Saturday, January 10, 2015

[Avid-L2] Re: Using Resolve to add Lut to Camera Log C Render time of Red Rock

 

Just FYI - with MC 8.3, you can apply a LUT effect to the top layer on the timeline and apply any LUT you like.

- Oliver

__._,_.___

Posted by: Oliver Peters <oliverpeters@oliverpeters.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] HDR at last!

 

Netflix to Introduce High Dynamic Range to its 4K Streaming - ETCentric


__._,_.___

Posted by: tcurren@aol.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Install AMA plug-in dilemna

 

Hey Mark,
Thanks so much.  The XDCAM plug-ins you provided installed perfectly.
Best,
Craig Mikhitarian
ACM Productions, Ltd.

__._,_.___

Posted by: CraigACM@aol.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)

.

__,_._,___

Friday, January 9, 2015

Re: [Avid-L2] Install AMA plug-in dilemna

 

MC 7.0.4 is qualified for 10.7.5 - the version of installer I have for XDCAM from when I used 7.0.3 and Mac OS 10.7.5 is 3.21.

I put the installer here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4mWRJYnme1HV0Jramdwem5zbVk/view?usp=sharing

Sony's site isn't great for keeping older versions of their software. Fortunately I still have it - see how it works for you…


On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:38 PM, CraigACM@aol.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

I'm just upgrading from 6.5 to 7.0.4  (my older MacPro not qualified for version 8).
Hit two immediate stumbling blocks:
On opening MC I was alerted that 3 AMA plug-ins were no longer compatible and I should remove and replace them.  I found the 3 XDCAM plugs and trashed them and navigated to the Sony site to download the XDCAM 3.32 AMA plugin.

But when I tried to install it, it told me it wasn't compatible with my OS (10.7.5), and I needed to upgrade to 10.8.  Sony's site says the AMA plug-in "supports the same OS versions supported by Avid NLE products" and MC7.0.4 is supposed to be qualified with OS 10.7.5.  But the only other plug-in shown on Sony's site is version 2.4 for MC 6.5 -- I think that was what I originally had before this new installation -- I tried it anyway and again got the Avid message that this plugin was not compatible.  (I'm not prepared to do a whole new OS install at this point -- I'll revert back to 6.5 unless someone has a solution.)

One other annoying problem --  the window that Avid opens to their website when you click on the Marketplace/AMA Plug-ins menu is tucked way up in the left corner of the screen underneath the main menu bar.   I can drag the bottom corner to expand and work with it, but I can't pull it down away from the menu bar or access the top of the window to be able to close the damn thing!  I finally got rid of it by re-selecting my workspace to refresh the screen. 

Would certainly appreciate any advice!
Thanks,

Craig Mikhitarian
ACM Productions, Ltd.



__._,_.___

Posted by: Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Using Resolve to add Lut to Camera Log C Render time of Red Rocket vs GTX-680?

 

Where's you sense of adventure?  ;-)  You probably only run qualified configurations too!!!



---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

Sorry, we keep all our Media Composers on the same version.  Well, at least the same major version.  There have been times that some systems will be running a different point version, but not often.

Jay


On Jan 9, 2015, at 5:15 PM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



That makes a lot of sense to use the LUT as reference then start from scratch.  I assume that makes the DP happy with the offline media look and the colorist happy to have a reference to see the intentions from the set.  The inability to AAF with a LUT seems like something Avid should rework if possible.  Have you had occasion to take a sequence back to Ver. 6.5 latest patch to see if the LUTs create issues there or are they ignored?  I know frame flex comes in as an unrecognized effect and is ignored.


---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

not removing the LUT means that each event is an effect shot and doesn't relink to any media.  Remove the LUTs before making the AAF and going to Luster or Resolve is a champ.  

As for the on set LUTs go, we bake them into our dailies.  Use that in the offline and make our reference QTs with that material.  But in the grading suite the colorist typically drop the on set LUT on a scene, see what's happening, then remove them and start grading from scratch so they can have full control.  

Jay

On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:55 PM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



If you don't remove the LUTs do they show up in the Luster or Resolve or does their presence corrupt the aaf so it is unusable.  I would think they could remove the aaf LUTs in their grading tool but I don't know for sure.  What flaw specifically happens with the LUTs left in?

