pre and post production whether your a hand it off type of guy or do it yourself type of guy.
IMO
BC
-
ProRes, ProRes...
it seems that there is no way to escape the ProRes plague, like the Standard & Poor's agencies are ruling the economy, this codec bloody rules the editing.
So the story is to get a Mac and a Final just to be able to write to ProRes. Very nice Mac manouver! It makes me want to rebuy their cool stuff... Each time I hear this name now I can feel the dark side of the force growing in me...
Seriously,
Most of the independant filmakers and editors I knew before entering motion where on FCP except the very big prods that where in general runnin Avid in Europe but they had fcp units also.
After the #10 tsunami, still a lot are using FCP7, in fact I'm saying a lot and I should say all. Nobody has abandoned this editor. They added Premiere, Edius, Avid or Sony but are working with FCP7.
One of the reason is...guess what...ProRes...
the other reason is that they really like this editor and are familiar to it.
James you are right. Money is the keyword. To be honest, if I'm doing all those trainings is because I can't delegate and because in the end knowledge has money value and also because somewhere I'm masochist and I like new chalenges and techniques. It's like this beautifull wild horse, you see it and think that you will end to dominate. It's exciting.
On the other end, I consider that knowing the post-prod helps a lot to delegate and supervise the work, so it's not lost time at all even if we outsource everything.
But what I like less and less about that masochist learning, is that I have the wired feeling that the gravity center is NOT well located. I mean all that is time consuming but I realise that where the gravity center should be is in the lightning, the casting, the story, the music and sound takes. And those also require time and dedication. So in the end, the search for a stable and simple but efficient post-prod workflow is not an option but an obligation to be able to focus on much more important things.
I'm going (seriously) to explore the Photoshop way. I'm fed-up of softwares more complicated than a space shuttle board that should be runned by artists-engineers. Look, the other day I did a shooting with a model, and made it such a way that I was using all the knowledge learned so far. Technicaly it was superior to anything I did before in motion, more refined, but I was completly dissatisfy because the model wasn't working well, I wasn't working well...bad casting ruins everything, wether you are on Flame, Alexa or whatever magic unit.
In fact I would have shoot 720 with a compactcam or a mobile phone BUT with a real inspiring top model, real lightning, real story etc...the result would have speak instead of what I had and no special fx can recuperate.
When based material is bloody good, editing is a breeze and post-prod works by itself with whatever.
Lesson learned, changing the gravity center.
-
As a long-time respector (my spell checker says its not a word but I say it should be) of all the contributors to this thread, I sense a pissed-off attitude to having to learn myriad new systems/softwares/ad nauseam. We have to stay on the ball, keep abreast, etc, but bloody hell, it seems to get more complicated when surely the aim/hope is for it to get easier. I'm also moving into movies... and it's taxing my tiny brain more than I like.
The big bummer is that the more time we WASTE/invest on this (necessary) geeky/techno stuff, the less energy, as in creative energy, we have for our message. And it's our message that feeds us - literally, and probably more importantly (to us but maybe not some wives/partners..) intellectually. We have to do it but it lowers our performance levels. Jesus, I'm beginning to sound like a nerd.
I wonder if the answer is to make a big investment in time/effort to learn a good combination of current state-of-the-art equipment and workflow that gets us the result we need, and then stop using forums like this for maybe four years and think only of what we want to produce and how best to produce it.
I love the freedom and extra possibilities that digital in all its manifestations has brought us, but what a bloody load of extra work.
-
I love the freedom and extra possibilities that digital in all its manifestations has brought us, but what a bloody load of extra work.
We just finished shooting a long project. A month of pre production, a month of shooting, another month of post.
Yes we can all become nerds and get caught up in software, hardware, codecs, formats, cameras, dollies, movement, etc. etc. though really all this stuff is only there to add to the creative process, not detract.
In fact the best motion advertising I've seen in 15 second play is made from a still image with a voice over and a small title.
Beautiful stuff and it works as well for the ad as if they had shot it on 35mm film with 2 million dollars in production.
The one thing I've learned about motion (and I have a lot to learn) is the story makes the difference. If you don't have a writer, or can't write yourself do start making friends with one, or two or three, because the story is king, no matter how short or long.
The second thing I've learned is find the right talent for the job. Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Even if the talent is real people, make them comfortable with their lines, treat them as if they are the highest paid hollywood star and listen to their suggestions.
The written word doesn't always translate into believable or interesting dialog.
The third thing I've learned is a good sound technician, better put a good sound artist is vital. We've worked on location for the month and two days ago was the perfect example of a the perfect storm. We scouted a restaurant because it had a quiet day street, a covered overhand for weather, was fast to light as we had multiple talent per shot and had simple beautiful lines which made multiple camera set ups easier.
Then the day to shoot happened and it rained then stopped, then they started construction next door then they started digging a hole in the street to fix a water main break, just when we were ready to shoot.
By asking everyone would hold most of the racket down durning our takes and the sound tech saved so many takes I can't begin to explain. When we get to final cut we may have to loupe a few but all in all the sound guy saved us from disaster or moving the schedule which was almost impossible.
Now as far as equipment, I haven't tested and used everything but I love the look of the RED's I own. I don't like the cost, especially don't like the form factor, but damn they look like cinema film.
I also have a full set of 5d's which are great for low light and the new Sony fs100. I love shooting that Sony with Zeiss lenses, because I think it is the perfect size and weight for about anything you could imagine, but damn the file is sensitive. It's always on the edge of blowing a highlight and the menu system offers a lot of color/tone settings but getting a handle on them takes a while, just setting the shutter speed takes the patience (which I have little of) and the hand coordination of a brain surgeon, (which I also don't posses), but the camera can be a life saver just like the 5d's.
Still, (no pun intended) there are two ways to look at this still to motion convergence. We can be overwhelmed with the learning curve or be positive and use what we know to shoot differently than film crews but maybe more creatively.
I'm personally stoked and like shooting motion, love the challenge, love the control, find every bit of it interesting, though I must admit directing, shooting some and setting composition and movement for three cameras leaves me totally drained by the end of the day.
There is a reason most directors have double dark circles under their eyes.
Now I go into post and I'm just as excited about that as the shoot, because that's where all the hard work is rewarded, or (heaven forbid) any mistake is glaring.
Either way, it's moving forward and I love it.
Maybe I'll feel different in 30 days.
IMO
BC
-
The one thing I've learned about motion (and I have a lot to learn) is the story makes the difference. If you don't have a writer, or can't write yourself do start making friends with one, or two or three, because the story is king, no matter how short or long.
The second thing I've learned is find the right talent for the job. Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Even if the talent is real people, make them comfortable with their lines, treat them as if they are the highest paid hollywood star and listen to their suggestions.
The written word doesn't always translate into believable or interesting dialog.
The third thing I've learned is a good sound technician, better put a good sound artist is vital. We've worked on location for the month and two days ago was the perfect example of a the perfect storm. We scouted a restaurant because it had a quiet day street, a covered overhand for weather, was fast to light as we had multiple talent per shot and had simple beautiful lines which made multiple camera set ups easier.
Totally agree. I experienced exactly the same things.
We can be overwhelmed with the learning curve or be positive and use what we know to shoot differently than film crews but maybe more creatively.
This sentence could resume all. This is exactly my thoughts now: use what we know, and I'm changing the workflow gravity center now to apply it and focus on creativity and not this tech bondage that was pumping all my energy and putting me on nerves, doubts and restlessness. Actually starting to work in image sequences I just feel it's right, clean, no hassle. I feel "at home". I'm re-born, move forward and more motivated than ever. Suddenly, my head full of datas, confused and frustrated is cleaning-up. As Georges Clinton says: free you mind and your ass will follow.
-
I am not a fan of Apple or any of their products or codecs. An alternative is Cineform, but I'm not a big fan of that either. I've tried both Prores and Cineform, and for feature film work, they are an unnecessary transcode-step - as far as my personal workflow is concerned.
My workflow is TIFF based. With today's computers, 32-bit TIFFS are great for grading work. Working in DPX is an option if the project is intended for film out.
To keep it simple:
1. Edit Native (NLE edits are non-destructive)
2. Output the edit to TIFF for grading - for heavy grading work
3. For light grading, grade native! If you are in 32-bit mode, light grading won't 'destroy' your footage.
4. For VFX - TIFF and EXR sequences are best (The latter for 3d work).
-
I am not a fan of Apple or any of their products or codecs. An alternative is Cineform, but I'm not a big fan of that either. I've tried both Prores and Cineform, and for feature film work, they are an unnecessary transcode-step - as far as my personal workflow is concerned.
My workflow is TIFF based. With today's computers, 32-bit TIFFS are great for grading work. Working in DPX is an option if the project is intended for film out.
To keep it simple:
1. Edit Native (NLE edits are non-destructive)
2. Output the edit to TIFF for grading - for heavy grading work
3. For light grading, grade native! If you are in 32-bit mode, light grading won't 'destroy' your footage.
4. For VFX - TIFF and EXR sequences are best (The latter for 3d work).
I agree Sareesh,
I'm discovering this workflow and indeed it's much more my cup of tea and also results are really top and stable.
In fact I'm not a video guy and probably never will, and understand more, or feel more attracted to work with image sequences since I started to dig into it. At least the cine approach is something natural and I enjoy it.
Video tech is too much for techs, buttons lovers and consumes cpu, always need sofisticated and delicate electronics...cine is brutal, big images, lots of Ks but it just consumes hard disks and does not consumes the brain with those tiny little codecs and other annoyances that I ended to feel exactly like when a fly is bodering you while eating, you know...
video post prod learning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGpfwTTvpVI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGpfwTTvpVI&feature=related)
I really prefer the big heavy Tiff stuff but more importantly, cine is much closer to what we are familiar with and that changes a lot.
