Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115? Solved thanks to Dave H.

The purpose of 8 bit rendering is speed.  I would be curious if it also allows more effects to be realtime.

As primarily a finishing editor these days I always set to 16 bit.  It's a site setting for me.

If one is doing offline and on a time crunch with a slower machine the 8 bit might help in the case of big and long renders, but with the speed of most computers these days it's probably a lot less impact than in "the good old days".

Dave Hogan

Burbank, CA

On Feb 15, 2020, at 6:00 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

So the culprit was as Dave Hogan suggested the effects processing setting in the media creations render tab. I had unchecked same as source and choose DNX_115 but the effects processing was set to "auto."  Checking 16 bit and the banding goes away on render.  I choose 8 bit to test and the banding returned as it also did if I set it back to "Auto."  From this I assume "auto" effects processing looks at the render choice of DNX_115 not using same as source and decides 16 bit processing is not necessary for a DNX_115 render because it is an 8 bit codec.  Empirical data would suggest this is a wrong assumption.

What is the point of 8 bit processing of effects?  I would think it is to improve real time performance but would it also have an impact on render file sizes?  I wouldn't think effects processing would effect the final size of the  rendered file but would improve processing speed resulting in faster renders.  Would this setting in the render tab effect real time playback or is that solely the timeline quality setting? I'm thinking the effects processing in the render tab would only effect render time.  Seems to me in this day and age it's kind of an out dated concern that might have had more practical use on older system with less cpu power.  I guess because I rarely do anything in 8 bit for delivery I've not noticed this issue.  I'm assuming based on what I've seen that the "Auto" setting will choose 16 bit processing when the render codec is 10 bit like DNX_175X.  Not sure what it would do for DNX 175.  I'll have to try that later.

From now on I will always force 6 bit processing.

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115? Solved thanks to Dave H.

[Edited Message Follows]

So the culprit was as Dave Hogan suggested the effects processing setting in the media creations render tab. I had unchecked same as source and choose DNX_115 but the effects processing was set to "auto."  Checking 16 bit and the banding goes away on render.  I choose 8 bit to test and the banding returned as it also did if I set it back to "Auto."  From this I assume "auto" effects processing looks at the render choice of DNX_115 not using same as source and decides 16 bit processing is not necessary for a DNX_115 render because it is an 8 bit codec.  Empirical data would suggest this is a wrong assumption.

What is the point of 8 bit processing of effects?  I would think it is to improve real time performance but would it also have an impact on render file sizes?  I wouldn't think effects processing would effect the final size of the  rendered file but would improve processing speed resulting in faster renders.  Would this setting in the render tab effect real time playback or is that solely the timeline quality setting? I'm thinking the effects processing in the render tab would only effect render time.  Seems to me in this day and age it's kind of an out dated concern that might have had more practical use on older systems with less cpu power.  I guess because I rarely do anything in 8 bit for delivery I've not noticed this issue.  I'm assuming based on what I've seen that the "Auto" setting will choose 16 bit processing when the render codec is 10 bit like DNX_175X.  Not sure what it would do for DNX 175.  I'll have to try that later.

From now on I will always force 16 bit processing.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134048) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115? Solved thanks to Dave H.

So the culprit was as Dave Hogan suggested the effects processing setting in the media creations render tab. I had unchecked same as source and choose DNX_115 but the effects processing was set to "auto."  Checking 16 bit and the banding goes away on render.  I choose 8 bit to test and the banding returned as it also did if I set it back to "Auto."  From this I assume "auto" effects processing looks at the render choice of DNX_115 not using same as source and decides 16 bit processing is not necessary for a DNX_115 render because it is an 8 bit codec.  Empirical data would suggest this is a wrong assumption.

What is the point of 8 bit processing of effects?  I would think it is to improve real time performance but would it also have an impact on render file sizes?  I wouldn't think effects processing would effect the final size of the  rendered file but would improve processing speed resulting in faster renders.  Would this setting in the render tab effect real time playback or is that solely the timeline quality setting? I'm thinking the effects processing in the render tab would only effect render time.  Seems to me in this day and age it's kind of an out dated concern that might have had more practical use on older system with less cpu power.  I guess because I rarely do anything in 8 bit for delivery I've not noticed this issue.  I'm assuming based on what I've seen that the "Auto" setting will choose 16 bit processing when the render codec is 10 bit like DNX_175X.  Not sure what it would do for DNX 175.  I'll have to try that later.

From now on I will always force 6 bit processing.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134048) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

I would suggest that by linking to the newly created OP1a .mxf file and placing it as the upper layer and doing SAS exports from that with any small changes created that same way as patches, you will be in the same place as with QT ref with potentially some advantages.

