[Max Jackson]

Something I should print out.

Thanks Michael!

[Max Jackson]

Ohhhhhh, so that’s what the Options mean up at the top for Emitter and Shadow.

That must be connected. That’s cool. Glad I asked, I never would have figured that out on my own.

Thanks you guys!! 😀

[Max Jackson]

Ahh, I see. The naming convention is the “enabler” so to speak.

Is this the only instance of this kind of convention where naming determines the functionality of a layer, light or otherwise? I guess that’s a lot to ask since John said it’s particular to Particular? …har, har.

[Max Jackson]

ohhhh, okay. That’s what people mean by first and secondary CC.

But in the primary, how do I know all colors are the same? I just go be a vectorscope and if so what’s ballpark?

Where can I learn what people see on a daily basis? I wish there was an online tutorial just showing common every day CC process using After Effects. That is primary CC. So glad to know that term.

Thanks Mr. LaRonde! 😀

[Max Jackson]

Okay, so learning color correction really is like using a ruler.

It’s just getting to know the tools “Vectorscope and Waveform Monitor” and that = color correcting?

K, I’ll look into Vectorscope and Waveform Monitor process.

Thanks Mr. LaRonde.

[Max Jackson]

Right, but beyond software what process is used step-by-step to get the job done?

Is color artistry just a “that looks like it needs/has too much…” kind of process?

When one color matches for compositing they handle contrast, each color RG and B, and then highlights etc.

But you can’t do that in straight color correction because there’s nothing to compare it too?

Is there no standard technique for this process?

Thanks for the link though, I’ll check out RGB Parade.

[Max Jackson]

Okay, anything I have to read twice I’ll be sure to post in the main forum.

As I understanding it, operating in linear light is operating with a gamma value of one. The reason being, working with any exponent value of light is then multiplied by one which equals itself, hence – linear. Anything not 1.0 is considered perceptual and not absolute.

That being said using Screen which has a formula of 1-((1-A) * (1-B)) is well…A whole lot of ones…multiplying +/- which behaves a lot the same (identical multiplication) from the sound of it. That is unlike Add which is A+B.

The result in applying a Screen mode is light values remain blending transparency without additional “light”.

Am I warm?

[Max Jackson]

I see, so the guts of it is watching for an undesired halo effect based on the importing/exporting between software because not all software can export transparent images with straight unmultiplied aliasing.

Wow, that’s a long one.

I got it, right? Is it mostly a Quicktime thing to look for?

[Max Jackson]

(After reading)

Ahhh, I think I get more from this now. So premultiplied is kind-of a technical word for matte-transparency. Which in plain English makes very little sense.

The matte color in the example you gave is black, hence the premultiplied aliasing is black. If it were white or red, it would thusly preserve an alias of that color instead, correct?

As for use, it seems like it’s mostly an importing protocol that prevents a halo affect. Right? That’s how one might tell they’ve picked the wrong import setting. I’m still a little fuzzy on the purpose on one versus the other though.

[Max Jackson]

+1

I just read this brilliant post and can see it working while I write it down in my notebook. Just sublime, brilliant and so simple.

The spill suppression bonus is just darn good stuff too.