About open EXR, I know a fx stud here that want exr, I've been diging in ILM and I don't get it. It seems that Maya can generate them for ex, but what do you use to convert to EXR ?
I'm also testing the PS workflow. It works bloody well. The only downside I'm seeing, but it's not because of motion but something I'd like Photoshop to improoved years ago also in stills, is that the scripts don't work the way they should be with certain filters-and-or plug-ins. As a result, if a specific image required a parametered filter applied in a third-party plug-in, the process end to be completly automatized and with a few images it's not a big deal, but with a lot of images that's another story. Despite, it's still very manageable and not always this problem appears.
I beleive that Nuke in that aspect will be a time saver, but it's summertime, clases are closed until october.
ps: I agree on editing native, except when what you get is AVCHD...it's horror to edit natively.
On those screen shots I volontarly applied a series of layers+filters in PS scripting it to make it look like a drawing, I wanted something drastic very easy to recognized from original so aesthetic wasn't my concern. No problem at all in ps then ingest into AE or Nuke. This was a short jpeg sequence from camera. Same, no problem at all in any NLE to work with them. Very stable and pleasant workflow.
-
About open EXR, I know a fx stud here that want exr, I've been diging in ILM and I don't get it. It seems that Maya can generate them for ex, but what do you use to convert to EXR ?
Use Nuke. However, the advantage of EXR is the meta data that it contains, and the way it can handle multiple channels from different renders from a 3d application like max or maya. If you're not into 3d, then EXR is unnecessary. In Nuke, you can create additional channels when required when working with any file system, not just EXR.
I'm also testing the PS workflow. ... Despite, it's still very manageable and not always this problem appears.
PS is great but can't handle moving masks, layered grading and other motion effects. Plus there's no real-time feedback and you can't 'see' it from a holistic standpoint. The color grading tools of any NLE are good enough for any job. More tools, hardware or plugins don't make the grade better, only faster.
ps: I agree on editing native, except when what you get is AVCHD...it's horror to edit natively.
The way to edit tough codecs is to create proxy files in Standard definition - so the file sizes are lower than what they originally are. These proxy files must be labelled correctly, and must precisely match the original footage in terms of frame rate.
Once you finish editing, just replace all the footage in your edit with the actual AVCHD footage - piece of cake. This is way more easier than converting all your footage into large files in Prores or Cineform.
-
Let's see if I get it in the search of simplifying everything.
Those are the steps I've been trying, they all work fine (some questions appeared), the goal is trying to be as simple as possible and if you see wicknesses please feel free to comment
AVCHD:
1- edit in proxy
2- re-link to the original
3- create a 16 bits tiff sequence or any other image sequence
4- grade from tiff.
Doubt at that stage: In Nuke or Combustion the bit depth can be floating and the colorspace linear. I've noticed that when I'm in linear colorspace, the grading is way smoother.
5- compositing
other doubt: What about when certain transitions where used in the editor stage? (I hardly use transitions anyway but the question came because it seems that the only transition recognized is disolve) does than means that being back in the editor stage can be necessary if we want to use all the range possible of transitions?
7- render to whatever
RED WORKFLOW (new discovery workflow)
1- From RedCineX export to DPX at full res.
2- import in the editor at full res and edit in proxy mode to handle it
3- if in Avid, grade directly in Raw, edit in 2k and relink to raw, if not, grade the image sequences in other app
4- compositing
5- render to whatever
the latest (dispaches discovery) Fred's workflow codec-eraser that works for everything... or that's what I think...mmm
1- import in editor any native R3D or AVCHD and edit the sequences in proxy mode
2- Export/convert the cut to image sequence without any weired video transition at all
3- grade directly in the NLE or in another app
4- compositing
5- Render to whatever
-
4- grade from tiff.
Doubt at that stage: In Nuke or Combustion the bit depth can be floating and the colorspace linear. I've noticed that when I'm in linear colorspace, the grading is way smoother.
Nuke allows LUTs. It is always 32-bit floating linear. Once you calibrate it you don't have to worry ever again.
5- compositing
other doubt: What about when certain transitions where used in the editor stage? (I hardly use transitions anyway but the question came because it seems that the only transition recognized is disolve) does than means that being back in the editor stage can be necessary if we want to use all the range possible of transitions?
Transitions from the NLE are not carried forward. Even between Premiere and AE, a lot of effects are left behind, and even the timing tools don't match.
Nuke is NOT a finishing platform, unlike After Effects. You can use AE to composite, key, grade, title and master. Nuke is not designed for that kind of workflow. Ideally you should not use Nuke for grading, titles, transitions and other motion graphics.
Also I feel, to color grade it is easier to have an NLE-like timeline for quick reference. My preferred finishing system is After Effects. If I had a project with a myriad of challenges, effects and graphics, here is how I would approach it:
1. Lock native edit in Premiere Pro (after redirecting proxies)
2. Select the shots that need Nuke's capabilities - keying, compositing, rotoscoping, etc.
3. Render the selected shots to 32/16-bit TIFF and work in Nuke
4. When finished, render/export the shots with the same properties.
5. Import shots in Premiere Pro and lock final edit.
6. Open premiere pro project in AE
7. Add transitions, graphics and titles w or w/o animation, etc. Where necessary, export shots to TIFF and import back again for really heavy processing. But most of the time it in unnecessary.
8. Lock final edit in AE
9. Grade in AE with basic tools or Color Finesse
10. Render out Master Image Sequence as 16-bit TIFF for archival - use LTO tapes if necessary.
11. Use the master to make further variations for DVD/Blu-ray/Web/DCI whatever.
RED WORKFLOW (new discovery workflow)
1- From RedCineX export to DPX at full res.
2- import in the editor at full res and edit in proxy mode to handle it
When you shoot on RED ONE, you get MOV files recorded simultaneously to help edit. It is kind of like a proxy and you can follow the same steps as above. Here's a link for further info; http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/premiere/pdfs/red-workflow-guide.pdf
3- grade directly in the NLE or in another app
4- compositing
5- Render to whatever
One must be careful about grading prior to compositing, or vice versa. Compositing always takes place in final color. When one changes the color, the effect might look 'off'. Changing color spaces makes it worse. You might have noticed how an effect in the cinema hall looks perfect but the same scene on DVD or Blu-Ray looks weird. Managing color data and precision throughout the post pipeline is one of the greatest challenges ever.
-
Thanks for those very usefull lines Sareesh,
I definatly agree that the grading is easier and more consistant with a NLE-like timeline.
When you grade in Avid, you get automatically 3 displays with the previous, the cut you are working in, and the next so you see immediatly the consistency and I found that very helpfull more than once.
About AE, I have a prob with that software. I don't know why, it's not rational, it's like that girl that everybody's attracted to and you never end to feel her; I really really don't like the interface and felt totally hostile each time I used it. It became a prejudice I admit, I know it's good, but I can't help it.
I'm surprised that you don't consider that much a good idea to do some color grading in Nuke, although I understand some logical reasons and it's not its essence, I find that the color tools in Nuke are particularly well featured, powerfull and complete. In some ways they are calling you to use them.
But finding a proper and good workflow for each individual is a real chalenge indeed and I guess it also evolves and matures with practice and each project involved.
Thanks a lot for sharing your workflow experience. That's always very usefull when somebody like me is learning in a new world and still insecure in some fundamental aspects of the pipeline.
-
Thanks for those very usefull lines Sareesh,
...
I'm surprised that you don't consider that much a good idea to do some color grading in Nuke, although I understand some logical reasons and it's not its essence, I find that the color tools in Nuke are particularly well featured, powerfull and complete. In some ways they are calling you to use them.
You're welcome. On this forum - I mostly ask for advice when it comes to photography. I'm grateful that I can also contribute to it somehow.
I come from a feature film background. Nuke has color tools because when you comp you need to do it in final color. But unfortunately, it's always shot by shot.
On a feature film, color is an important element, and you want to play back scenes with different shots in them to match the grade. One scene might have several shots. Imagine doing that in Nuke. It's possible - Nuke has a 'kind-of' timeline - but its not easy or intuitive. It's like someone reading a book with instructions on page 10 and the reference image for it on page 560. Imagine doing that for the whole book.
Also, when one grades, one wants to play back a sequence (several scenes) in real time to gauge its emotional effectiveness. If you are on an Avid, its color grading tools are perfectly adequate for professional use.
-
So what's the point to get a dedicated grading software like Scratch or DaVinci?
Is it mostly a question of time-efficiency factor?
I ask this question because I have the feeling that you seems to say that it's not about quality at all, that any pro NLE or AE grading tools would in fact do the same but just taking more time?
If so, the dedicated grading software is only justified if you are a color artist and have regularly a lot of volume to grade but they are in fact not necessary to have a better quality. Is it really truth?
So then again if all that is true, we have to be carefull and keep the mind cold when softwares and vendor's sirens songs tempt us with something that we may not really need and acheived ecual with cheaper softwares.
That point is important I think for most of us who are doing the transition or adding motion, because when you don't know from deep experience, it's easy to fall into some unnecesesaries purchases. And with any new software added, comes obviously a new learning curve to eat, and quite frankly, I have more important things to do than sit on the academies schools benches again unless it's absolutly necessary, so it's very important that we end to know what really matters to what can be a lost of time and money better used in for ex hiring a sound tech or whatever.
And the siren song trap is very easy to fall into because those softwares are so good, so complex and bloody attractive that it's hard to think you won't get a better workflow and aesthetic results with them...knowing the real contribution they can add is not easy.
When I saw for ex the DaVinci interface-workflow for the first time, I must admit that I was blowned and said "Whao! I want one". And it's hard not to beleive that if every colorist folks in the industry works with those beasts, it's not for a good reason and therefore we also should get the train right now as newcomers.
Reading your posts from the beginning and some of Chris Sanderson too, I have the feeling that it's not as simple as that and that in fact we need less than we imagine, even for a high-end workflow.
