[Aynsley Baldwin]

To clarify, the software I tested was VFX Tracker. I agree with Daryl that Traffic isn’t really appropriate for feature film VFX management- though it is also an intriguing piece of software.

[Aynsley Baldwin]

I actually checked out the demo version and the jury is out for me. It seems good in theory, but I’m not convinced that it’s robust enough or allows for enough user control to be reliable or all that useful. It seems like it might be great for transferring info from FCP to a database, which is a large part of the battle. Worth noodling, I suppose. But it’s hard to tell from the demo version as they’ve disabled some key functions.

On the subject of this onerous task, here’s an interesting article that the editor on this show discovered today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_editing

“One current controversy is that assistant editors are increasingly responsible for planning, managing, and checking the visual effects of a feature film, yet cannot receive credit for it. Technically, this task is assigned to a visual effects editor. However, many mid and low-level films will save money by putting the responsibility on the assistant editor, an idea that makes great sense since the assistant is closest to the footage and the cut. However, the Motion Picture Editors Guild does not allow assistants to receive more than one credit, so they never get credit for the vast amount of visual effects management that they do. (Unless, of course, they give up their assistant credit.)”

It appears that both our software and our departmental/union infastructures are behind the 8 ball! I swear, someone’s going to solve the former problem and make a lot of money. As for the latter… I have less hope!

Aynsley

[Aynsley Baldwin]

Coooooool. This looks worth checking out. Thanks for the tip!

[Aynsley Baldwin]

Thanks!

[Aynsley Baldwin]

When doing your way, you have DVCPro HD timeline, send to Color, render back to DVCPro HD, then export out of FCP to ProRes. That two steps away from the original media. DVCPro HD to DVCPro HD to ProRes

When rendering straight out of Color to ProRes, you send the DVCPro HD media to Color and render ProRes. That’s only one step away from original media. DVCPro HD to ProRes. Make sense?

I think my question wasn’t clear. Let’s forget the workflow I described for a moment and I’ll propose two new ones. Common to both is that I a) have a DVCPro HD timeline in FCP, b) want to have a ProRes quicktime of the sequence and c) don’t do any colour grading whatsoever. Now in scenario 1) I don’t use Color at all for anything. I export straight from FCP a ProRes quicktime. 2) I send the sequence to Color and export a ProRes quicktime from there.

Is there a difference between these two scenarios?

You answered your own question. ProRes is better for 8 bit original transcodes.

I thought I might have. Just wanted to check as all the artifacts/problems that people described as a result of rendering to ProRes HQ didn’t seem to correspond to what I was seeing. So I was curious to see if something else was going on. Thanks for your help!

Aynsley

[Aynsley Baldwin]

I am contractually obligated to deliver ProRes so keeping it in DVCPro HD is not an option for me. And I don’t have access to Color.

What’s the difference between doing the transcode from DVCPro HD in Color and rendering it straight out to ProRes from FCP?

Also, while I’m on the topic, I started looking into all this in the first place because I noticed that when I exported to ProRes HQ, none of the colour grading seemed to be retained. Everything looked less saturated/more washed out than a) what was in my FCP timeline as well as b) a standard ProRes export. The HQ Prores compared to standard reminded me of how a raw RED file might look compared to a graded one, or how an HD master transferred from 35mm Dmin/Dmax might compare to colour graded dailies. What I’m getting at is that I wondered if the washed out look I noticed in the HQ version was actually my seeing more colour information retained.

I decided not to use HQ in the end because, even if it was retaining more colour information, the material had already been graded and wasn’t going to be again. I had to hand something over that looked finished, not raw. Then I read all the advice against transcoding to HQ from 8 bit formats and felt I had made the right decision, but I’m wondering if my reasons were misguided. I’m curious about the cause for the difference in image quality that I noticed between the two versions of the ProRes codec.

Thanks!
Aynsley

[Aynsley Baldwin]

I’ve been reading a lot here about converting DVCPro HD to ProRes using Color. Let’s say you’re not doing any color grading (or it’s been done by someone else in Color in DVCPro HD and returned to you in that codec), any reason not to export to ProRes directly from FCP?

[Aynsley Baldwin]

I second that thank-you!!!

[Aynsley Baldwin]

Thanks so much for the great and speedy advice! I’ll definitely look into those third party solutions.

As for problem #2, a lot of this footage was salvaged off a drive that bit the dust (no backup). I think that is likely the reason for the wonky media. Though I guess there is a chance that the solution for my 1st problem might also work for the 2nd. Probably not too likely, but possible.

And I appreciate your sympathy. It’s definitely not ideal to receive media like this! Though I myself didn’t know about Shotput P2 and wish more people did! Thanks for the tip, and the link to your demo!

Cheers,
Aynsley

[Aynsley Baldwin]

Hey there,

I am also having this problem and have been reading other threads of the same nature. It seems that everyone, including me, as able to temporarily solve the problem by some seemingly arbitrary means or other. I’m wondering if any of the posters in this thread who solved their issue solved it permanently or did the problem reappear later?

Cheers,
Aynsley