[Andrew Shanks]

Okay, just to conclude this thread, we ended up learning to work around the transform issues (a little blur here or there does wonders too), but also I found this fxguide article which goes over this whole issue, with various compositing appliations and transform algorithms, plus has some tips for the various applications at the end of it (for AE it is basically to limit nesting moves in precomps). Here’s the link:

https://www.fxguide.com/article315.html

[Andrew Shanks]

Just an update, we’re 99.99% positive now, that this is just to do with the bicubic filtering when doing transforms in After Effects.

Since I posted this earlier today, I have found that if you use the resize image command in Photoshop and switch the filtering to ‘smooth bicubic’ the grid becomes softened as to almost disappear, you have to look hard to see any trace of it (to the degree that I think it would pass tech checks). Would be great if After Effects had the option to change what filter you used in a similar fashion (or even had an additional transform filter for these tricky situations, which allowed transform filter changing).

I have been conversing with a friend in Canada who has since done his own tests in Shake using a grey solid, grain, then resized using different tranform filters. He has found it does occur in Shake too (but again this must be image specific because in the example I have posted it doesn’t seem to have the grid problem). His results using different transform filters were:

BOX: Brutal. Moving on…
SINC: Very good, but too sharp
GAUSS, QUAD, TRIANGLE: Slight Gridding & quite soft
DIRAC, IMPULSE: Blergh, visible stretching at seams.
LANCZOS: Slight gridding, but sharper than GAUSS
MITCHELL: Halfway between LANCZOS & GAUSS

One of those strange things where maybe we should not be looking so close at these images (higher scalings are fine, it is the ones within 10% that are an issue).

Still looking for ideas for work arounds if anyone has them?

[Andrew Shanks]

Thanks for the reply, no, its Genesis, DPX sequences, it isn’t a moire pattern in a busy part of the screen or aspect ratio thing, …pretty certain it is a bicubic resizing issue from the tests we have done in various apps (have subsequently found that Shake does do it to a lesser degree, but it really depends on the image, …we started testing using a grey solid with grain applied to it, then applying a transform to it, this worked well for testing Shake, …as I say in practice with the video clips Shake seemed okay, at least compared to AE).

[Andrew Shanks]

[Andrew Shanks]

Would be great to hear your impressions of the new camera’s, i’m especially interested in the 170. I have to say the old pannies still have one big edge over even the RED, they don’t have the rolling shutter issue (CCD still kicks butt until CMOS technology can address that issue).
Look forward to your news from NAB 🙂

[Andrew Shanks]

Hey Jeremy,
I wasn’t comparing the two in terms of quality, totally different platforms, …I mean when you look at the glass alone, you get what you pay for, …what I meant was when being used to other formats (maybe i should have said from Digibeta or ENG DVCPRO50 cameras, apart from glass and sensor size they’re closer to the mark) and keying (where you don’t have to chase your tail finding a solution to fringe issues), it is a shock to the system to have footage you now have to waste extra time dealing with fringes due to the way it has been captured (its akin to being given footage that the client wants graded, …then you get it and you find theres a ton of wires that need removing as well), …as a compositor you get handed all sorts of crazy bad footage, and you have to deal, thats our job, …but as Per says, if there’s a way to fix it easily in firmware, why don’t they, they’d find a whole new market for their cameras if they did (as a pickup fx camera for elements).

I’d be interested to see what results can be got out of the component feeds, if nothing else it would soften the problem by going through D to A and back.

Will be interesting to see what the new 200A and 170 models footage is like with the new sensor.

[Andrew Shanks]

Just chiming in a few months late on this one, but I wanted to back up Per as we encountered this last year with the HVX as well. I hasten to add I am a senior compositor and vfx supervisor, I work on everything from TV to feature films, I am not a newbie who thinks a one click key is a finished product. I know a lot of folk who have the hvx will be fine with the one click solution in their editing packages (and won’t even see the halo), …for almost all corporate, music video, certain TV shows, etc, it will be totally fine. For those that want realism in their comps, well, the halo is an issue. You will see this no matter what keyer and what compositing system you use (I have seen it in shake as well as after effects, using primatte and keylight on both systems).