I sort of smelled that with Scratch. Not a long time ago I evaluated Scratch in its trial version that I worked on with during all the trial duration. I liked the interface very much, it's very plaisant in use BUT...I have never been able to see a real difference with when I was grading in Scratch to when I was using Avid. When came the time to decide if the money asked for the software AND the learning curve was justified or not, I was feeling this "mmmm..." intuition and finally decided not buying it. But as I don't have a long time experience, I always doubted if my evaluation had been correct or if in fact there where huge differences I couldn't detect because of this lack of experience.
That IMO is the very strong contribution the experienced cine-video pros can share to us. Because that's bloody important.
I sort of like when someone says to me: "come on! you don't need that" because in the end it's always a lot of time saved and everything that works simple to me is really a good sign.
-
About AE, I have a prob with that software. I don't know why, it's not rational, it's like that girl that everybody's attracted to and you never end to feel her; I really really don't like the interface and felt totally hostile each time I used it. It became a prejudice I admit, I know it's good, but I can't help it.
I think that almost anyone face to face with AE's unattractive UI for the first time will run the other way.
It is only after you have started to use it and scratch around a little that you realize how good the brain is. Then the 'body' disappears.
-
I think that almost anyone face to face with AE's unattractive UI for the first time will run the other way.
It is only after you have started to use it and scratch around a little that you realize how good the brain is. Then the 'body' disappears.
Why on earth there is always a conflict between attractive bodies and brilliant brains...?
-
Why on earth there is always a conflict between attractive bodies and brilliant brains...?
Just came in from 34 hours of traveling so my writing is probably gonna be a little fuzzy.
Anyway, I'm not for blowing money just to spend it, but I tried AE a few years back and got pretty deep in it, mostly for grading and tracking.
I was told AE was photoshop on wheels. I always thought it was photoshop's ugly sister in a truck.
I know it does a lot, but damn it's the most unintuitive hunk of code on the planet.
It's like everything they know about photoshop gets 10 times more complicated.
I also demoed scratch and didn't see the point as the version I tested was for RED files only and it didn't do that much more than cine-x which comes in at a good price . . . free.
I have an appointment next week in LA to review the di-vinci suite.
I'll know more soon.
IMO
BC
P.S. Why don't they just configure lightroom for motion clips, either image sequences of full clips? It seems like there is a hole in the market for something between a $39,000 di-vinci suite and AE.
-
Ok for a motion Lightroom. But please, without this silly flower kitsch ornament ! it looks like the truck decoration the ugly sister's sitting in.
and please, without the FaceBook and Twitter buttons too...Adobe MD you would deserve a Muac.
ps: No, I'm thinking about it...I'm afraid that if Adobe goes for a Lightroom of motion be sure that the YouTube button will not be missing.
-
Ahh but that beautiful end panel is user-configurable! ::)
-
The deeper you get into motion, Apple's FCP X seems like a good idea that needs work, or a bad idea that needs a rewrite.
I'm hopping for the former, because when you think about it, a single base software with add on's to take you as far as you want to go could redefine editing to finish.
We just returned with over 16 terabytes of raw footage and when you look at that stack of drives you come to the shuttering conclusion that to get to the final edit is right up there with post produciton of a good indie movie.
It's almost frightening to think of the amount of work that is ahead of us and if FCP X can do anything right . . . it's fast.
Now it just needs to be more professional and flexible which allows more creativity in the edit.
You kind of get the idea that Apple should just write a check (and everybody knows they got the money) to somebody like Avid and say let's make FCP heavy, lay out a road map for app add ons and start selling.
IMO
BC
-
I have very little experience in all of this, but I have to say... I am LOVING DaVince Resolve. Instead of their full blown work surface, I went for the Wave Tangent, bundled with Resolve from B+H for about 3k. I added an nVidia Quadra 4000 for GPU crunching (required) and a Decklink card to run the 10bit image out to my Flanders Scienific monitor (which kicks my Eizo's ass and spits on it).
All in all, I got my Resolve system setup on my 12 core Mac for about $5k. Mind you, I already had a fast internal raid, the Flanders monitor and a Red Rocket card (which Resolve likes). It would be smoother to have all of the grading functionality built into an NLE but Resolve is just freaking awesome. I get really beautiful stuff out of it VERY quickly. Besides it's power (grading and reviewing 4k R3D's in real time) and ease of use, it also offers Power Windows, a really nice tracker and image stabilization. I am going to become a Power Window Junkie, mark my words!
Do I sound like a fanboy yet?
I had moved from FCP to Premier since FCP was still 32 bit (not taking advantage of my pile of Ram) and Premier handles R3D's beautifully. Now the problem is I can't really roundtrip from PP to Resolve and back again. Not until Adobe updates the FCP XML export to v5, anyway. It's always something... but it's an interesting journey at least.
CB
-
BC wrote: "The deeper you get into motion, Apple's FCP X seems like a good idea that needs work, or a bad idea that needs a rewrite."
I'm also a newbie to all of this so should be careful to not claim to know sweet FA, but... I am trying FCPX on an important (to me) project and am finding it fast and able to do all I need at the moment. I know real talented guys have rubbished it, but I also know a couple personally (BBC guys who work on the prestigious stuff) who think it has real potential.
And maybe it's an advantage to have not used Avid, Premier and FCP for a few years, and effectively forgotten how to. Eg, I read an experienced editor saying he couldn't contemplate using X because you can't stack the timeline. Er, from day one I used P (position) to place some clips and can stack them as high as I want. I know the advantage of having multi level timelines and can't see there's a problem with them in X. And now I wonder if that sort of misinformation is hindering its launch/progress.
Yeah, I know about the missing bits but they're on the way. I can justify the cost of Avid, or whatever, but I'm going to persevere with FCPX because I suspect when the dust has settled it will be seen to be one of the fastest out there. And if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time and I'll get Avid or PP, or whatever is the best at the time. Just my newbie 2C.
-
So what's the point to get a dedicated grading software like Scratch or DaVinci?
Is it mostly a question of time-efficiency factor?
I ask this question because I have the feeling that you seems to say that it's not about quality at all, that any pro NLE or AE grading tools would in fact do the same but just taking more time?
If so, the dedicated grading software is only justified if you are a color artist and have regularly a lot of volume to grade but they are in fact not necessary to have a better quality. Is it really truth?
The Answer is yes, it only helps to save time. Time is an important factor in the commercial video and film world. But that does not mean color grading software is useless. Da Vinci, Lustre and Scratch have very powerful grading tools. Obviously, the sales of these systems imply that the speed advantage they provide are important to a lot of people.
Let me back up a bit and explain something. When I was in college, for my final year project (I have a degree in electrical and electronics engineering), I wrote and designed an Image processing software (photoshop like) using C. Imagine my surprise - that I could almost do anything Photoshop did (in the year 1999). Basically color grading is just pixel manipulation. At the heart of it, there are mathematical algorithms already in place for most manipulations. Over a period of time, these codes have become near perfect - the levels/curves RGB tool, the exposure tool, masks and rotoscoping, 32-bit linear workspace, etc. With just these basic tools, one can accomplish anything that a higher end system can - with the advantage of saving money, but at the cost of spending more time on it.
And the siren song trap is very easy to fall into because those softwares are so good, so complex and bloody attractive that it's hard to think you won't get a better workflow and aesthetic results with them...knowing the real contribution they can add is not easy.
It's the same thing with cameras too, isn't it? I would love to own a Leica M9 (I love RF and manual focus). But as you mentioned in my other post, the 550D is good enough...but still.....sigh.
Reading your posts from the beginning and some of Chris Sanderson too, I have the feeling that it's not as simple as that and that in fact we need less than we imagine, even for a high-end workflow.
That IMO is the very strong contribution the experienced cine-video pros can share to us. Because that's bloody important.
I sort of like when someone says to me: "come on! you don't need that" because in the end it's always a lot of time saved and everything that works simple to me is really a good sign.
That's true. After working on many systems over the years I feel I need less and less. This is why I press you to learn After Effects.
If Nuke is the Mohammed Ali of boxing, then AE is the Bruce Lee of Kung Fu. Ali can only use two hands. Lee can use anything, and is good at everything. That kind of power comes with a steep learning curve. But it will pay off in the long run.
The GUI of AE is very similar to Photoshop. Why don't you try to rearrange the windows in AE to match PS - maybe that might help.
-
I had moved from FCP to Premier since FCP was still 32 bit (not taking advantage of my pile of Ram) and Premier handles R3D's beautifully. Now the problem is I can't really roundtrip from PP to Resolve and back again. Not until Adobe updates the FCP XML export to v5, anyway. It's always something... but it's an interesting journey at least.
CB
Wired.
This is a common workflow with Red, from Premiere to FCP to Resolve and back. There must be a trick to know.
I tell you what I know despite being very limited.
There is a "rule" is when you edit in Premiere you converted to ProRes max quality and avoid the native Red although tempting because it's not without issues in the pipeline further as you have seen.
(In that Avid as a clear advantage with the bin structure I must say but the normal workflow in PP is to work Pro bloody Res)
Normaly when you export the XML from PP you export with: File/Export = "Final Cut Pro XML" , name it
Open FCP7: import/XML
But when you load the XML you created in Premiere for FCP from Resolve, you need to first load the XML but also choose the sequence
Can you see the timeline management panel? from there you press "load" / xml (the one you created from Premiere)
But when you have to select the sequence, it's going to be an AAF, in fact it's the AAF created by Premiere for FCP. That AAF should appear in your resolve import pop-up window in a list.
Hope it helps.
-
The deeper you get into motion, Apple's FCP X seems like a good idea that needs work, or a bad idea that needs a rewrite.
I'm hopping for the former, because when you think about it, a single base software with add on's to take you as far as you want to go could redefine editing to finish.
We just returned with over 16 terabytes of raw footage and when you look at that stack of drives you come to the shuttering conclusion that to get to the final edit is right up there with post produciton of a good indie movie.
