Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?  (Read 8712 times)

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« on: April 09, 2010, 05:05:54 pm »


 Merely curious and I did not search this out so forgive me if this is an old topic but I am curious if there is a software from Capture One merging of technologies so to speak on our horizon or not? It sure would be DAMN handy for guys like me to apply simple effects like resolution, gray balance, contrast etc. over a batch of video footage just as easily as I can with a pile of still captures using the same interface. Aside from the memory workarounds I cant see how this would be a stretch for Phase to pull off? I know I'd love it and use it

Thoughts?
Logged

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2010, 05:20:01 pm »

Quote from: Dansk
Merely curious and I did not search this out so forgive me if this is an old topic but I am curious if there is a software from Capture One merging of technologies so to speak on our horizon or not? It sure would be DAMN handy for guys like me to apply simple effects like resolution, gray balance, contrast etc. over a batch of video footage just as easily as I can with a pile of still captures using the same interface. Aside from the memory workarounds I cant see how this would be a stretch for Phase to pull off? I know I'd love it and use it

Thoughts?

I highly doubt they would do that even if it was possible. It would have to be a separate software application that would only be for video. There just can't be one program that would effectively handle both video and still images on a pro level. If there was a product like this, it wouldn't be very popular either. How many people out there would even buy software that edited both video and photographs? It would cheapen both its video and still image editing.
Logged

Esben

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • captureforce.com
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2010, 06:15:58 pm »



Quote from: JonathanBenoit
I highly doubt they would do that even if it was possible. It would have to be a separate software application that would only be for video. There just can't be one program that would effectively handle both video and still images on a pro level. If there was a product like this, it wouldn't be very popular either. How many people out there would even buy software that edited both video and photographs? It would cheapen both its video and still image editing.



Photoshop CS4 Extended does exactly that.


http://tv.adobe.com/watch/dr-browns-photos...tion-experiment
Logged
Digital Tech NYC // LA
Captureforce

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2010, 06:45:57 pm »

Quote from: Esben
Photoshop CS4 Extended does exactly that.


http://tv.adobe.com/watch/dr-browns-photos...tion-experiment


Does it? I didn't watch the whole video, because it was very annoying, but it looked like that was about creating animations and not editing actual video. I believe the OP was saying that he was wondering if Capture One would include video editing capabilities like that of Final Cut Studio.
Logged

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2010, 07:05:38 pm »

I was thinking simply. Either a new version of Capture One for video ( hopefully RAW video  ) that works simply just like Capture One does. Im a huge Phase fan and I've been using their systems since the beginning and I've always felt it was their superior software that set them apart from the rest. Considering this and the convergence of media it makes sense to me that they come up with something here. Im not looking for another Avid or Final Cut Pro not at all for advanced editting/effects etc nothing of the sort. What I'd like is just a smooth file converter, destination spec handler, and mainly color management profile app that works as effectively for video as Capture One does for stills. Nothing more

I'd love it!

As it is there isn't a single image that goes through my studio that doesn't run through Phase software now. I have all my color profiles set and I love the fast functionality of adjusting image parameters and being able to batch process and doing all of this in the same manner with video would be great. Just a place to start before group editing or adding any other effects or adjustments. Right now I start in Phase with my RAW files and convert them out to my destination resolution and color space. Then I import to photoshop for any retouching and compositing etc. I'd like to keep a similar workflow for video and have it operate in the same predictable manner that Im used to. Maybe Im alone here but I doubt it I cant see why other Phase users wouldnt appreciate and utilize this if it was available?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 07:06:18 pm by Dansk »
Logged

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2010, 07:23:33 pm »

Quote from: Dansk
I was thinking simply. Either a new version of Capture One for video ( hopefully RAW video  ) that works simply just like Capture One does. Im a huge Phase fan and I've been using their systems since the beginning and I've always felt it was their superior software that set them apart from the rest. Considering this and the convergence of media it makes sense to me that they come up with something here. Im not looking for another Avid or Final Cut Pro not at all for advanced editting/effects etc nothing of the sort. What I'd like is just a smooth file converter, destination spec handler, and mainly color management profile app that works as effectively for video as Capture One does for stills. Nothing more

I'd love it!

