[Trevor Gilchrist]

That is terrible news. But thank you for the reply. Unfortunately I had no involvement in the original DIT process, so was given this to sort out. I’m going to try importing an XML of the FCPX edit into Resolve (my home territory) and see if I can do the replace there.

Thanks for the help.

[Trevor Gilchrist]

To all of you; thank you.

To Oliver: yes indeed. The mistake I was making was to NOT switch the inspector to the right set of data, so it appeared that the offending ProRes 1080 clips had no Log Processing setting at all.

Highlighting an Arri Raw clip seems to force FCP to switch to showthe inspector to show that data, but anything else and you have to manually change the inspector to its “Settings” display to reveal (ta-dah!) that indeed the proxy clips ALSO had Arri Log C LUT applied somewhere along the way.

Who knew? (well not me, obviously)

So one click and all my problems are solved. Thank you so much.

Thanks again Eugeny, Noah and Oliver for helping rescue what looked like a nasty weekend ahead. Greatlyappreciated.

[Trevor Gilchrist]

Thank you Eugeny and Noah for your replies.

The “Log Processing” is indeed automatically turned on as ARRI Log C for the raw footage, but that’s not what I’m having the problem with.

On location; in the DIT truck; the guy was ingesting the raw from the Alexas; syncing the supplied audio from sound; un-squashing the anamorphism; running very basic grading for shadows and highlights and only THEN, rendering out 1080 ProRes 4.2.2. “editorial” versions that I could take with me on a drive for FCPX.

I watched him do it. Saved me having to do all those steps myself with full 4K monster, anamorphic files.

It’s THESE 1080 ProRes files that look perfect in QT, but dreadful in FCPX. And of course, as they are ProRes, there is no “Log Processing” option available in the Inspector…

I have the origibal RAW footage. I can re-sync all the audio (there’s a lot). I can do everything I have to do to make a new set of 1080 proxies. But I thought I had already been given them and QT says I have!

It’s only FCPX that doesn’t want to see them for what they are.

I hope that makes sense? The problem at least…

Thanks for your attention and patience in this.

[Trevor Gilchrist]

Adam. Wow. What can I say? Such generosity to make a whole video tutorial…. I cannot thank you enough for paying it forward with such thoroughness. This is so logical, doable and within my skill set (once one knows how).

Thank you. I will post my results here as I go, just in case anyone else can benefit in the future.

My route to a solid shape is now clear and defined. I won’t lie to you — I would LOVE to see how you’d approach the process of suggesting the actual structure of the piece, namely that its made from a single sheet of folded corrugated card…

I have no need to animate it or even unfold it, particularly, but the suggestion of thickness… double layers and etc. I would be fascinated to see.

I completely understand if that’s asking too much — I truly don’t want to exploit, but you went and spoiled me with such a great video… 🙂

Thank you again.

[Trevor Gilchrist]

I’ve been able to fudge some improvements, using yet more booles etc., but there HAS to be a more scientific approach…

[Trevor Gilchrist]

So, here’s a conundrum then (if anyone still has the patience to help me understand…)

1. The footage baked at 59.94 is RED Raw and therefore can’t be opened directly in Compressor.
2. The footage is 4800 x 2700 frame size, which is not a format I’ve seen before and not one offered as a project size in FCPX, so I can’t “Share” to Compressor from the timeline (which would have to be my future workflow, surely?)
3. The proxies that FCPX creates are 50% size of the original, so 2400 x 1350 (some “proxy, huh”)

I can only assume I have to do a Compressor test using the Proxy, though that can’t give me any sort of accurate representation or hope of a useable future workflow.

Thank you Mr “DP”

[Trevor Gilchrist]

Very wise.
I will try, then report findings back here in case it’s of use to someone, similarly scuppered, in the future.

Thanks everyone for the help and education thus far. This is my first RED project, but it won’t be my last.

[Trevor Gilchrist]

Thanks Bret, thanks Jeremy.
Yes, I’m starting to understand the “baked in-ness” of it all now.
I’m so angry at the DP, but a reshoot is impossible.
So the look will be the look, I guess.

I haven’t tried the Compressor approach, simply because I know that processing 110, 5K clips, up to 12mins each, will send me a month over my deadline…

Many thanksfor your help.

live n learn, right?

[Trevor Gilchrist]

Thanks Andy,
Only because the project was started as such and uses a great deal of ProRes 422 transcoded from the 5D. In fact, it’s the contrast to the beautiful filmic look of the 5D footage that is the most jarring.

Wish we’d done the whole thing on those…

[Trevor Gilchrist]

Hi,

I found this expression of yours (with its amendment) and really like the movement it produces. Thanks.
Is there any way (as a non-coder), I could use the output of this to move a null a specified number of pixels on the x axis “in sync” with the ticking second hand.

So, in layman’s terms: every tick os the clock, moves the null 20px to the left, but with the same timing that this script produces (ie, at the “end of the second”? I’m basically trying to make it look like the second hand is locked to — and “driving” — a flat panel across the screen)

If you’re still around I’d love to know how to do this.

Many thanks.

(And to Dan Ebberts, your far simpler expression is, as always, so elegant, but on anything uniform, like a cog, produces no sense of movement. The cog turns, but one doesn’t get a sense of it actually turning… If that makes sense)