It's almost frightening to think of the amount of work that is ahead of us and if FCP X can do anything right . . . it's fast.
Now it just needs to be more professional and flexible which allows more creativity in the edit.
You kind of get the idea that Apple should just write a check (and everybody knows they got the money) to somebody like Avid and say let's make FCP heavy, lay out a road map for app add ons and start selling.
IMO
BC
I don't see it James. For many reasons.
Avid or Premiere are getting also more and more simple and in fact, if I keep my head cold and follow the "rational path", you can already do everything to finishing (except heavy fx and some 3D stab that can be added) in Avid without having to open any external software and more importantly, not maybe tomorrow but today for sure.
The grading in Avid is very straightforward and as I experienced with Scratch, where are the differences? None!
Also, remember that Avid "grades" the Red files in Raw. It's like you'd work exactly like with RedCineX but within the Avid Timeline in real time (but with the Avid's cursors). So when you want to push isos or Raw stuff kind of works, you don't degrade. And you don't need anything else than Media Composer, no need to get out of timeline, render or whatever. It's not exactly color correction in the normal sense, it's that you can actually do basically what RedCineX does working on raw datas. In fact it's having the RedCineX functions without the RedCineX step, wich is already very nice.
But here is a cool point: if a truth raw color correction is needed for free, you can always export an XML from your avid, import in RedCineX and conform from there what you did in Avid, the all sequence.
That's a pretty much straighforward way.
And let's say you need to mask, stuff like that, you can then re-import the raw graded into Avid natively and use then the tools within the timeline, so in fact with 2 softwares a lot can be already done brillantly. I don't even use the metafuze stuff.
Then, about the possible re-write I don't see that the pros who have been feeling spoiled by Apple and already switched will be back again just like that if Apple is putting FCX to pro workflow because then a re-learning etc etc. Because remember that it's not just going to be a FCP8, it's not a continuity but a complete re-learning so when you put that on the table, if a complete re-learning will actually occurs you may want to go stable in softwares that are moving forward for pro needs because Apple has clearly choosen the massificate target, that is good because they needed to be very simple, that is bad because they needed to be very simple. Simple and intuitive yes, but without limitations.
Do we want the KIA NLE? (where all the familly, gran'ma, is sitting with the childs who are screaming with their I.pads games while the dog is barking and mum in front is screaming to the childs while talking to her mum on the I.phone and the big belly dad with the hat is driving guess where...to Miami with the gps activated because reading motorway signs is not the deal and they will take pics and videos of their big bellies eating enormous icecreams colored with their Apple mobiles, edit them in FCPX and press the button "send-to-youtube"). That's more or less the Apple's target. I have serious doubts if they have the will to work more for their former clients.
And there is also this free software wich is a sort of FCPX but featured for pro workflow that is called Lightworks. It has this sort of new-age colored interface that I really don't like but it's not amateur at all and in RedUsers it's been used and for what I read people are happy, it's very good. I've been trying it and didn't like it at all but not because underfeatured but because it's weired, too different and look toy (although it isn't at all). http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?43671-Lightworks-to-go-Open-Source&s=271eae7079c00252a653cdfc1e7874d8
http://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/lightworks/1
One thing is sure, we all want something simple, efficient and fast that covers all the pipeline to finishing.
-
I don't see it James. For many reasons.
Avid or Premiere are getting also more and more simple and in fact, if I keep my head cold and follow the "rational path", you can already do everything to finishing (except heavy fx and some 3D stab that can be added) in Avid without having to open any external software and more importantly, not maybe tomorrow but today for sure.
snip
I still don't get it. Color control software that goes from nodes that instead of channels, with foreign interfaces and proprietary formats and control panels.
I know how to color, been doing it in photoshop for years, in video some in color (which is another node type system), but it's not just the learning curve, it's the buying process. CB has his hardware set, (though try taking that system on the road, but since Lightroom is almost the same end result as di-vinici (in still mode) you kind of wonder how hard it would be to have a more familiar interface that just downloaded and played without worrying about pci processing cards and so many combinations of hardware and software that it takes a consultant to really guide you.
I'm not for dumbing down the process, just making it more reasonable for most of our work, because let's be honest, how many people buying a RED or a 5d2 are going to go to a large screen 4k cinema movie?
IMO
BC
-
I have the same wishes. I wish it was more simple.
The node solution for grading is not necessary, if it makes all sense in softwares like Nuke I don't get the point in a dedicated grading software. Maybe to keep people involved in the heavy PP "at home" with the nodes.
More I dig into the motion post-prod, more I have the feeling that many things aren't really necessary. If something brings truth visible better results even very expensive, I would consider it a possible necessary option. But that has to be demonstrated.
When I tested Scratch, wich I did in 4 and 2K, I honestly expected to see spectacular differences with what can be obtained in Avid with RedCineX wich is free. Maybe my eyes fail, but differences: rien du tout!
C'est la même chose. So where those 4000 extra euros go ?
I would have expect then a super-faster processing workflow, but in fact it wasn't because passing through softwares is not what I would call intuitive and fast.
Thinkig of it, do we imagine that we would be opening a raw file in Phase, then have to export it in another format to Phocus to color correct it, then have to export it in PS for compositing, then have to reimport it to Phase to save it, and within a myriad of plug-ins within the process...well, a lot of the motion workflow works that way! No thanks!
I'm also on the idea that one single software for all is the grail. It actually exists, it's Smoke, but Smoke has a very big problem: it's very difficult to learn, not intuitive and expensive.
The only place I did see a lot of difference whas in the confort in use. So yes, for a guy who spend all day grading it might play a big role and therefore justify the expense.
But I think that what Sareesh said is truth even if we will have problems to admit it because hey, we like high-end softwares, but: current NLE are probably powerfull enough to do everything up to the most demanding output. Add some correct plug-ins like good keyers etc...and I'm sure that without having to go out of the editor except for very specific extreme tasks or serious special FX.
Something else I found. I had to edit a sound take for a paintor and we also had to clean it for a video-art work. We where working with Audition wich is a software very used by sound pros. It's complicated like hell (sounbooth is way more simple) but the basics are managable. Well, after awhile we couldn't find the right sound. I wasn't satisfied, he wasn't satisfied. We where turning around in circles. Then, I had this idea to just try with the sound tool in the Avid timeline...in 1 minute we had the sound we where looking for. The guy stopped me with a big smile and said: this is it, this is what I want, we got the sound. And indeed we had the sound.
Same with the imagery. I take a R3D and grade into Avid, Edius or PP with a good plug-in and it just bloody works.
There was a tool in Scratch that was a moving mask, very good. Later on, I discovered that Edius 6 had exactly the same tool and it works exactly the same way with exactly the same results.
Then, I discovered that Avid as well has a very interesting mask capability.
In fact, more I move forward, more I see that what we where complaining about MF is multiply by 10 in the motion world. 1000000 bucks softwares super powerfull aimed to be used by artists-engineers highly qualified against the 15 years old skater kids that are doing the same with the same results with 200 bucks softwares in less time than just the transfer between platforms takes in the high-end workflow. It really makes me think.
-
I have no issues at all with working in HD. Seriously. When is any of my shit ever going to make it to 4k projection?
What I AM anxious to maintain is maximum latitude in my files right up until picture lock. If you grade, transcode and edit, then your look is baked into the ProRes and every adjustment you make degrades the image a bit. As my clips come together into the timeline, I find that I need to re-evaluate my exposures, color balance and local corrections clip by clip so that the entire sequence has the best possible continuity and flow.
I can work with raw R3D's right up until I transcode for deliverables. That is cool as hell. It makes me wish I could drop .IIQs right into Photoshop and process out final Tiffs only when all the retouching is done. Instead of trying to adapt a motion workflow to my Photoshop sensibilities, I find myself wishing I could grade 60mp stills in Resolve.
There's so many killer tools out there that you have endless options adopting a workflow that best suits your needs.
Cooter, I thought you hauled around even more shit than I do... what's a tower and a couple monitors on top of it? I drag mine up to Michigan with me for long studio shoots all the time.
Honestly though, I think it's great that we all have different takes on this and can come back here to share what does and doesn't work.
Freds got me thinkin hard about looking at Avid again...
Cheers from some hotel... at least the beers good.
-
Freds got me thinkin hard about looking at Avid again...
Cheers from some hotel... at least the beers good.
Chris,
I think that 2 NLE is not bad at all because you cover the work situations very well. I have 3 installed. The 3 are usefull.
Avid has some good advantages and some downsides. Compared to Premiere it is not so intuitive. So yes, expect a learning curve more serious. It takes more time to feel confident.
But it is also more flexible. The bins are very powerfull and allow a lot of plays with files.
The dialog between Avid and Premiere is very good. You can really pass from one to another without issues.
But carefull when I posted that Red grading in raw within Avid. It is actually the case but it's not really grading either in the orthodox sense. (I warned it in my post) The best is a video example to see the red workflow, I found this one:
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzStKbR5C-A&feature=related
Part 2 orientated Red workflow is the most interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WHZFWEvlJw&feature=related
-
http://techmediaplanet.com/2011/07/episode-26-final-cut-pro-x/
Maybe worth a listen, at least.
-
Apple is for sure the best company when it comes to design really efficient, simple and intuitive interface. I have no doubt about that and I'm sure nobody does either. this is Apple's sign and their NLE isn't failing on that aspect.
FCPX is very strong on what Apple knows best and this video shows it again. The people who have been testing it are not blind, everybody can recognise in a few minutes that some features and its structure are indeed the future of the NLEs.
Personaly I'd like to have many of the FCPX approach on my editors, it simply is better designed and truly a glimpse of what should be the next generation we all want.
That's not the problem of FCPX. Its problem is that it is underfeatured and limited or almost unusable for professionals. It's not Apple target obviously because that company is everything except naive.