As it is there isn't a single image that goes through my studio that doesn't run through Phase software now. I have all my color profiles set and I love the fast functionality of adjusting image parameters and being able to batch process and doing all of this in the same manner with video would be great. Just a place to start before group editing or adding any other effects or adjustments. Right now I start in Phase with my RAW files and convert them out to my destination resolution and color space. Then I import to photoshop for any retouching and compositing etc. I'd like to keep a similar workflow for video and have it operate in the same predictable manner that Im used to. Maybe Im alone here but I doubt it I cant see why other Phase users wouldnt appreciate and utilize this if it was available?

I'm not sure how many people are in the same boat as you. I think generally if you shoot stills you don't shoot video and vise versa. At least on a regular professional basis. I don't have any interest in shooting video, I'd rather specialize in one area of photography.
Maybe this is just me. I could be completely off base here.
Also, not sure what you mean about convergence of media.
Logged

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2010, 07:58:27 pm »

Quote
convergence of media.

Common talk these days in Ad circles. Basically its the terms used to describe stills and video being done using many of the same tools to create a continuity to both aspects. As an example for instance in the past if we built say a kitchen set and then we did a stills shoot featuring models with the food and products being pushed. Then we rolled out the strobes and brought in the film crew and  did a film shoot as well for commercials, trade show promos etc etc. Film not digital. This was sort of how this thing began and now with converging media of stills and video on the web its even more common place

Although our studio hasnt been doing much film work lately as things are lean and mean in terms of modern day marketing budgets to say the least. But its still there and now that its all digital I for one have little interest in learning yet another new software and file handling style. So considering convergence and file handling my thinking is that this would be a great window for a company like Phase One to slide into if they can make a video converter that works as smoothly as Capture One does for stills.
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2010, 05:15:19 am »

Quote from: Dansk
Common talk these days in Ad circles.

Traditionally


A film maker, shoots film or video, hands it off to an editor who cuts the story, produces a final edit and along with the edit resides an edl (edit decision list)

The EDL (along with the master footage) is handed over to a color house that grades/times/colors/tones (whatever term you want to use) only the footage that is in the final cut which is designated by the EDL.

No reason to spend the resource to effect and perfect footage that won't be shown.


Today and non traditionally.


As photographers it's becoming more of a rarity that any project is only still based.  It might be as simple as some photographer shooting a few behind the scenes clips, or shooting everything twice, or even shooting separate scenarios in motion whether it be with his own crew, a secondary crew or a dedicated video/film crew the agency or client contracts with.

Regardless, more and more sessions have convergence for costs and to hold the look of the brand.

Now as photographers that are used to effecting their own still images it makes sense to be able to use the same tools and skill sets for video that they learned with stills, hence it would be nice if lightroom, c-1, whatever still correction suite is your preference accepted video.  Actually lightroom beta 3 accepts video for rating and viewing, just not correction.

CS4 extended will allow you to color correct and effect footage and once you learn a few simple tricks like importing the clip as a smart object and setting the window to animation, you can adjust the clip in much the same way that you would a still.

Once you like the look you just export the file.

It's not as fast, or elegant as some dedicated traditional motion suites like Apple's color (that works off an edl or the edited sequence (traditionally), or handing it off to a colorist that works in Divinci, but cs4 extended does a nice job for simple tasks.

This year alone our studio has used cs4 extended on over a hundred motion clips and each time returned a profit, added value to the client.

What you chose to shoot and your business model is personal preference but in today's world the more you can do, the more value you bring to a client.  

Some client's will appreciate that, some won't. Some photographers will never be comfortable turning over un corrected images, still or motion, some won't.

Regardless of personal preference just be aware that that some form of combination still-motion project is becoming more standard than you might believe.

BC
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 05:15:56 am by bcooter »
Logged

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Logged

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2010, 07:57:17 am »

I feel like all this discussion about video is meant to be in a different forum.
No one can tell me that videography and photography are converging. It's like having your roofer install french doors after he replaces your roof. Is he a roofer? It begs the question, Does this photographer specialize in video or photography? I know too much to be on the other side of it. If I was making decisions for a large company, I'd want someone who specializes in each format. Obviously I can see how it would save money, but we really are only looking at medium to large sized businesses that would be interested in having both still and video done. Their budgets should allow for specialized photographers. Maybe it's like everything these days, we need it cheaper, quicker, more convenient. In general, this causes the quality to suffer.
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2010, 08:28:08 am »

Here in Toronto, the top commercial photographers and studios are almost all shooting video as well as stills when the client requests it, and more often than not they do. It just makes good economic sense

Studios that ignore convergence are simply not getting the the work. It's as simple as that.