At the time we did our own tests and at -7 (for the sharpening) the haloing was the least present, but the super soft screen freaked the DoP and Director out (despite us saying we could introduce the sharpening in post), so we compromised and let them shoot at -3.

I can’t speak for certain, but I’d assume the lads down at WETA worked with the footage the way we did, and that was with proceedural keying of different areas to build the final mattes. When you’re used to working with 35mm and RED dpx files, it is a shock to the system to have to deal with these fringing artifacts, …but as someone else says, I guess thats the tradeoff for the price of the camera.

Will be interesting to see what the new ccd in the 170 is like and if it has the same issue.

One thing to say about the HVX, …at least you don’t have to deal with 3.1.1 colourspace or rolling shutter issues (…probably more a bain in my life presently than halo issues).

I just wanted to speak up because Per seemed to get a raw deal in this thread, he was just seeking an answer and his methods were questioned just because others haven’t seen it, others who don’t do this day in and day out (to the levels some of us do, …I will be the first to agree that if you crunch your matte like most users tend to do you won’t have an issue, …but edge is what keying is all about and if you can avoid matte choking, you should).

Can I suggest that someone who “hasn’t” had this issue when keying using the hvx posts a still for us to see, that would boost the arguement for that side of the discussion (I’d be intrigued to see them myself), …unless I have missed a post, so far the only posted shots have been from those that have had problems.

Cheers,

andrew

[Andrew Shanks]

You CAN open AE7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, etc projects into CS3 (AE8), …but as you have found you cannot load projects from newer versions of after effects into an older version of after effects (i.e. in your case taking a v8 project and trying to load it in v7 of the software).
It might be a pain but it also makes sense since if you’ve used something like puppet tool in ae8 then load that project into ae7 it would get all confused and spit errors at you, …but having said that, software such as Shake that use txt based scripts are great as you can load newer versions into older versions of the software (if it uses nodes not available, you just get errors for nodes that are bad, then delete the lines that contain them in a txt editor to get the script running)

If you upgrade you should have no problem in loading projects you might have created 4 years ago (let alone in AE7 a month or two ago), …as has been said above the only real problems come with some 3rd party plugins that might not be compatible (but check with the manufacturer of those plugins to see if there is an update, could even be a free one if you’re lucky).
If you are worried, download the 30day trial and give it a test.

Goodluck,

andrew

[Andrew Shanks]

Yup, you can do eye replacement in Shake (indeed if you’ve seen eye replacements done in high end films between the late nineties and last year there is a high likelihood they were comped in Shake).

Shake and after effects aren’t true 3d compositors (the likes of Nuke and Fusion are). In Shake you use the Multiplane node (look it up in the manual for more info as there’s quite a section devoted to it).
I’d consider shake and after effects to be more like 2.5d (in the fact they can’t import 3d models, use primitive shapes to project image data onto, or use materials/lighting or truly distort in 3 dimensions, as you can in a true 3d app). They allow you to place image planes in 3d space and animate a camera (i.e. imagine setting up flat cards in the real world at varying distances from you and then moving a camera through the cards). This may seem limiting but it is actually pretty useful for matte paintings and crowd replication (especially coupled with camera data out of a 3d matchmove application).
After effects’ implimentation of a 3d-esque environment is better and less buggy than Shakes multiplane.

Goodluck!

andrew

[Andrew Shanks]

Thanks Gary, I’m pretty sure its set to embedded but will check on Monday. Just strange as it seems to output through all audio outputs when in timeline editing mode (i.e. just playing off timeline) but it is just when it flips into editing to tape that it mutes out. We managed to get it to output in the end.

We’re still unsure of what the issue was, …the only thing we can think of that was different in that project was that the editor had tried using the send to motion – send to FCP to round trip a motion graphic, even with rendering a new clip (and importing it as a stand alone animation) into that project (and replacing the motion project link) it still was weird.

The Solution: exported quicktime reference of timeline from dodgy project, created fresh new project, imported clip, dropped into new timeline, output to tape. That new project we did previews out with numerous times as well as a couple of test outputs to tape with, worked fine, no sign of the random sound muting issue, …very strange, but at least that work around seems to work.

Cheers,

andrew

🙂