As it is, it would need a real pro version that deserves the name. It's not what Apple had in mind and designed that's failing, it's the limitations it has within a pro workflow.
The big question IMO is in the hand of the company: does Apple really has the will to do a pro version (or a version for pros if you prefer) ? Mystery.
-
If you don't like the kitsch (Adobe are having a laugh at our expense) right click on the design and chose another one from the ridiculous amount of choices offered.
Oh I did better: I removed the app from my computer. I feel lighter without lightroom.
-
CB
Yes we carry a lot of stuff. Our camera and camera accessory cases total 7.
Our custom DIT station is 5 feet tall and holds two laptops, red rocket, raid 0's and backup battery so we do carry a lot.
With lights and modifiers it's double, so on this last trip we decided to forego all but the small led's and hire gaffers, as our baggage overage was over $1,000 a flight and TSA has become real animals at going through cases.
On the first U.S. Leg TSB did not insert the lights in their slots and destroyed two 1 ft. square LED panels and I took a new thunderbolt I mac for some quick on the fly editing and arriving in Chicago the I-mac case came down the carousel unzipped with the I-mac hanging out. How it didn't get smashed still amazes me.
BTW: The DIT station though large saved us, as we could run two laptops and process dailies on the fly.
Anyway, as you know video opens up a huge door compared to still production and we could have easily moved 24 cases if we wanted to be completely self contained, though I am now a firm believer in hiring a gaffer and equipment for every project as I just do not want to be responsible for moving and transporting lights and cine generators.
Also in Thailand I worked with the best sound man I've ever used. He was tremendous and I am positive he saved us 3 hours a day. He kept three cameras wired wireless, had everything ready to go the moment he stepped out of the van and the sound is so good I don't think we'll need much work other than adjusting some levels.
Fred,
On FCP X I've been reviewing tutorials on all of our flights (it's the only time I have the time) and I think it's very close to being there. The ability to three point edit is a big change and not accepting psds and allowing you to park footage off the main timeline is an issue.
The rest is fast and I firmly believe AVID and Premier will probably add some of the Apple features into their next versions.
I take back some of my critique of the software and believe in a years time with more developers working on apps, more attention to detail from Apple, this could easily revolutionize the way we work.
I'm going to give it a test try and will let you know.
On a final note:
On this recent 1 month gig, we shot 90% of the imagery with multiple cameras using both of our RED Ones. I had the Canon 5d2's and the new Sony FS100 also.
I used the Sony about 25% of the time and love the form factor, hate all the little buttons and find hitting color on the presets very difficult. I spent one pre pro day working on the color presets and thought we had it nailed and then boom first session and it looked 100% different.
The beauty of RED raw is regardless of what you see on the monitor doesn't really matter because it's so easy to change it in post.
In fact once you factor in having to remove the ACHVD (or whatever it's called) wrapper from the FCP files to get them to h264, the process out the h264 to prorezz and then work with a color suite like 3cp to match the sony files to a pleasing look, the workflow on the Sony is much, much longer than the RED.
Also the Sony will blow a highlight faster than any camera I've used. It's an amazing camera with a great form factor, but damn if Sony would just go another 20 feet it would be a world beater.
Interesting is the 5d2's saved my butt on one day when we were running late due to so many different sessions.
I had two scenes, one in an office that I wanted lit like night, one with the subject walking to his S class and driving off. Both simple shots, but with the RED it would have taken an extra hour or two to major light the scenes, with the Sony it wouldn't go to high enough DP to record with the lower light levels I wanted so I pulled out the 5d2, the battery powered leds and shot both scenes in 20 minutes.
I can't wait for the 5d3 for both motion and stills, though yes once the EPIC is fully out with all the bits and takes Canon lenses I'll probably buy that also.
It's funny everyone complains about the 5d2's form factor for video and maybe because I've spent so much time using still cameras, but I find the 5d2 refreshing after the RED's and the Sony. It's live view is amazing for focus and I have FF 35mm so baked into my head, chosing a lens takes no thought.
If Canon made this camera shoot RAW and 4:4:4, well I think it would scare the hell out of everyone
You can't beat raw for post production.
IMO
BC
-
Yes, please let us know what you think about FCPX when you'll have the time to put your hands on it. As I know you are very concern about intuitive, fast and efficient workflow I'll read your lines with great interest.
Cheers.
-
I'm each time more enthusistic with the color correction tools in Avid.
I really like the fact that you get the previous cut on the left and the next or whatever (in this case I put a waveform) and that's very usefull. It's even better than plug-ins like Colorista. You just get the picture of the footage before and the one to come wich helps consistency and also when you change position on the timeline, the displays "previous-current-next" are following.
When you open the CC mode, you just need to be on the cut and it would remember all the settings, if you save one and apply in batch you can always fine tune any cut just in the timeline and it won't affect the rest. It's bloody efficient.
No need to press anything or open any list of correction tools, it's all there.
The way levels works with the waveforms I can't think of a simpliest workflow and it really works.
This project I give a pic below was done in Premiere Pro, I started to color correct in Premiere and got nervous because it's not fun, then, as it was an Adobe proj, I send it to AE and it was better but still not a workflow I like, I finally decided to put it into Avid and yeah...I'm not married with any brand but I think Avid has really got something with MC 5.
Ps: 3 points editing in Avid works like charm too.
The butter is the frame that is currently to be corrected. The left display shows the last frame of the previous cut and the waveform display could be anything you want, not just waveform. It could be the next cut display, others controls...
-
I have to admit, I totally wrote FCP X off without really investigating it. After Cooter's thoughts, I had to go have a look.
Check this out if you haven't... Final Cut Pro X: A Look From Past to Present to Future (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwF9J1_aYzI)
I have to admit... it looks like FCP X would make a hell of a portable NLE. Great for doing shit on the road. I still like a more robust system for finishing big projects, but I'm enticed enough to drop a few hundred bucks.... The more you know.... the more you know.
CB
-
Chris,
Don't you have the same feeling than in this old 70's movie where the dude's hypnotized and see colored lights turning with this magic mushrooms music? I find motion like the sirens and I hope we are firmly attched to the boat.
One siren callks us: it's Avid, the other one says "no, come with me, come with me", it's FCPX, then you got this Alexa striking blonde on a rock who says looking at us "I'm hot" etc...
I feel like my eyes are looking right opened everywhere, like a kid in "toys r us" store before Christmas.
Maybe we get younguer with that feeling, wich would compensate the older we are getting with the learning curves.
-
LoL.... absolutely man. Fortunately Avid has a killer competitive upgrade deal for FCP users so I might just get both. Alexa has no hold at all on me, my sites are firmly set on Epic, especially now that the Canon mount is forthcoming. I'm gonna need to take two months off this winter just to get up to speed on all this friggin software!
-
Me too.
This autumn I'm going back to the school bench. About Avid, I've only scratched the surface that allows me to work fine at a basic level. But I find that the masterclasses are just the best thing to do. I can't afford anymore those long self-learning processes when just finding proper info (when we find it...) takes at least half of the time invested. It's not a profitable ecuation.
National TV here are giving Avid training to everyone who wants. The "prob" is that they are really really integrists. It's Avid Avid and Avid. I also found a pro that works on almost any editor but more focussed in Avid workflow. I prefer this formula because it's more open.
-
I have to admit, I totally wrote FCP X off without really investigating it.
OK after skimming through three tutorials and loading some files for a fairly complex edit that we currently have in the works, I have to admit that I "think" FCP X will do very close to everything I was doing on FCP Studio other than import a psd, park footage and export an edl.
I should emphasize I think, maybe, because FCP X is such a departure from any other NLE it's like starting over. Everything is different from the lack of 3 point editing to the viewer window doing double duty as the Canvas.
Most of it is 1000 times faster and once you learn the keyboard shortcuts should be even faster as there is very little rendering time.
I understand why Apple left off EDL export as you can see that everything will eventually be done in the one program and even when I outsource to a Di-vinci suite 9 times out of 10 they screw up the time code anyway, so the edl export becomes somewhat worthless, though with this software I feel in 12 months you won't need Di-Vinci or scratch or anything, because you'll do it all in the timeline.
I gotta admit I would just kill for a way to view on a broadcast monitor and dual viewer windows to match footage, it is a pretty amazing piece of software and much more complex than I originally thought.
The thing that kind of puts you into I-movie land is the way they list effects and transitions with those awful transition and effects previews/thumbnails that looks like they farmed them out to Microsoft for the design works. What's with the blues and oranges?
I threw it on a bone stock Imac I7 and it ran faster than Final Cut Studio does on a fully tricked out 8 core.
I have 20 something days of full editing and if the interface wasn't such a huge departure from everything I know, I'd use it, but the learning curve is going to take a month minimum to be up to speed.
Anyway, this software might not be exactly ready to go into a large editing bay, but it is close and I wouldn't bet against apple, because this is typical of their way of thinking. They don't just change things, they invent a new market and this really has the beginnings of becoming a new way of thinking.
It's kind of like I-movie mixed in with, final cut 7, C-1, light-room, motion, cine'x, and di-vinci with everything you know about editing thrown out the window.
I do know that if I was up to speed on FCP X and understood it as well as I do the old Final Cut, for the next 20 days of editing the time involved would probably be cut in half.
IMO
BC
-
Fred,
Edius is good, though their main supplier in Los Angeles doesn't represent them on their website so that's a little too far out of the mainstream for me.
Also it's a PC program and the box shouldn't matter, but I'm way too deep in Mac's to start the PC routine.
On a followup note, I put in about 4 hours last night cutting a piece on fcpx and think I know it at aboug 60% which is a fairly quick learning curve.
It is faster, not as accurate as fcp7 and though the workflow is probably a little faster, all the hidden little tabs and buttons are non intuitive.
It does do damn nice color correction on the fly and matching images is easy. It has it's good points and will eventually be better (I hope).
