[Bruce Greene]

[Sean ONeil] “I’m not 100% clear on your workflow. Is this for OFFLINE editing only? Are you later going to replace the video with the DI scans? If the answer is yes, then you should just use DVCProHD. There’s no downside.”

Yes, it’s for offline only. As far as frame rate goes, I wish there was someone from the post department to say what they would need, but it seems no one will step up to the plate on this…

The one thing that it seems they want is 24fps in the movie camera.

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

I was just thinking that I should check about the whole work flow with some “real” editors.

I’m on location shooting a feature film for the Russian market. We will be shooting 24fps film.

The film will be telecined in an HD format. Someone has suggested Apple prores 422 HQ 1080 23.98 fps. The lab will send a firewire drive to the set for duplication for dailies and the editor in moscow. Sound will not be synced by the lab I understand.

The film will be edited on FCP and the selected takes will be scanned for a DI color correction.

Does this sound like a proper work flow? There seems to be no “editor in charge” at this point to approve the workflow. And what frame rate/ time code should the sound recordist use?

And lastly, they will not be using a smart slate and the sound will have to be synced the old-fashioned way by eye viewing the slate clap.

And one more thing: Would there be any disadvantage in using DVCproHD instead of pro res just for picture editing?

Thanks so much!

-bruce

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

[gary adcock] “[bruce alan greene] “So, now I’ve changed my monitor gamma back to 1.8 to use with FCP and quicktime and all my new video clips are corrected to look right at gamma 1.8…”

NO NO NO….
sorry bruce, ALL video plays on systems and production monitoring at 2.2 this is not a good idea for projects you plan to release to others ( and it will be rejected by standards)
“

Gary, Gary, Gary…:)

I think you might misunderstand me. I’m talking about making quicktimes for viewing on the web here, no standards apply unfortunately. What I was saying is that when viewing 2.2 video in quicktime on the computer screen (not output through a card to a video/broadcast monitor) it looks closest in gamma to the broadcast monitor (output through a card) when the computer monitor is set to gamma 1.8.

And, when creating a quicktime file to be viewed on the web, I have decided to cater to most of my audience who are watching on a mac monitor left at the factory default of gamma 1.8. Hope this makes sense.

[gary adcock] “On your banding Issue, yes there are known compression issues with the 8bit DVCPROHD native color space, especially when working with light color or pastel (high key) gradients, this issue is most notable with sky’s and in underwater environments. IT has nothing to do with FCP per se, but with the compression of the codec itself. “

Agreed, however…I’m not convinced that FCP/quicktime decompresses the data in the same way that the Panasonic decks do. I would test this out, but I don’t have the all the equipment necessary to do so. I’m just a camera guy…not a post production supervisor.

[gary adcock] “These are the area’s when the 8bit native codec just does not hold up and it becomes crucial to work in a true editor and capture the baseband video so that you can work in 10bit. “

My point here was that since it is possible to capture the original compressed data from the camera, it would be nice if one could put the data (after editing) into a 10 bit timeline and do all renders at 10 bit—coming out to the same place as doing an online, albeit with a lot more render time.

It’s my guess, and this is where I need your expertise Gary, is that FCP is flawed in the way it decompresses from DVCproHD so that it locks the poor quality decompression into the file before color correction renders are performed in 10bit uncompressed for example. Of course this is purely my conjecture, not to be confused with fact.

-bruce

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

[Bob Cole] “But I am having a hard time visualizing what you’re saying here:

[Bruce Alan Greene] “I have had custom made a hard case that holds the monitor and has a bale that attaches to the case and mounts the monitor on a baby sized light stand.” “

A picture would be worth a thousands words, but I’ll try it in fewer words.

I removed the table stand from my monitor and placed the monitor in a foam cushion which in turn is fitted into an “anvil” style equipment case. The case of course is open so that you can view the monitor and there is a large hole in the back to access the inputs etc. The top of the case has a carrying handle. On the outer sides of the case, there is a bale to mount the whole assembly onto a lighting stand. The bale is similar in concept to the “u” shaped bracket that holds movie lights on light stands.

I also checked out the website for the computer scope and it looks like you’ll need a camera that has firewire output to use with it, or you’ll need a desktop computer and HD capture card. This set-up should yield accurate scopes, but not really accurate color. It does not yet work with HDV, so it looks like it will only work with mini-dv cameras and panasonic HD cameras with firewire outputs.

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

[Tim Kolb] ”
Are you viewing camera play-out on a computer display through a computer display card?

The only way to tell would be to take the content back to tape and to play it out of the camera on the monitor you’ve been using out of the camera.

I think if you could play it out to your video monitor via a video I/O card, it would probably be closer to what you expect. We have an FCP system here using CRTs as displays and I would say that I see banding relatively often compared to my PC system…but the video out through the AJA IO doesn’t usually have it in evidence nearly as overtly. “

Thanks Tim,

Unfortunately, I don’t have an in/out card or a deck to record on.