Michael

Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2010, 11:12:37 am »

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
I feel like all this discussion about video is meant to be in a different forum.
No one can tell me that videography and photography are converging. It's like having your roofer install french doors after he replaces your roof. Is he a roofer? It begs the question, Does this photographer specialize in video or photography? I know too much to be on the other side of it. If I was making decisions for a large company, I'd want someone who specializes in each format. Obviously I can see how it would save money, but we really are only looking at medium to large sized businesses that would be interested in having both still and video done. Their budgets should allow for specialized photographers. Maybe it's like everything these days, we need it cheaper, quicker, more convenient. In general, this causes the quality to suffer.

Clients care about the marketing of their product or service, period.  They don't care about distinctions, job titles, charachterizations, or to be honest, micro contrast or Bokeh.  They care about compelling images, still or moving, that moves their product, adds value to their goodwill, their brand.  Its not necessarily about saving money, its about where things are going, and that place is more often than not a screen rather than a web press.  Not to say stills are going away, but the stills only shooter will be more and more rare as time goes by.  What we offer clients is my stills background and my partners' motion background, and for the past year, even some creative.

As to C1 offering video support, well, whatever. C1 is pretty crappy at previewing images.  Bridge is much better.  What we have is an editor on set who logs clips and uses CS4 to provide a preliminary color treatment to selects.  I'll shoot stills tethered, and use LR to get a look that fits the motion clips, and they all show in Bridge as consistent.  

Logged

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2010, 01:07:00 pm »

Quote
As to C1 offering video support, well, whatever. C1 is pretty crappy at previewing images. Bridge is much better. What we have is an editor on set who logs clips and uses CS4 to provide a preliminary color treatment to selects. I'll shoot stills tethered, and use LR to get a look that fits the motion clips, and they all show in Bridge as consistent.


I dont use Bridge much at all. Aside from making contact sheets I dont use it for anything at all actually. I never bothered with LR I really have no need for my workflow I have it singing sweetly with Phase/PS. I think this is mainly because all of the shooting happens on separate machines than the retouching. Theres camera carts on the studio floor all running C1 and the media lab runs PS etc. Its worked very well this way for us and our clients are very familiar and as for crappy previewing of images through Phase??? First I've ever heard of it I've never had a single complaint and i quite like it. But I am extremely familiar with it I've been running tethered through Phase since 97 or 8 I cant recall when i got the first back.

Anyways I just got to thinking that seeing as Phase became the "last man standing" so to speak that it would make sense for them to roll into video processing as well. Plus all the rumors I've been hearing are that the new Pro Canon will offer RAW and even if they dont Red does and Im sure they could process those files too. Anyways time will tell

Logged

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2010, 01:31:58 pm »

You're still only talking about a small portion of photographers. Possibly only photographers working in the ad industry. I don't see video and stills "converging" for any other type. Portrait, fashion, landscape, architecture, still life......
To say that the still photographer will become increasingly rare isn't true. Of all the photography done, youre talking about such a small percentage of paid projects.
You "videographers" arent looking at the whole story.
Logged

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2010, 02:10:31 pm »

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
You're still only talking about a small portion of photographers. Possibly only photographers working in the ad industry. I don't see video and stills "converging" for any other type. Portrait, fashion, landscape, architecture, still life......
To say that the still photographer will become increasingly rare isn't true. Of all the photography done, youre talking about such a small percentage of paid projects.
You "videographers" arent looking at the whole story.

   With all respect I would have to disagree here. For personal work and fine art printing yes I agree those aspects are not going to change much. The web IS the market now and will continue to grow and the attitude of "Why have stills when we can have video" ESPECIALLY when you can merely grab a frame of said video and use it for a still and print it if need be. Liebowitz has been doing this for a while now for one example.