IMO
BC
-
That's a VERY fast learning curve indeed.
About Edius, I wish it had all the Avid's capabilities while I wish Avid had the Edius easy workflow, all that with the Premiere flexibility...well maybe in the end Apple will surprise everybody again and re-standardized the edition.
I've heard that Edius has been recently bought, read an interview of the new staff in and they want to do something really big to compete with Avid. For the Windows users keep an eye on it.
But there is no bloody paradise. What you win in one editor you loose it on the other.
IMO, the problem of Avid is that they have other softwares to sell. It's not interesting for them to do a 4K NLE like Edius with a really pro color correction because they have an app for that they wouldn't sell otherwise. But the pressure is there and maybe we could thank Apple just to put more pressure on the competition.
Same with Premiere. The problem is that they also sell AE.
Also, Avid works for big prods and TVs and their target are generally long-time experienced editors that are used to this sort of dinausors workflows and are very efficient and comfortable with that. They can extract the full potential of Media Composer in an high-end environement, they like its stability and features but the reality is that to really extract the full potential of Avid you'd need as much hours of training as you would invest in an Autodesk unit. (and quite frankly, I'd rather work on Smoke). Those in the end are heavy tools for specialists, not for generalists.
Cutting basic in Avid is rather easy but then it's only using 10% of the software. All the rest is not what I would call intuitive.
What's sure is that, words like intuitive, powerfull, fast, reasonably priced and pro in just one application will be the future. A sort of Smoke but without needing a PHD to master it.
What I really don't understand with Apple, is why they have get rid-off Color. I mean this color app had everything I could think about in a NLE for cheap and the Edius or Avid color tools don't come even close. That's really a pity.
You seems to like the color tools in #10, maybe they did a good job at keeping it simple without sacrifizing the efficiency. I've seen videos on the color tools, nice to have secondary CC inside and tools look great but it's the disposition I don't really like to have the tools in a windows like in AE and need to scroll all the time to reach the right tool. (it reminds me having to enter a dslr menu to access basic features). I would REALLY love an equivalent of Color in any NLE. All in one panel.
I don't know if you had a 6th sense intuition, a guardian angel, or whatever but I think you did very well in the end not to hurry and re-do all the motion workflow seeing the first ww hostiles reactions on FCPx. All the scene is moving fast and in the end keeping FCP7, waiting, no rush nor sirens songs may be a very good operation.
But what I don't get is this: FCPX can really edit native RED files? I can't reallysee what would be a R3D work with it.
-
But what I don't get is this: FCPX can really edit native RED files? I can't reallysee what would be a R3D work with it.
No.... Cooter is transcoding to ProRes... yeah? From what I've read FCPX doesn't even work with the R3D Proxies (QT Wrappers). I still haven't settled my WorkFlow... waiting for Adobe to fix the Resolve roundtrip. Need some time to explore all the NLE's but spent 14 hours shooting today, my beer is finished and it's time for bed!
cb
-
Well, I'm finding FCPX great for my workflow. I think one of the secrets to getting the full benefit of its undoubted speed, is to memorise the shortcuts, at least those you use most. Unusually (I'm a lazy git usually) I took the trouble to learn them at the outset as I just had a feeling that this would turn out to be my main NLE.
Once you decide to work the way the thing is designed to, and stop trying to make it take a backward step to the bad old ways, then it gets a lot easier. Things just feel right with it. The precision editor thing is good, the color grading is really good, assembling a rough edit by sticking the selected bit of the selected clip on the end with a tap on E, or W to insert it at the playhead, couldn't be simpler or faster. I'm all for simple if the thing works.
-
You can't be eaten alive by this stuff or you'll go crazy.
At least not under deadlines. I hear people all the time say something works for them, then you find they're doing 10 second videos, mos with music and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just not what happens in the paying world.
I was ordering a new editing system from _________ today and talking to the service rep, going over every detail, buying a new 12 core, di-vinci, cards, raids, monitors, etc. etc.
I had a lot of questions, like #1 how to speed up final cut pro 7 and what's next?
I told him in the few hours I've had with X it's good, it seems like it could be amazing, but I don't know it that well and am worried about going to it on a deadline driven project.
He said their techs busted into X and it has everything in it that will eventually make it a "could" be good system if Apple takes it further, but right now they don't believe it's there.
Further more no editing house has even thought about adopting it yet. Not that they wont, but like me, they don't have the time to get into the middle of the project and find it won't do what they need.
Video is different than stills, way different, though client demands change like they do in stills.
Today I have a client that want's a video subtitled. In FCP X it's fairly easy to import and XML file and just make subtitles and X won't accept subtitles.
The videos I'm cutting now are multiple windows and though X does it, it doesn't allow you to see keyframes (at least I don't think so) though movement is easy, exact movement is kind of a guess. Also with multiple windows I need slides and fades and exact keyframes that do what I want with precision and though X "may" do it, nobody I know knows it well enough to even offer instruction, much less dive into it and cut 10 kind of projects t find it works for everything. Same thing with modifying transitions and a whole bunch of other little things that I'm not sure of.
IMO I think Apple should have waited 8 months. First no backward compatibility is just a crusher for a busy shop. You just can't take multiple years of work and say ok, that's done now let's just go on to a new way. Apple could have devised a way to open old files and since X is such a huge departure from 7 they could have made some kind of interface switch where everything worked like before and we could all slowly go to the new system as we had time, rather than just dive in and hope for the best.
It makes no sense for me to argue with a multi billion dollar company and obviously Apple is smart for their consumer brands, but my company is just as important to me as Apple's is to them, so today I'll keep running 7 and slowly move to X when it's ready.
Don't get me wrong X is damn ingenious and Apple might have the right way of doing this, but they aren't there yet and even if I'm missing something and they are the solution, they sure as heck have a strange way of showing it.
Let's be truthful, it's damn arrogant to not have any backwards compatibility. Imagine photoshop if the next version would not accept Tiffs or PSD;s or make a jpeg. Even if X is the best in the world, it's just basically a crappy way to treat your customers.
I might try AVID, though I know I won't to to premier. Premier is just not that widely adopted so I can't lay off editing to freelancers when were overbooked and I don't have a lot of faith that Apple will keep running Premier as fast as X on their upcoming systems if they run it at all. It wouldn't be the first time Apple and Adobe had a semi divorce.
And though I love photoshop, I've never been that wild about Premier even from the early days.
If you work for a living stability is more important than any feature.
On another thought I just received a note from our producer that the Epic's fans don't shut off all the way when recording like the RED Ones. Someone that was shooting close-ups was just going crazy with the sound.
That's another case of not ready to be released and try to tell a client you can't shoot close-ups and dialog and see how well that goes over?
Maybe I'm just telling myself I'm glad I waited on the Epic and bought a second RED One, though I know once the bugs are worked out I might go that way, but who knows, by then Canon may be making a killer cam?
No you just have to keep working with what's tried and true and let someone else take the beta test hit.
IMO
BC
-
Still can't picture the Red workflow.
Ok, one transcode to Pro bloody Res to be able to edit in FCPX. Fine, no prob with one transcoding if the cherry on the cake is not having to leave the editor to delivery. But then what about re-link the files to originals once the editing and grading's done?
Or let's say you want to work with still images and export a Tiff sequence from RedCineX. Can FCPX import image sequences? Then export as well image sequences?
We are talking about the color correction tools but what about the sound capabilities in FCPX? Is it good enough that we don't have to edit in third party app for most of the cases, and then how FCPX would be able to re-import the sound?
What about capturing from devices?
Can we work multicam? Because that really speeds the editing.
Many many questions. Because to me the story is this: FCPX only makes senses if the speed-efficiency that we gain with it is not shaded by having to export again in third party app. Because that's basically what we have with the others apps and they are zillion times more featured. So really, if Apple has simplified a lot the editing, the logic is not having to leave this app unless for special fx, no transcoding etc...if one of those points are missing, the app is not ready.
If FCPX in #2 or 3 version becomes what we want, I wouldn't hesitate to re-invest in a Mac platform.
(unless the competition improve usability within the time)
-
You think of prorezz as a tiff you produce from lightroom or c-1 then eventually go to photoshop.
In other words you make it useable, a little flat, do your edit, media manage the final locked cut and then take the clips into di-vinci or whatever your color app is of choice and then color them, relink them in final cut 7 and your good to go.
It's not near as complicated as it sounds.
Anyway, I don't care about most of the export functions in X because actually FCP X has some very powerful color correction, tracking and selection tools that are easy to use.
I actually don't care about exporting in 4k. Nobody is showing 4k, even most of hollywood productions and even if it becomes a 4k or 5k video world, it's gonna be some time until anybody can play it.
Look, in reality today Apple has kind of abandoned the pro user, (at least that's the overall opinion) but in reality they may eventually make it easier and an NLE that works in the real money paying world. Maybe the future world, but Apple lives in the future.
Are videos we produce really going to only TV (though TV resolution is pretty easy), or they going to high rez mobile devices?
I'll bet on the mobile devices and HP's recent sale of their computer business and even some pundits think the major U.S. television networks won't even exist in 5 years makes sense that Apple's little buttons of send to utube or flakebook makes sense.
Who knows, all I know is I gotta a lot of work to do that's why I'm up at 5 am.
IMO
BC
-
mmm...I'm sceptical.
I generally agree with 99,99% of your views on this industry future and the mediums to anticipate but I think you're drawing a strange idea here. (although I can be wrong because I've been wrong many times).
I keep one of your statement in another thread that "clients ask for anything now". This is true.
In other words, let's say you have a perfume campaign of a good brand.
I don't see why they wouldn't ask for a cinema display plus a tv display plus adds in Youtube plus mobile and web interactive stuff, plus some stills extracted from the cameras?
If your original is 4 or more ks, you cover all those needs with the bonus to have an extremely good quality in large cine screens and top downsampled because in the end donwsampling from a larger files is always better.