Jef

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134047) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

The problem is I have to render to playback for watchdown so by using a QT Ref that utilizes the render media I save time and space.  Plus there are several versions of output that have very slight changes.  The render approach only adds a new render of the changed graphics for a different version.  Overall it saves time and storage space and maintains my upper track safe color render which I use as sort of a sentient mixdown that will show unrendered sections that point out where symphony's relational color correction has changed on a shot.  This functionality allows me to exploit the relational color correction in a manner that I can easily see it's far reaching effects in sections I might not have realized were being effected by a color correction change on a shot that is ties to other shots in the sequence based on src clip name or master clip.

I'm hoping Dave H's suggestion about forcing 16 bit processing will alleviate the banding if not I will have to consider approaches like you are suggesting.


On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:51 AM, Jef Huey wrote:

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:11 PM, John Moore wrote:

get to DNX_115 by rendering an upper track safe color limit to DNX_115.  Then when I export a QT reference the resulting file is referenced to the rendered media which is DNX_115.  I could at that point also do a QT export same as source and it would still be DNX_115.  Think of the safe color render as acting like a video mixdown.

I may be telling you something you already know, but I would test the following:  Instead of rendering the Safe Color, just do the OP1a.mxf output.  By all my tests and everything I have read, that is the fastest way out of Avid.  It will render a sequence as it is outputting to the file and uses all your computers resources to do so.  Plus you now have a real transportable file rather than just a Qt ref file.  And I bet the time will be on par to faster than the render of the Safe Color effect.

Jef

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134046) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:11 PM, John Moore wrote:

get to DNX_115 by rendering an upper track safe color limit to DNX_115.  Then when I export a QT reference the resulting file is referenced to the rendered media which is DNX_115.  I could at that point also do a QT export same as source and it would still be DNX_115.  Think of the safe color render as acting like a video mixdown.

I may be telling you something you already know, but I would test the following:  Instead of rendering the Safe Color, just do the OP1a.mxf output.  By all my tests and everything I have read, that is the fastest way out of Avid.  It will render a sequence as it is outputting to the file and uses all your computers resources to do so.  Plus you now have a real transportable file rather than just a Qt ref file.  And I bet the time will be on par to faster than the render of the Safe Color effect.

Jef

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134045) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

I get to DNX_115 by rendering an upper track safe color limit to DNX_115.  Then when I export a QT reference the resulting file is referenced to the rendered media which is DNX_115.  I could at that point also do a QT export same as source and it would still be DNX_115.  Think of the safe color render as acting like a video mixdown.


On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 07:43 AM, Jef Huey wrote:

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:06 PM, John Moore wrote:

On a current series the delivery is a QT in DNX_115 with 12 tracks of audio.  I'm noticing banding after I render to DNX_115 for my Safe Color Effect.  My timeline is set to 10 bit green.  If the safe color is unrendered no 8 bit artifacts but once I render to DNX_115 there are  bit artifacts on certain shots that have walls with a shallow ramp luminescence.

I may have missed it in this thread but I can not see how you are going to QT in DNX 115 in the first place.  If you are using the old QT export workflow, that could be part of the issue.  Have you tried a OP1a.MXF export yet?  If that is better, then link that export back into Avid and then do a Same As Source export to QT.  How does that look?

As a sidebar, yesterday I was asked to do a quick color fix before delivery on a DNx120 25p show that had just come back in that codec from Resolve.  Show looked fine with the timeline video quality in 8bit (no reason to look set it to 10 bit with DNx 120).  I opened the Symphony color corrector and reduced overall brightness.  As I watch my scopes I immediately saw banding show up on the scopes!  I asked the colorist in Resolve to do the fix.  No issues.  Now one could argue that I was just going to far by color correcting an already color corrected 8bit shot.  But the source BEFORE Resolve was DNx120.  And the Resolve pass did not add any banding.

Bottom line for me, as shown by John's tortured examples, it seems that Avid image processing pipeline has some big issues.  If it is just that we users are using the tool wrong, then Avid should correct us with explicit instructions.  If we are not, then it needs to be fixed.

Jef

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134044) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

That is a great suggestion.  I have unchecked same as source and force it to DNX_115 but I bet I have it set to auto.  I will try that when I get back into the bay.


On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 01:38 AM, Dave Hogan wrote:

Hey John,

 

What about your render settings in Media Creation?  Are they explicitly set to 16 bit or auto?  I always explicitly set to 16 bit so they don’t default to 8 bit.  Also I always turn off Same as Source, because historically AVID has fallen to the lowest quality piece of media in your sequence and rendered at that, especially if you have a low res offline reference in the top layer.

