[Andrew Somers]

Glad it worked!

I’m surprised that Notepad++ worked to edit the aep file, as on MacOS I need to use a hex editor for the aep file (not even BBedit works without corruption). Notepad++ must preserve the binary data somehow. Or did you save as .aepx ?

When I wrote the response yesterday I forgot that you can save a project as XML and easily edit in any text editor.

And as I look into this, I see that doing it via an XML version is by far the better way to go, as it’s safer and preserves important settings.

p.s. Why Adobe do not implement this? It would save many problems (as it works perfectly with .PSD)?

And THEN I just remembered that this is something that is scriptable, and here’s a script that can do it:

https://aescripts.com/batch-search-n-replace-paths/

And if you wanted to write a script, here a bit from the scripting guide:

app.project.item(index).layer(index).replaceSource (newSource, fixExpressions)

Description:
Replaces the source for this layer.

Parameters:

newSource
The new source AVItem object.

fixExpressions
True to adjust expressions for the new source, false otherwise. Note that this feature can be resource-intensive; if replacing a large amount of footage, do this only at the end of the operation. See also “Project autoFixExpressions() method” on page 115.

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

EXR is a floating point format. AE’s OpenEXR only allows writing float to EXR.

If you are working in 16 bit, you are working in an integer format.

EXR supports:

16 bit float (aka half float)
32 bit float
32 bit integer

I’m curious, why do you need to write integer to EXR? If you need a 16 bit integer image sequence, TIFF or PNG is the common standard.

EDIT to add: If it’s because you are wanting to export a straight (not premult) alpha, Fnord’s ProEXR plugin does allow selecting straight or premult. Nevertheless ProEXR also only exports float. (32 bit integer as used in EXR is typically for something like a Z depth map, not image data).

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

There is not a command that does what you want, BUT:

You CAN use a HEX editor to modify the file path and file name of the AI file in the AE project. I use the app “0xED”.

https://www.suavetech.com/0xed/

NOTES:

• Do not rename the layers and do not change their order.
• Always work in a COPY of your AE project — it is very easy to destroy the project so it won’t open.
• Anchor point positions may not be maintained and need to be re adjusted in some cases.

Good luck!

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

It’s not JUST interlace. lines that are too thin on a *any* monitor will have problems with aliasing, and if moving, jitter/judder.

When we do end credit rollers, we avoid any horizontal lines for this reason.

But as far as interlace, if the signal is interlaced, the monitor will display it interlaced unless it has de-intelacing technology. Of course most modern displays DO. but remember that some people are still using old NTSC sets with adapters. Those 4 lines become two lines in NTSC.

This is not to say that it’s a good idea to always design for the lowest common denominator.! I’m pretty sure anyone who is still watching on a down converted NTSC set isn’t super concerned about image quality.

But the fact remains, very thin lines can be problematic on displays. Things to consider are contrast, angle, speed if moving, not to mention direction, sub-pixel motion, anti-aliasing available in the system, etc.

If you have a one r two pies line, it is only going to be “sharp” if it is *exactly* horizontal or vertical, and exactly on pixels (not split across pixels). And even the you have to consider what will happen at different scales/resolutions. A two pixel lines in 1920×1080 becomes a 1.333 pixel line at 720. What are you gonna do with that?

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

No no – I AM recommending that you output a gamma encoded (non linear) file. Just not necessarrly with Rec709 2.4 gamma.

Why? Because it’s wrong – Unless you did everything in a specific monitoring environment and now all your corrections are based on a 2.4 gamma monitor simulation.

Here’s the thing: Rec709 is NOT 2.4 gamma, and it never has been. Rec 1886 is.

Rec 1886 defines the MONITOR, Rec709 defines the SCENE CAPTURE, i.e. the camera. The gamma curve for Rec709 is an offset 2.22 curve, that results in an effective gamma of 1/1.9-2.0 (i.e. about 0.53)

This was originally intended to feed into a CRT monitor (circa 1990) with a gamma of around 2.4, adjusted for the viewing environment. This resulted in a total system gain of gamma 1.2, in order to present *perceptually* on a monitor in a darkened living room the scene as it was shot.