IMO, I agree with the FCPX usability but I'm sure this will move to lots of Ks and not in ten years. So editing with more than 2K and in Raw is IMO going to be the based workflow in a few years.
I don't think Canon or Panasonic will miss the Raw party. If not the 5DMK3 it will be the 4 but it's virtually there.
Apple sort of anticipated the future but I think that for the moment, they cutted the apple in 2, one peice is missing there. It's like it's a first step but not yet there.
But I can be wrong.
-
As artists, content providers, image makers, whatever we're called today, whether we like it or not, we don't decide on the delivery device, we just respond.
Always have.
After all what photographer ever decided that lithographic printing should be a 133 or 200 line screen, or tee vee should be 720x480 or 1920 x 1080?
We didn't, we don't and honestly nobody ever asks us, clients just explain what they want and usually the information is sketchy, but once again we respond.
Even back in the original still 1ds one days, clients would ask for large file sizes which were overkill and I'd just say my camera makes a 90mb file (it did if you moved that photoshop slider all the way up). They'd say cool and life would go on.
When I moved to digital backs, at this point most clients were overwhelmed with file storage and started asking for smaller files.
Now it's more complex than ever.
This week I have either produced or viewed motion images in 600 pixel wide on a virgin america screen, 1920 x 1080 on my office led tv, 2700 or my computer desktop screens, 1920 on the powerbooks, whatever an ipad is, whatever an I phone is, whatever you tube is, whatever the wall street journal videos are, a 900 pixel high still movie poster at a new theatre, a 180 line screen printed in store poster and have sent out two double truck still ads, at 4,600 pixels across, one shot with the RED one with the Canon 5d still camera.
So my point is I'm not too sure it matters. I know when we crop in on the RED files we go back to cine-x and reprocess out at 2k with the exact crop, or just sticking withe the original 2k file and enlarging it in the edior I can't see a 5% difference. I've done this two dozen times and honestly as long as I don't crop more than 40% it looks the same.
I have one client that has this long list of video deliverables, that leaves off kps, most codecs but is adamant about having separate sound tracks.
Go figure.
I do know this . . . that by the time client's get off the 2k standard, we'll probably have motion cameras that shoot 10k, because if video cameras mirrors still camera development that's the way it will probably go.
Apple knows this also and they don't care about 100,000 RED users, they care about the 12 gazillion 5d2 and down users. That's where the money is and you can't blame them.
The only thing I see changing is streaming video where the network can identify your connection speed and computer and send out the highest ( or lowest) quality possible.
With the heavy demand of bandwidth eating up the carriers, I assume the lowest.
I also know one other thing that as the economy continues to be more challanged, all clients want their message out in the most contained and viewable way possible and their beginning to view every surface as a form of media.
In fact all in-store would be led's today if the economy hadn't tanked.
Don't think we won't see softdrink machines, petrol pumps, checkout stands, magazine racks, POS posters that upload a new video a day that moves, talks, dances or whatever and though the world may start to look like a mini time square, advertisers don't care as long as you look at the message.
http://creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/august/cool-sht-new-directions-in-advertising
What most clients don't care about is whether you edit and/or color in fcp 3,5,6,7 10, Avid, Edius, Premier or I-movie.
They just want what they want and it's up to you to decide how to make it happen.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks for this very interesting argumentation and perspective. Lots of keypoints in your post to take into consideration IMO.
We are lucky in Lu-La to have members who bring the debates to those levels and it truly help me to see clearer what really matters and what really does not that much and re-consider some of my beleifs if necessary.
Those days I'm happy because I have a lot of editings and I'm FINALLY (Haleluia) starting with practice, tries and sweating to have a workflow that works pretty well.
More I'm into movie, more I love it.
Time to do like Chris, have a beer, before the yoga clases. (I know I know...beer and yoga is not very logical)
-
Having a beer as I catch up here after another 14 hour shooting day. No. Beer and Yoga don't mix. I was getting heavy into Bikram for a while but it was seriously impeding my alcohol intake. You've got to have priorities!
James, have you tried working with the Proxies in FCP7? If you're moving into DaVinci you should try that workflow out. It saves you an initial Transcode step, then DaVinci works with the Raw files and you render out ProRes for your finish. Why bother making a Log looking ProRes when you can grade from Raw? Especially saves time when you're pushing in.
I'm fried. I know I'm gonna take December off but maybe I'll take most of October off too and just make some films for myself.
-
Time to do like Chris, have a beer, before the yoga clases. (I know I know...beer and yoga is not very logical)
Entirely and unequivocally logical dear Fred.
-
FCPX takes time to learn. If you don't learn any software you'll spend ten times longer doing what the old stuff did in a jiff. I remember my first meeting with Avid...(I'm beginning to sound like a promo for X so I'll stop after this one - sighs of relief all round). It does multiple tracks on the time line, keyframes are a doddle, as are PIP's, movement can be as precise as you want, modifying transitions is easy, etc, etc...once you know how to do these things. The color, exposure, saturation controls are a breath of fresh air IMHO.
My vids are quite a bit longer than ten seconds and before I started my current project I checked X could do all the fiddly bits I needed. It could, so I dived in and no regrets. I think if I tried to tame a totally new NLE during a big project I'd be tearing out what bit of hair I have left. And I know that any creative decisions would suffer too. Like BC, I'd also like to meet someone who really knows the program to cut short the learning process, but despite that - and despite a really crappy manual - I'm getting faster by the day.
I don't think Apple have abandoned the pro market. I do think they see pretty clearly the way our world is changing and I think X is another of their responses to that. I'd be willling to bet a couple of beers that this time next year there'll be quite a few converts.
-
priorities? I want it all...
-
I used the Sony about 25% of the time and love the form factor, hate all the little buttons and find hitting color on the presets very difficult. I spent one pre pro day working on the color presets and thought we had it nailed and then boom first session and it looked 100% different.
Cooter,
The AF100's presets aren't good either, & I spent a lot of time working out my own, but eventually settled on using Abel Cine Tech's, or variations of.
Not sure if you'd find them useful, but you might look at Abel's scene files for the FS100.
FS100 Scene Files from AbelCine
http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/07/25/fs100-scene-files-from-abelcine/
Best,
Bern
-
In fact once you factor in having to remove the ACHVD (or whatever it's called) wrapper from the FCP files to get them to h264, the process out the h264 to prorezz and then...
Imagine you already know this too, but ClipWrap will transcode to ProRes, & avoid the Quicktime glitches.
-
On another thought I just received a note from our producer that the Epic's fans don't shut off all the way when recording like the RED Ones. Someone that was shooting close-ups was just going crazy with the sound.
That's another case of not ready to be released
Perhaps it was user error, but on one recent shoot the EPIC kept overheating.
-
Imagine you already know this too, but ClipWrap will transcode to ProRes, & avoid the Quicktime glitches.
Thanks Bern.
Yes we use clipwrap and it works fast, better than the others, of course the footage still has to be graded. That's where raw files are great, especially in multi cam because you can match them easily.
In regards to the Epic fans running, don't know, just read the note. I do know we used our RED Ones in Bangkok and KL all at around 100f with 100% humidity and ran some very long takes without issue.
Maybe we got lucky.
For the FS100 I'll look at Able's settings.
Thanks
IMO
BC
-
Did a preliminary edit on fcp x during and after a client conference call.
As this cut will be eventually laid off to an effects house, it doesn't matter what program I work in as they will go through a few different processes.
The result?
For this type of work while you talk, the browser in X is genius. You can see and scrub through every clip and just drag it in place (to refine it later). You immediately know if the clip fits the dialog, etc.
Once the call was over did the semi final cut. Now keep in mind I'm new to X and learning as we go.
X is fast in many ways and has most of the functionality of 7 with some added features, a lot of different or lost feature sets.
Setting in points have become easier, the color correction is good, but a ran into a few bugs.
First bug was all of a sudden I could not get any transition to work on the edit. They just wouldn't link so I went through a few tutorials and google search, tried all the shortcut and long cut commands and nothing worked, so I made my own cross dissolves using the compositing (opacity) tool.
Second bug is exporting a movie. First did prorezz to knock to to mp4 for web view, second did h264.
The prorezz versions exported well, with a little gamma change but not as much as on 7, though it did clip some highlights (???).
The second issue was using quicktime 7 to output and mp4 (while fcp X was still open), it would make an mp4 but all were somewhat damaged. Some mp4 renders were blank, one had audio but no video.
So I moved the prorezz file to another machine and it made the mp4's so I could put them on the server for view.
Third bug is I shut down X to restart the machine and open up the ram and once fcp x opened my edit was still intact, but all the footage in the browser was gone.
As there is no manual function for reconnecting media, I tried reimporting it, but the browser would never show the footage.
At this point it's not the end of the world, but had this been an ongoing edit, I would have to restart the complete process which is kind of crazy given the fact that the edit is still on a timeline.
It's strange the edit is still listed in the bottom of events, but in the far left browser the event is missing.
Anyway, bottom line is once I learn X it's good, though my full faith and trust in it is somewhat limited and I would not go into a large project using it for the complete process as I don't really trust it (or me on X for that matter).
Since I travel and work multiple machines, the lack of manually reconnecting media is scary, but I could be missing something.
Oh and one more bug, it crashed in the middle of the edit, though it did save the edit and I lost no time. Crashing seems to come when your analyzing a file for changing the speed or when you are overlaying clips with changing opacity.
Changing opacity and overlaying slows the system up considerably, though the rest of the functions are all real time.
IMO
BC
-
I dont know how X can be faster than 7 to actualy edit
7 goes as fast as my fingers?
S
-
This thread is now confusing me more than ever with the Red workflow.
I know that everybody has a personal workflow but all that seems frankly (unnecessary?) messy between convertions.