Im not going to get into a huge debate here as this is going completely off topic of this thread but like it or not my friend the future of marketing has BOTH stills and video and if your not offering those services then you will be left in the dust by those that do. I recall having similar discussions with some colleagues who are now completely out of the marketing biz when I switched completely to digital. Back then the argument was digital will NEVER replace film its inferior its this its that and now its simply IT and they are no longer around to discuss much of anything. Their studios folded. Labs closed down. The jig was up.

Some held on too long. Some just couldnt cross over effectively as they were digitally useless so to speak. Couldnt even navigate the internet properly etc. These things happen and one can embrace the game and offer what the market wants or one can get rolled on by. Trying to fight off market demands with personal bias and opinion is as futile as putting your hands up to stop a bomb from falling from the sky to the ground.

If you cant beat em, join em

Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2010, 02:31:35 pm »

By preview I meant image selection and editing. Phase C1 previews are fine, still a little too sharp for me.

 

Quote from: Dansk
I dont use Bridge much at all. Aside from making contact sheets I dont use it for anything at all actually. I never bothered with LR I really have no need for my workflow I have it singing sweetly with Phase/PS. I think this is mainly because all of the shooting happens on separate machines than the retouching. Theres camera carts on the studio floor all running C1 and the media lab runs PS etc. Its worked very well this way for us and our clients are very familiar and as for crappy previewing of images through Phase??? First I've ever heard of it I've never had a single complaint and i quite like it. But I am extremely familiar with it I've been running tethered through Phase since 97 or 8 I cant recall when i got the first back.

Anyways I just got to thinking that seeing as Phase became the "last man standing" so to speak that it would make sense for them to roll into video processing as well. Plus all the rumors I've been hearing are that the new Pro Canon will offer RAW and even if they dont Red does and Im sure they could process those files too. Anyways time will tell
Logged

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2010, 02:36:41 pm »

Quote from: Dansk
With all respect I would have to disagree here. For personal work and fine art printing yes I agree those aspects are not going to change much. The web IS the market now and will continue to grow and the attitude of "Why have stills when we can have video" ESPECIALLY when you can merely grab a frame of said video and use it for a still and print it if need be. Liebowitz has been doing this for a while now for one example.

Im not going to get into a huge debate here as this is going completely off topic of this thread but like it or not my friend the future of marketing has BOTH stills and video and if your not offering those services then you will be left in the dust by those that do. I recall having similar discussions with some colleagues who are now completely out of the marketing biz when I switched completely to digital. Back then the argument was digital will NEVER replace film its inferior its this its that and now its simply IT and they are no longer around to discuss much of anything. Their studios folded. Labs closed down. The jig was up.

Some held on too long. Some just couldnt cross over effectively as they were digitally useless so to speak. Couldnt even navigate the internet properly etc. These things happen and one can embrace the game and offer what the market wants or one can get rolled on by. Trying to fight off market demands with personal bias and opinion is as futile as putting your hands up to stop a bomb from falling from the sky to the ground.

If you cant beat em, join em

Well, as strictly an architectural photographer, I have had no requests for video. I'm not sure how video would even make its way into architectural photography. Same thing with landscapes or photojournalism.
You cant really compare the film to digital transition with still and motion photography. You are basically saying that a 170 year old art form is going to be replaced. It's a little different than a change from film to digital.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2010, 02:50:05 pm »

I consider myself a DP, really.

I've seen motion integrated into every field you mentioned. Aside from fine art, commercial jobs of all kinds will increasingly require motion.  

Only photographers who sell prints won't be asked to shoot video, or rather, be expected to shoot video. If you take assignments from someone, and it's not a one off commission, expect to be converged.  

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
You're still only talking about a small portion of photographers. Possibly only photographers working in the ad industry. I don't see video and stills "converging" for any other type. Portrait, fashion, landscape, architecture, still life......
To say that the still photographer will become increasingly rare isn't true. Of all the photography done, youre talking about such a small percentage of paid projects.
You "videographers" arent looking at the whole story.
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2010, 03:03:40 pm »

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
To say that the still photographer will become increasingly rare isn't true. Of all the photography done, youre talking about such a small percentage of paid projects.