That said, even if the i/o card can deliver a better decompression (and I believe you that it does) the important question is whether it is safe to do any rendering from the original data in FCP? I ask this because it looks to me that once FCP decompresses the DVCproHD, the banding is rendered into the product, even when rendering to an “uncompressed” codec. And if this is true, then the only way to preserve the true quality of the image is to re-capture all the footage via i/o card into an uncompressed codec for all color correction and rendering. That’s kind of a bummer…

-bruce

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

[john sharaf] “One thing in particular, I’ve noticed lately, because more and more of our work finds itself on the web, is that the PC and Mac have different gammas, such that what looks good on a Mac, looks dark on a PC. This is exactly what I’m talking about in terms of playing well with each other; this is an inherent hardware difference (no gamma standard) which is not accounted for in the software that’s used to exhibit the product, and I see no solution, and very little discussion of this important matter. “

John,

It’s not really a hardware issue, but a legacy of software preferences. Macs default out of the box to gamma 1.8, even though the display hardware is more close to native gamma 2.2. But it’s quite possible to set a mac gamma to 2.2 or anything else in the monitor control panel.

I’m on a mac and for a long time I had my monitor set to gamma 2.2 so that all the images on the web would look the proper gamma (at least more of the time). Photoshop is monitor gamma aware so that it doesn’t change the appearance of images in photoshop, but the web is a color free for all.

Then, I discovered that FCP and quicktime (for the mac at least) assumes that your monitor is set to gamma 1.8 to display video. Even though video color-space is really 2.2, quicktime converts it for play back at gamma 1.8. Since quicktime is an Apple product one would think that it would use color sync to check for the monitor gamma, but it does not.

The result is that on my website, all the still photos were made for gamma 2.2 when I thought that most viewers would be using windows (i.e.. pc’s at gamma 2.2) as well as my early video clips (I corrected them for viewing at gamma 2.2). Then, from looking at my website visitor log, I’ve noticed that 75% of visitors that view the videos use a mac, and assuming that they don’t change the display gamma from how it came, are viewing on gamma 1.8 displays.

So, now I’ve changed my monitor gamma back to 1.8 to use with FCP and quicktime and all my new video clips are corrected to look right at gamma 1.8…

It’s a goofy, goofy gamma world.

-bruce

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

Hi Bob,

I use a Panasonic 17″ LCD with my Varicam.

I think it’s a good choice but I have had custom made a hard case that holds the monitor and has a bale that attaches to the case and mounts the monitor on a baby sized light stand. This is to both protect the monitor and allow it to be mounted on a stand and pan and tilt for viewing angle. I’ve also constructed a viewing hood out of corrugated black plastic that fits nicely onto the case. I’ve also mounted a baby light spud on a piece of plywood to use the monitor on a table top as well. And this whole case fits into it’s own shipping case too. Be warned that the screen can easily be damaged. I sometimes velcro a sheet of plexi over the screen to protect it from sloppy crew members and directors who love to touch the screen! And keep a sand bag on that monitor stand also.

The monitor itself gives a pretty good image, though the blacks (as usual with LCD) can be a little bit milky looking when viewed in a very dark room. Color accuracy is pretty good, but not perfect. I feel it’s good enough though to tweak colors in the field, especially if post color grading will be done as well. There is also a basic waveform monitor built in which can come in handy.

This monitor has connections for almost every video interface with the exception of DVI/HDMI. Audio over HDSDI is an optional board.

The monitor is quite good for judging focus, even when fed 1080 SDI (sony f-900) for example. In fact, it shows focus better for 1080 than a 24″ sony hd crt even though it’s a 720p native display. SD images look quite good as well when sent over SDI. Composite video is pretty mushy though.

And lastly, the monitor will work on DC power. Mine will work for a couple hours powered off a dionic 90 type battery (must supply your own battery cradle and 4 pin power cable though).

Hope this helps with your choice.

-bruce

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

[john sharaf] “Perhaps it has something to do with the monitor you’re viewing on; a scaling issue. I would venture to say that DVCPRO100 is DVCPRO100 and when you import to FCP you’re bringing in data, not video and the codec in the NLE which converts it to picture is the same as the one in the camera”

Hi John,

That’s what I used to think…now I’m not so sure. I don’t think it’s a scaling issue as I’m displaying fcp on a sony CRT computer display. I’ve even output still frames to photoshop and the banding is clear in the photoshop version as well. What I’m calling “banding” may well just be the compression blocking as viewed in a smooth gradient…

So, I’m really suspecting that the decompression in the FCP codec is less pleasing to look at that the hardware codec in the Panasonic equipment.

The one test I can’t do is to play a DVCproHD clip from fcp through a kona card and into my Panasonic 17″ HD monitor because I don’t have a kona card and will need to upgrade the whole computer to add one 🙁 I guess my thinking here is that the Kona card does the decompression rather than FCP. Does the Kona card work this way?

-bruce

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com

[Bruce Greene]

Thanks all for the advice!

Putting the clips into a “new” project did the trick.

That said, there are jumps in the motion and looking back at the original footage, I found many random “duplicate” frames even though I shot at 60fps.

Is this a problem with the capture? IOW, FCP set to ignore dropped frames?
Or could this be a problem with the camera?

-bruce

[Bruce Greene]

[Tom Brooks] “Just to clarify, you have selected a clip in the Browser, then clicked on the FRC? Nothing? “

Yup.

Varicam/Steadicam Owner
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.brucealangreene.com