Shane Ross
Forum Replies Created
-
DNxHD 145…or Cineform. Any conversion will lose some quality, but these are pretty good formats… DNxHD 145 is used for broadcast work as a final delivery codec, and Cineform is a fairly lossless codec as well.
.WAV is an audio format…
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
A 3 TB bare drive will run you $120. Get a drive dock and now you have access to inexpensive archive solutions…bare drives. I do this.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Your version of Avid is too old to import footage from this very new camera and new format. You’ll have to use an outside converter to convert it to DNxHD 175x or 220x to maintain the 10 bit depth, or update your version of Avid. Older edit software and newer camera formats always have issues with compatibility
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
What you see on your computer display will never look like what you have on your broadcast monitor. Players play different, is your display color balanced…stuff like that. So yes, bringing in the export via AMA link and checking in on the Broadcast monitor and comparing to your timeline will be the only real way to compare.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
What are you looking at when you export? Looking at this in QUicktime? VLC player? Something else? QT is far from accurate..
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
For best quality you need to run this through an Alchemist. It’s the best option for frame rate conversions…mainly standards conversions. Getting those cameras to the same settings in order to GROUP them…and look good, yeah, that might be the best bet.
On your own you can see about converting the footage to 23.98 first…dropping one frame per second. And then converting to 59.94i. 23.98 to 59.94i is relatively easy, and very common. This is the process of adding pulldown. Getting feature films onto interlaced tape…very common. Blends the frames into the fields. So yeah, two stage process…
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
It can’t be explained…sorry. I don’t know what you have to start with…where you need to work from. And even then, that means that I’d have to attempt to do it, and then explain the process. Coloring like that is a lot of fiddling with knobs and balls in various directions to see what works. You have colors in those directions, so you know where you are pushing them, but to explain where to push, how much…without seeing the source…very difficult.
Might need to read up on color correction theory and do a couple tutorials and then try yourself, or hire someone.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Cinematic presets are VERY RARELY used, if at all, in most professional video. Shot by shot color correction is done by trained professionals. And has to be as the varying lighting conditions of this project alone are demanding. You might have someone even out the shots and make them match, and then create a look that they then apply to all. But rarely does one just put a preset on footage and call it a day.
Not trying to be snarky or elitist, but presets are rarely used. And if they are used (I’ve used them when starting out grading)…the shots are first balanced so they matched, as I stated. And then I added a preset. MANY MANY companies make these…Red Giant, Sapphire, Boris…many more.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
You can AMA link and transcode, but you need to buy an AMA plugin to do that, as Sony doesn’t develop one anymore. It’s been handed off to Nablet…
https://www.nablet.com/ama-plugins/
So you’ll need to buy that, and then you can AMA link and transcode to offline proxies for editing, and then relink to the masters in Resolve. OR…use Resolve to create Avid media. Since you are going back…
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Video playing software is an issue…monitors are an issue…pretty much every different variable is an issue. A file will look washed out on Quicktime, but great in VLC. And yes, different monitors will show different colors and different quality. I had two different monitors on the same computer once and it was HORRIBLE…they didn’t match. I had to go get another of the same brand. Go to a computer store and look at all the monitors…if they show the same thing (they often do), you’ll see a difference in quality on all of them. And then how that monitor is calibrated on the system is a point. And yes, Windows vs Mac is a big point.
And then there’s the issue of web browsers…upload a file to Vimeo, and if you look at it on Chrome, it looks better than it does on Safari, and Firefox. Their built in players are slightly different.
When I work on my projects, I output to a broadcast monitor via a BMD card. Looks great. I export that as a full res file and deliver that to the network. But then from there, they compress it, and stream it to various cable companies, who have their own compression for delivery. So what a producer in NY sees on his TV is very different than what I see on mine. Not only because of the cable company compression, but also his TV…it’s different from mine. And might not be calibrated, or calibrated different. Also different brand, so different colors. Go to Best Buy, look at the wall of TVs…all different looks.
The best you can do is make it look good on your system…hopefully properly calibrated so you know that what you have looks good. HOW it looks once you release it into the wild is largely out of your control. Yeah, I hate that too.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def