And keep in mind that there is NO “color management” in this system. The camera is defined and the output is defined, but not color “managed” with profiles or LUTs like After Effects is.

The upshot of all this is: the FILE that gets gamma encoded and written to the ProRes files is expected to be Rec709 “source gamma” (for want of a better term, scene referred isn’t really accurate either), and that is a gamma of about 0.53 (but again Adobe calls it wrong as “1.9” which is the inverse).

The way this should work in a color managed environment is:

1) You work in LINEAR (scene referred) space.

2) You UNWIND Gamma encoded Rec709 files into linear space using an accurate Rec709 profile. (I recommend Rec709-elle-V4-rec709.icc as the correct profile for reading the source gamma curve to unwind into linear, and also to encode the correct transfer curve out of linear into a Rec709 ProRes.)

3) You need to setup your Display Color Management such that you go from linear INTO the Rec709-elle profile, THEN into a Rec1886 profile (whcih people have labeled as Rec709 Gamma 2.4, or alternately Rec709 Display.)

4) Now you are SEEING what a correctly encoded Rec709 output file (Gamma 1/1.9) looks like played back on a reference rec709 MONITOR (gamma 2.4).

5) You output to a video files using the source gamma encoding (~0.53 ish) and it gets played back on a display as defined in Rec 1886, (but commonly called a Rec709 display.)

This has caused so many people so many problems (including myself) I actually have three separate articles on the issue that I have not yet had a chance to combine:

The CORRECT Rec709 Profile with Download link
More on Rec709 gamma
More on linear to Rec709 encoding.

ADDITIONAL READING:
From Charles Poynton, the only human being on the planet that really understands this stuff:

His classic GAMMA FAQ
And the accompanying COLOR FAQ
And his web site of even more useful info.

ON THE DRYER SIDE, the actual specs:

The actual specification for Rec709 Notice that the Rec709 spec does NOT specify the display charactaristics, except that finally in 2015 they mentioned Rec1886 as the reference display device (over 20 years after the original Rec709 spec was written, they finally defined the display !!!) and even so, it’s only a FOOTNOTE on page 3.

(1)In typical production practice the encoding function of image sources is adjusted so that the final picture has the desired look, as viewed on a reference monitor having the reference decoding function of Recommendation ITU-R BT.1886, in the reference viewing environment defined in Recommendation ITU-R BT.2035.

LOL. Better late than never.
The specification for the complementary Rec1886 DISPLAY for viewing Rec709 video.
The specification for the VIEWING ENVIRONMENT in which you are supposed to view the reference monitor

—–
This is still such a problem for everyone (and Adobe is not helping by shipping incorrect profiles), I am working on a tutorial. Someday I’ll finish it…..

EDIT TO ADD: If you did all your color adjustments and work looking at a display color management setup where you went straight from the linearized gamma 1.0 environment converted to a gamma 2.4 profile and then a monitor simulation using the 2.4 profile, THEN I suppose you should output using that 2.4 profile. But if you find your results are inconsistent (i.e. wrong contrast, wrong saturation) then I’d suggest outputting with the Elle profile I mention above.

Best of luck

Andy

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

If there is hardly any difference between 16:9 and 1.85:1, then why do so many filmmakers till use 1.85, instead of just using 16:9?

Thera are two standards for theatrical projection in the United States: 1.85 and 2.39

Nevertheless, filmmakers may use multiple aspect rations, pillar boxing and letter boxing as needed within the 1.85 or 2.39 frame.

Keep in mind that it’s different in some areas of the world. 1.66 is common in Europe for instance, in fact Stanley Kubrick often shot and released in 1.66, going so far as to ship 1.66 projection gates to American theaters.