- Why not cutting directly with FCP7 with the proxies generated by the camera, grade re-linked RAW with a 700 euros DaVinci lite (saw it exactly 699 euros today in the crane supplier), and from there render to whatever?
or
- Why not getting a NLE that simply reads native R3D like Avid or Premiere, import the footage directly in the timeline, no need RedCineX, in Avid grade in Raw in the timeline or in premiere export the editing in your color app and export to your aims?
Even if you'd work with the proxies in Avid for speed, relinking to the rawfiles is direct so why having to generate ProRes from the beginning??
or
- using RedCine X, creating IS of your taste and from there work only in image sequences at full res or in PS or in Edius in proxy mode (for windows users). And then, DaVinci lite or Nuke or AE etc..?
It's true that the browser of FCPX is incredible. I'd like to have that in any NLE. But, thanks James to sweat in those testings and report, when I read the Coot's hands-on in a real workflow (that's important) I can't help thinking "great stuff" on one side and "to avoid like the plague for now" on the other side.
Now, I think the scenario to keep going serious projects on FCP7 and wait FCPX to be ready might be a good choice indeed. The only downside is that you are not free and depend on Apple's next release but it might be worth the wait. The only alternative anyway is going Avid right now and have to spend a few weeks in a completly new learning. But you will be rock solid once done for any cases.
In Avid, you can apply filters or color correction instantanously to all the cuts. Let's say you have a timeline with 80 cuts. Well, you can apply a specific filter from sec 2 to 60,56 cuts, the apply a color correction from cut 10 to cut 30, and changing those parameters is visual, instant. You can cumulate as much of those (there must be a limit but haven't found it), they act a little bit like the layers in PS but with a third dimension: time. (each one of course is keyframeable). It's virtually impossible to go faster because the time you just think about what you want it's done.
I'm doing an editing in cinemascope ratio and I had some editing tasks I wanted to compare face to face between Avid and Edius 6 and really both are rock solid. They go to the same results differently and I would give a slightly advantage to Avid in terms of speed and to Edius because of real cinemascope in-out format but both are very fast in use indeed.
In fact, I can't think of a faster way because I was doing those things to use the Morgan's expression, at the speed of my fingers in the keyboard (and all with keyframes within the effects, masks, positions etc...).
About the Able's settings, the curves seem to me in the very line of the 5D2 Technicolor. Do they also provide a LUT?
-
This thread is now confusing me more than ever with the Red workflow.
I know that everybody has a personal workflow but all that seems frankly (unnecessary?) messy between convertions.
- Why not cutting directly with FCP7 with the proxies generated by the camera, grade re-linked RAW with a 700 euros DaVinci lite (saw it exactly 699 euros today in the crane supplier), and from there render to whatever?
snip
In regards to RED workflow, the whole idea, IMO is to be able to make pleasing, matching prorezz clips that can be first used for editing, then manipulated to the style of the edit and overall motion piece.
To me using any of the .mov proxies is out of the quesiton because the color is way off and their is no noise reduction. I don't want to start a client edit looking like that.
Whether you set the color in camera (any camera), or in a processor like Scratch, Cine X, etc. it's rare if you don't have to go back to the files, (either the processed prorezz or the raws) and do some more work.
I think that's where X will overrun them all because right now their color correction is good and I assume will get much more detailed.
Maybe X will eventually run a 4k RED file, though I don't think it's absolutely necessary as any photographer, director, dp or editor always wants to change imagery for that special look.
In regards to FCP X.
I don't think I or anyone should take a 1.0 NLE and try to do heavy lifting with it.
I don't mean to get off track here but, Apple is smart and nobody but them knows where X is going, at least nobody I know so most people take a wait and see.
It has some great assets like the browser. The browser is amazing and all the other standard NLE operations like markers, keyframes, etc. are good, different but good.
X still has bugs. I just arrived in LA tonight and moved the edit to another machine. Since I had ingested the project at full rez it came up on the screen first thing and I could continue to work, though in the middle of it all the clips on the timeline went to black and white.
They show up in the browser as color and the view window as color but in the timeline B+W. I'm sure the next time I restart the computer they'll come back up, but right now, this program is just too new for me to risk a serious project on.
You still can't change a clip, work it in a color suite and replace the clip in the edit and have it connect which is kind of strange given a lot of people do work outside of the NLE once the final cut is locked.
Still, running X on a machine for the price is a no brainer and it's worth it for some quick functions, like a quick color key, or effect.
I've been running X on an I7 Imac and tomorrow our 12 core comes in. The 12 core is set up to eventually move to Avid which I may do, though with our deadlines I'll stay in 7 until I have more time.
Avid is fine, but it's not free of issues either or a long learning curve and whether it's Apple, Avid or Adobe I don't have a great deal of faith in any tech company playing nice with the other.
Googles recent purchases kind of signals that the major players are trying to emulate Apple and move to a proprietary world.
Regardless, Avid, Edius, FCP Classic, Premier is old think and based on the "go to another program to do any serious effects process", put it in the timeline to see if ti works, then do it again.
I think FCP X is a thought beyond that.
Everybody is talking about Apple today but you have to really hand it to Apple because they have the ability to look at the way people do things and completely ignore the normal process. They go their own way against the advice of everyone and though I don't have a crystal ball, I think eventually X will make a much bigger change in NLE than FCP Classic ever did.
This time it won't be a price comparison between a $100,000 NLE vs. $1,000 FCP desktop, it will eventually be a change in productivity, creative speed and the workflow we change to. Also the ability to work as fast as you can think.
I'll admit I was way against X when it was introduced, as all I wanted was a faster FCP 7, but I jumped too soon and didn't look past my own keyboard.
Creative editing will always be complicated and take a lot of thought, but if you work X you can see a time when effects, masks, keying, key frames, coloration, stabilization, slow motion, could just become as simple as just dragging the cursor over a clip, making your adjustments it, clicking it and dropping it in the timeline.
Almost as fast as I can write this.
At least that's what I'm hoping for.
IMO
BC
-
Avid is not without issues, true.
I've been eating all the bloody learning curve and so far I can say that I'm mastering Media Composer to a 30 ish % of all its features, but I'm also seeing that taking further steps are now easier. As I've been through that adaptation process, I can comment a few points for the ones who might be interested in going Avid.
Is Avid slow and non-inuitive? My answer would be yes and no.
Concerning the editing itself, Avid is in fact fast to learn and start to cut with confidence, color correct, filtered, keying, tracking etc...that learning curve for someone who has already edited could be indeed fast.
Then, where Avid is frankly not friendly-user, is when it comes to more specialized tasks. Let's just generate an EDL from it and man, it's like a software in itself and the options are really for techs in the industry. So you see that and give up, like reading a book in chinese. But... when I managed to generate EDL from it after watching boring oscur tutorials and import in other programs, it bloody works while from Premiere it would eventualy works.
Bins are extremely powerfull and versatiles and not one editor in the market have such capability. But understanding the bins and their full capabilities is not specially intuitive. things like that.
Some say that the color correection tools are not powerfull enough. I beleived that at first, now I don't buy it. Color correct in Avid without leaving the editor is very powerfull and extremely reliable. Doing primaries or secondary but it has to be learned how and yes, that's not either something specially intuitive at first, but then, it's incredibly fast and efficient.
Not entering into details, for resuming, the learning curve in Avid is at the same time friendly and unfriendly, intuitive and tremendously not intuitive, depending where you look at and the background in edition.
But the good thing is that the unfriendliness is not in 80% of the tasks we generally need. No need to chase extra plug-ins like in Adobe and so on, all what's necessary for any workflow level is already inside.
There is nothing that Scratch or Looks can do you couldn't do inside Avid when one get the how.
The overall sensation when you get the basics in Avid is stability and efficiency. Then some irritating stuff like no DPX workflow, very unfriendly workflow with AVCHD...and I'm on Windows and ignore what could be the issues with Mac platforms.
But you realise very fast why it's the standard in this industry. When I use Premiere pro after Avid I have exactly the same feeling that when I tried the Gimp after PS.
So my resumed point is that: no fear of the learning curve in Avid, it's not that bad and even no perfect, you can't go wrong with it. Then going deeper into this software might be frustrating and rather unfriendly for newcomers in video like in my case. But I did it in the end and now the things I have to learn are not critical and I can keep going the learning very relaxed.
The TV guys here are absolutly addicted to it, to the absurd. But I can understand why such a thing.
And you know, we all want faster and more intuitive softwares, but it's also true that when we are used to a system we can work almost at the speed of light with some time on it. Honestly, if FCP7 didn't have those renders and renders, FCP users would probably not even think about another NLE.
-
not a bad workflow either right here.... http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?62587-QUICK-amp-EASY-REDCINE-X-FCP-WORKFLOW (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?62587-QUICK-amp-EASY-REDCINE-X-FCP-WORKFLOW)
-
not a bad workflow either right here.... http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?62587-QUICK-amp-EASY-REDCINE-X-FCP-WORKFLOW (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?62587-QUICK-amp-EASY-REDCINE-X-FCP-WORKFLOW)
We've done it two ways where we grade prior (small projects) or after (larger projects) and just use the pleasing dailies for editing in fcp 7 then go back to cine x for closer grading.
I've tried scratch, I don't see an difference between it and cine-x and we've just added di-vinici with a board running the Red Rocket though it just came in Friday so we haven't had a chance to go through it.
Actually it all pretty much comes out the same, whether you work a flat file in the editor or third party software, or try to make the prorezz files as exact as possible from the get go.
The biggest issue I have with FCP 7 and snow leopard is when you go to quicktime 7 for your final, you get a flat, slightly overexposed quicktime file. I see it on all of our snow leopard machines but it doesn't show as much on a leopard system, which I keep just for outputting various codecs.
Not to bring up fcpx again but the color correction tools in X are fast and very, very good. Not as elaborate as color or di-vinci but you can see where they easily could be.
IMO
BC