The motion/stills convergence, completely mirrors the process of film to digital in commercial photography production.

Exactly mirrors it, in that at first it's slow, some people warm up to it, some resist it, most say they are "photographers" not film makers, like they said they shot film not digital.

Right now in every major market, hundreds of photographers are wagging around a 5d2 and pointing them at anything that moves or is static, trying to come to grips with how to set up a workflow, color correct, deliver and most importantly how to get paid for it.

Some clients ask for video during a still shoot, some demand it, some hire a separate crew, but don't think for a single moment that when it hits it will be like the cross over from film to digital.

Today it might just be a few waves, but soon it will be a tsunami.

It wasn't but less than a decade ago that the busiest lab in LA told me, "our photographers shoot film".  That lab is now closed, so I guess their photographers stopped shooting film.

Personally, I don't care which direction it goes, as long as I can shoot something interesting and turn a profit, but every project I estimate today has some form of video component.  

And don't think the back end process of motion will also not parallel still digital production, because it wasn't that long ago that a retouching machine (scitex) cost a million bucks, (think motion and DiVinci 2k) and today everybody retouches in $600 photoshop.

You'll see the same with motion imagery, in fact we already do some base color grading in cs4 extended, soon I'm sure lightroom or some program like it will also do motion footage along with the same functions as stills.

Regardless, it's changing, it will continue to change and you either learn it, hire someone else to do it, or get passed by, at least in the imaging for commerce world.

Personally, I don't like labels, don't really care about the past and dread getting caught up in the way things use to be.  I also don't believe in the "system", never have because regardless of what anyone tells you, you can be anything you want to be if your good at it.


BC

P.S.

Read this interview from Robert Rodriguez  http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/articl...s_new_toy_3000/

"And it's only because creative people are notoriously the slowest to adopt new technology. That's just how it's always been. Creative people on one side, technical people on the other. Creative people aren't technical, technical people aren't creative and they always need each other. New technology comes up, creative people run away from it and it takes them so long to adopt it. But when they do, they never go back."
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Phase One Capture One... getting into video or no?
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2010, 03:27:05 pm »

Quote from: bcooter
The motion/stills convergence, completely mirrors the process of film to digital in commercial photography production.

Exactly mirrors it, in that at first it's slow, some people warm up to it, some resist it, most say they are "photographers" not film makers, like they said they shot film not digital.

Right now in every major market, hundreds of photographers are wagging around a 5d2 and pointing them at anything that moves or is static, trying to come to grips with how to set up a workflow, color correct, deliver and most importantly how to get paid for it.

I could not disagree with you more; same disagreement with Michael Reichmann's little comment.

Yes, everyone and his brother is wagging around a 5D2, shooting shitty jerky video for YouTube, but there's a major gap in the road between a YouTube of your cat, and something that a client will actually use and like and pay real money for. Witness Laforet's recent BTS where he drags five grip trucks of shit thru an insurance company, just to do a boring Talking Head. And oh yeah, there's that snarky little detail also called quality audio. How do we pull that off? And, oh yeah, what about the days and days of post; who's gonna sit and do THAT, for some measly little fee? Not me. And you say, "Well, we'll hire a crew" -- out of what Line Item in the Budget? Where's that old Gravy Line? Oops, it's gone, isn't it?

Yes, people might stand on the mountaintop and scream for Convergence, but the problem is, there's No Additional Budget. You boys just fight it out amongst yourselves; sorry about the divorce and those bags under your eyes, and that pasty white skin, and that maxed-out AMEX card for all that needed gear. But you got somethin' for your book and your reel, right? Stay focused on that. But what happens when there's NEVER a real budget, once your precious little reel is ready, no matter how many times you dance the dance?

Sorry fellas, I just can't see it. The numbers do not work. The emperor is wearing no clothes. Everybody can stand out there on the sidelines and make their little snippy comments, but it's quite another thing to be down there in the trenches, actually doing the work, day after day, for rapidly declining budgets. Always, in the past, there was a Business Model that you could look at, and say, "OK, let's go for that", but the Business Model is drowning, and fast. Just because a Client "wants it" doesn't mean it's actually possible. Please pass the Ramen Noodles.

Wake up, People.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 03:30:07 pm by gwhitf »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up