Typically the DITs give us DNX 36 with LUT baked in and DNX 220X for the full rezz.  Given I'm on Ver. 5.5.4 I can't add the LUT in Avid so I prebake to save time.  Oliver pointed out this might add some degradation to the media as opposed to just color correcting the raw and compensating for the LUT with the color correction.  I get a little iffy about all the pulling and stretching I have to do when the media is not pre LUTed, perhaps pulling setup down -40 and pushing gain to 150 and more on some shots isn't adding more noise/degradation to the image than pre LUTing the media and having more modest correction values in Symphony but for the sake of expediency it's what I've been doing.  

I'm not around on the production side of things but back in the film days wasn't the "Look" determined by the lighting, lens choices with filters and the film stock.  I know the dailies usually got a one light print and color timing was done later in the post process.  Is it the speed at which changes can be made using LUTs on set that makes them more efficient.  I realize that with camera raw file formats a viewing LUT is required to make the image viewable on the set monitors but how elaborate are DPs making LUTs for individual scenes etc...?  I would think that the video village isn't always the most suitable environment for making critical LUT adjustments but I'm not on set.  In practice how strictly are the on set LUTs adhered to in post?  They seem like a rough starting point but so far I don't work on many projects that involve LUTs  so I don't know what the common approach to LUTs is in post on features or episodic work.  In practice do these LUTs save time in the long run?



---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

well, actually there is a good reason to not use the LUT feature in MC.  On our shows we are not doing the grade in MC/Symphony.  The grading work goes to an outside vendor and depending on which one the grade is done in Luster or Resolve.  So we do our offline in DNx36.  When you use the LUT feature in MC and go to make a AAF for transferring to Luster or Resolve you have to first remove all the LUT settings so you can do the link back to the ProRes4444 camera masters.  So when I do that everyone on our Unity system sees the LUT go away and starts to bitch.  So after I make the AAF I would have to go back and reapply the LUT to all the shots.  Now, if I'm lucky, the show is using one master look LUT and that would be the only thing I need to apply to all the clips, but I'm not a lucky guy is seems.  So at the very least, each scene has it's own LUT.  And often there are different LUTs for different setups with in the scene.  DPs do love their look LUT toys.  So it becomes a huge PITA.  Easy solution?  Bake the LUT in while making the offline media.  If you decide that the on set LUT looks like crap just reprocess that media through Resolve.

As a note we are about to upgrade to v8 so maybe some of this will change.

Jay



On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:59 PM, oliverpeters@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



BTW - why are you baking in the LUT to a master-quality file? Are you planning to grade with that? (Not a good idea.) You could add the LUT within MC if you wanted to.

- Oliver









__._,_.___

Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (15)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Using Resolve to add Lut to Camera Log C Render time of Red Rocket vs GTX-680?

 

Sorry, we keep all our Media Composers on the same version.  Well, at least the same major version.  There have been times that some systems will be running a different point version, but not often.

Jay


On Jan 9, 2015, at 5:15 PM, bigfish@pacbell.net [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



That makes a lot of sense to use the LUT as reference then start from scratch.  I assume that makes the DP happy with the offline media look and the colorist happy to have a reference to see the intentions from the set.  The inability to AAF with a LUT seems like something Avid should rework if possible.  Have you had occasion to take a sequence back to Ver. 6.5 latest patch to see if the LUTs create issues there or are they ignored?  I know frame flex comes in as an unrecognized effect and is ignored.


---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

not removing the LUT means that each event is an effect shot and doesn't relink to any media.  Remove the LUTs before making the AAF and going to Luster or Resolve is a champ.  

As for the on set LUTs go, we bake them into our dailies.  Use that in the offline and make our reference QTs with that material.  But in the grading suite the colorist typically drop the on set LUT on a scene, see what's happening, then remove them and start grading from scratch so they can have full control.  

Jay

On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:55 PM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



If you don't remove the LUTs do they show up in the Luster or Resolve or does their presence corrupt the aaf so it is unusable.  I would think they could remove the aaf LUTs in their grading tool but I don't know for sure.  What flaw specifically happens with the LUTs left in?