Some studios mandate “protecting” the full video release frame while composing for 1.85. Universal was big on this during the VHS days, insisting that the full 1.33 image was protected and useable for telecine and video release, even though the theatrical was releasing 1.85 (typically on film, the matte was only applied in the project or, so that 1.85 film would likely screen as 1.66 in Europe.)

If you want an opinion, IMO 2.39 is a bad choice for a documentary where you are going to be using a lot of narrower aspect ratios. 2.39 is great for big kaboom action adventures. In a doc, especially as you are shooting interviews, you want to be more intimate, so 1.778 or 1.85 are better choices for composition.

Best of luck!

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

Hi Filip,

First of all, linearized means a gamma of 1.0. It does not matter what the profile gamma is, if you are working in linearized space, your gamma is 1.0

Second, Adobe leaves a lot to be desired in the way they handle linear working spaces, in particular the settings are worded in a way that often leads to confusion.

I see from the above screenshot that you are working in 32 bit scene linear, gamma 1.0, colorspace. I see you are outputting to the DISPLAY REFERRED (gamma 2.4) version of Rec709 – not something I recommend but you may have your reasons for doing so.

Here’s where Adobe confuses all: The switch for “convert TO linear”. Well, you are ALREADY in linear, and you need to convert TO gamma encoded. But that’s okay because that switch does nothing in this position since you are not going out to a 32 bit output file format.

So you can leave it as is, “on for 32 bit” works for most everything. Note that it ALSO keeps 16 bit EXR in linear, as it should. In fact, it really should NOT be labeled as “on for 32 bit” — it should be labeled as “on for floating point outputs”.

So, in YOUR case, going out to 8 bit H264 and 12 bit ProRes 4444, both of which are NOT linear as you are going to encode a 2.4 gamma curve in them, you definitely do not want to output in linear. So the proper setting is either OFF or ON FOR 32 BIT. Do not set it to “ON“.

Personally, for color critical applications I no longer use Adobe CMM in the output module, and instead use adjustment layers on the output with OpenColorIO or other LUT or Profile conversion, then “Preserve RGB” on the output module. I discuss more in depth, including a tutorial, here.

The main thing you need to be concerned about when working in scene linear space is having your monitor properly calibrated AND PROFILED, so that using “Display Color Management” gives you an accurate view of the work.

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

… don’t forget to print all the wedges … LOL

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

Hi Ryan,

What I would suggest: Buy some LCD Screen protectors, place one on the LCD then use a sharpie and a ruler to draw frame lines for the aspect ratio you want to shoot. As they will just be thin lines you won’t cover up the camera data, and you can remove the screen protector at any time to lose the lines.

If you do this, be sure to shoot a frame and focus chart that fits the frame lines you drew (or put a better way, shoot a frame and focus chart and draw the lines to fit that, heh). The F&F chart is requested so you have a frame reference for post.

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Andrew Somers]

What do you think looks better between switching aspect ratios constantly, vs. having everything framed to one consistent aspect ratio?

Hi Ryan,

This is very much YOUR CHOICE AS A STORY TELLER.

I would suggest that you shoot everything 1.778 (protecting the full 16×9 frame) as this will give you the most flexibility in post. And in fact, this is a decision that will make more sense in post — remember that (unless using anamorphic lenses) that 2.39 is just a CROP of the camera sensor which is typically 16×9.

Of course, there is the issue of do you compose for 1.778, or 1.85, or 2.39? 1.778/1.85 are very close, and if you compose for 1.778, a 1.85 common top crop will often keep the same intent. Also if you shoot full 4K (4096×2160) you have a lot of room to re-compose for a 1920×1080 master.

Also, mixing aspect ratios is commonly done, especially in documentaries. And don’t think that you have to do every shot “the same way”, do what is needed to tell the story and keep the audience engaged. Take a look at some Ken Burns documentaries as an example.

But again, what does the story need at that point? To see the entire 4×3 frame? To be zoomed in tight to a subject inside the 4:3 frame, so that the rest of the frame fills the screen? There are no rules, only what your story needs for the telling.

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com