Typically the DITs give us DNX 36 with LUT baked in and DNX 220X for the full rezz.  Given I'm on Ver. 5.5.4 I can't add the LUT in Avid so I prebake to save time.  Oliver pointed out this might add some degradation to the media as opposed to just color correcting the raw and compensating for the LUT with the color correction.  I get a little iffy about all the pulling and stretching I have to do when the media is not pre LUTed, perhaps pulling setup down -40 and pushing gain to 150 and more on some shots isn't adding more noise/degradation to the image than pre LUTing the media and having more modest correction values in Symphony but for the sake of expediency it's what I've been doing.  

I'm not around on the production side of things but back in the film days wasn't the "Look" determined by the lighting, lens choices with filters and the film stock.  I know the dailies usually got a one light print and color timing was done later in the post process.  Is it the speed at which changes can be made using LUTs on set that makes them more efficient.  I realize that with camera raw file formats a viewing LUT is required to make the image viewable on the set monitors but how elaborate are DPs making LUTs for individual scenes etc...?  I would think that the video village isn't always the most suitable environment for making critical LUT adjustments but I'm not on set.  In practice how strictly are the on set LUTs adhered to in post?  They seem like a rough starting point but so far I don't work on many projects that involve LUTs  so I don't know what the common approach to LUTs is in post on features or episodic work.  In practice do these LUTs save time in the long run?



---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

well, actually there is a good reason to not use the LUT feature in MC.  On our shows we are not doing the grade in MC/Symphony.  The grading work goes to an outside vendor and depending on which one the grade is done in Luster or Resolve.  So we do our offline in DNx36.  When you use the LUT feature in MC and go to make a AAF for transferring to Luster or Resolve you have to first remove all the LUT settings so you can do the link back to the ProRes4444 camera masters.  So when I do that everyone on our Unity system sees the LUT go away and starts to bitch.  So after I make the AAF I would have to go back and reapply the LUT to all the shots.  Now, if I'm lucky, the show is using one master look LUT and that would be the only thing I need to apply to all the clips, but I'm not a lucky guy is seems.  So at the very least, each scene has it's own LUT.  And often there are different LUTs for different setups with in the scene.  DPs do love their look LUT toys.  So it becomes a huge PITA.  Easy solution?  Bake the LUT in while making the offline media.  If you decide that the on set LUT looks like crap just reprocess that media through Resolve.

As a note we are about to upgrade to v8 so maybe some of this will change.

Jay



On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:59 PM, oliverpeters@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



BTW - why are you baking in the LUT to a master-quality file? Are you planning to grade with that? (Not a good idea.) You could add the LUT within MC if you wanted to.

- Oliver









__._,_.___

Posted by: Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@earthlink.net>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (14)

.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Install AMA plug-in dilemna

 

I'm just upgrading from 6.5 to 7.0.4  (my older MacPro not qualified for version 8).
Hit two immediate stumbling blocks:
On opening MC I was alerted that 3 AMA plug-ins were no longer compatible and I should remove and replace them.  I found the 3 XDCAM plugs and trashed them and navigated to the Sony site to download the XDCAM 3.32 AMA plugin.

But when I tried to install it, it told me it wasn't compatible with my OS (10.7.5), and I needed to upgrade to 10.8.  Sony's site says the AMA plug-in "supports the same OS versions supported by Avid NLE products" and MC7.0.4 is supposed to be qualified with OS 10.7.5.  But the only other plug-in shown on Sony's site is version 2.4 for MC 6.5 -- I think that was what I originally had before this new installation -- I tried it anyway and again got the Avid message that this plugin was not compatible.  (I'm not prepared to do a whole new OS install at this point -- I'll revert back to 6.5 unless someone has a solution.)

One other annoying problem --  the window that Avid opens to their website when you click on the Marketplace/AMA Plug-ins menu is tucked way up in the left corner of the screen underneath the main menu bar.   I can drag the bottom corner to expand and work with it, but I can't pull it down away from the menu bar or access the top of the window to be able to close the damn thing!  I finally got rid of it by re-selecting my workspace to refresh the screen. 

Would certainly appreciate any advice!
Thanks,

Craig Mikhitarian
ACM Productions, Ltd.


__._,_.___

Posted by: CraigACM@aol.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Using Resolve to add Lut to Camera Log C Render time of Red Rocket vs GTX-680?

 

That makes a lot of sense to use the LUT as reference then start from scratch.  I assume that makes the DP happy with the offline media look and the colorist happy to have a reference to see the intentions from the set.  The inability to AAF with a LUT seems like something Avid should rework if possible.  Have you had occasion to take a sequence back to Ver. 6.5 latest patch to see if the LUTs create issues there or are they ignored?  I know frame flex comes in as an unrecognized effect and is ignored.



---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

not removing the LUT means that each event is an effect shot and doesn't relink to any media.  Remove the LUTs before making the AAF and going to Luster or Resolve is a champ.  

As for the on set LUTs go, we bake them into our dailies.  Use that in the offline and make our reference QTs with that material.  But in the grading suite the colorist typically drop the on set LUT on a scene, see what's happening, then remove them and start grading from scratch so they can have full control.  

Jay

On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:55 PM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



If you don't remove the LUTs do they show up in the Luster or Resolve or does their presence corrupt the aaf so it is unusable.  I would think they could remove the aaf LUTs in their grading tool but I don't know for sure.  What flaw specifically happens with the LUTs left in?

Typically the DITs give us DNX 36 with LUT baked in and DNX 220X for the full rezz.  Given I'm on Ver. 5.5.4 I can't add the LUT in Avid so I prebake to save time.  Oliver pointed out this might add some degradation to the media as opposed to just color correcting the raw and compensating for the LUT with the color correction.  I get a little iffy about all the pulling and stretching I have to do when the media is not pre LUTed, perhaps pulling setup down -40 and pushing gain to 150 and more on some shots isn't adding more noise/degradation to the image than pre LUTing the media and having more modest correction values in Symphony but for the sake of expediency it's what I've been doing.  

I'm not around on the production side of things but back in the film days wasn't the "Look" determined by the lighting, lens choices with filters and the film stock.  I know the dailies usually got a one light print and color timing was done later in the post process.  Is it the speed at which changes can be made using LUTs on set that makes them more efficient.  I realize that with camera raw file formats a viewing LUT is required to make the image viewable on the set monitors but how elaborate are DPs making LUTs for individual scenes etc...?  I would think that the video village isn't always the most suitable environment for making critical LUT adjustments but I'm not on set.  In practice how strictly are the on set LUTs adhered to in post?  They seem like a rough starting point but so far I don't work on many projects that involve LUTs  so I don't know what the common approach to LUTs is in post on features or episodic work.  In practice do these LUTs save time in the long run?



---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

well, actually there is a good reason to not use the LUT feature in MC.  On our shows we are not doing the grade in MC/Symphony.  The grading work goes to an outside vendor and depending on which one the grade is done in Luster or Resolve.  So we do our offline in DNx36.  When you use the LUT feature in MC and go to make a AAF for transferring to Luster or Resolve you have to first remove all the LUT settings so you can do the link back to the ProRes4444 camera masters.  So when I do that everyone on our Unity system sees the LUT go away and starts to bitch.  So after I make the AAF I would have to go back and reapply the LUT to all the shots.  Now, if I'm lucky, the show is using one master look LUT and that would be the only thing I need to apply to all the clips, but I'm not a lucky guy is seems.  So at the very least, each scene has it's own LUT.  And often there are different LUTs for different setups with in the scene.  DPs do love their look LUT toys.  So it becomes a huge PITA.  Easy solution?  Bake the LUT in while making the offline media.  If you decide that the on set LUT looks like crap just reprocess that media through Resolve.

As a note we are about to upgrade to v8 so maybe some of this will change.

Jay



On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:59 PM, oliverpeters@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



BTW - why are you baking in the LUT to a master-quality file? Are you planning to grade with that? (Not a good idea.) You could add the LUT within MC if you wanted to.

- Oliver






__._,_.___

Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (13)

.

__,_._,___
There was an error in this gadget