 

Dave Hogan

Burbank, CA

 

On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:42 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

Render settings are set to advanced polyphase for image interpolation, although I I don't know that that applies, for this render.  The motion adapter and timewarp setting are set to original preference.  I also tried just rendering a submaster effect and it created the same banding.  In media creations render tab I uncheck same as source and select DNX_115.  I really think this is related to all the questions in the past about timeline quality's interaction with renders and exports, but again I'm just guessing.  Clearly the code that is rendering a safe color or submaster is not the same code creating the video mixdown.

Given if I set timeline quality to green 8 bit it perfectly matches what I see after the DNX-115 render I really think somewhere under the hood when Avid goes to render DNX_115 it somehow effects the quality of the path heading to the render engine the same way timeline quality effects the output to the monitor.  Again just guessing but it seems render and video mixdown are using different engines or components or whatever the proper term would be.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:43 PM, JBeck wrote:

Have you checked the render quality settings?  JB

Sent from my iTelephone. Please excuse typos. 

 

On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:18 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

This just gets better and better.  If I clear my renders and do a video mixdown to DNX_115 then the results are clean without the banding.  So rendering to DNX_115 creates banding but doing a video mixdown doesn't?  It would seem the two seemingly identical processes are in fact different under the hood.  Is there some different code for renders that is flawed as opposed to video mixdowns?  How can any of this be something I have to deal with on a Friday afternoon?  I know they made video mixdowns render much faster and more efficiently years back but I wouldn't think they'd leave renders with sub performing code.

I'm on MC 2018.12.7 on a MacPro mid 2010 upgraded to 12 core 3.33GHz, 3.2GB ram, GTX-680 Mac OS 10.12.6.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134043) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:06 PM, John Moore wrote:

On a current series the delivery is a QT in DNX_115 with 12 tracks of audio.  I'm noticing banding after I render to DNX_115 for my Safe Color Effect.  My timeline is set to 10 bit green.  If the safe color is unrendered no 8 bit artifacts but once I render to DNX_115 there are  bit artifacts on certain shots that have walls with a shallow ramp luminescence.

I may have missed it in this thread but I can not see how you are going to QT in DNX 115 in the first place.  If you are using the old QT export workflow, that could be part of the issue.  Have you tried a OP1a.MXF export yet?  If that is better, then link that export back into Avid and then do a Same As Source export to QT.  How does that look?

As a sidebar, yesterday I was asked to do a quick color fix before delivery on a DNx120 25p show that had just come back in that codec from Resolve.  Show looked fine with the timeline video quality in 8bit (no reason to look set it to 10 bit with DNx 120).  I opened the Symphony color corrector and reduced overall brightness.  As I watch my scopes I immediately saw banding show up on the scopes!  I asked the colorist in Resolve to do the fix.  No issues.  Now one could argue that I was just going to far by color correcting an already color corrected 8bit shot.  But the source BEFORE Resolve was DNx120.  And the Resolve pass did not add any banding.

Bottom line for me, as shown by John's tortured examples, it seems that Avid image processing pipeline has some big issues.  If it is just that we users are using the tool wrong, then Avid should correct us with explicit instructions.  If we are not, then it needs to be fixed.

Jef

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134042) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

Hey John,

What about your render settings in Media Creation?  Are they explicitly set to 16 bit or auto?  I always explicitly set to 16 bit so they don't default to 8 bit.  Also I always turn off Same as Source, because historically AVID has fallen to the lowest quality piece of media in your sequence and rendered at that, especially if you have a low res offline reference in the top layer.

Dave Hogan

Burbank, CA

On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:42 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

Render settings are set to advanced polyphase for image interpolation, although I I don't know that that applies, for this render.  The motion adapter and timewarp setting are set to original preference.  I also tried just rendering a submaster effect and it created the same banding.  In media creations render tab I uncheck same as source and select DNX_115.  I really think this is related to all the questions in the past about timeline quality's interaction with renders and exports, but again I'm just guessing.  Clearly the code that is rendering a safe color or submaster is not the same code creating the video mixdown.

Given if I set timeline quality to green 8 bit it perfectly matches what I see after the DNX-115 render I really think somewhere under the hood when Avid goes to render DNX_115 it somehow effects the quality of the path heading to the render engine the same way timeline quality effects the output to the monitor.  Again just guessing but it seems render and video mixdown are using different engines or components or whatever the proper term would be.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:43 PM, JBeck wrote:

Have you checked the render quality settings?  JB

Sent from my iTelephone. Please excuse typos. 

 

On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:18 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

This just gets better and better.  If I clear my renders and do a video mixdown to DNX_115 then the results are clean without the banding.  So rendering to DNX_115 creates banding but doing a video mixdown doesn't?  It would seem the two seemingly identical processes are in fact different under the hood.  Is there some different code for renders that is flawed as opposed to video mixdowns?  How can any of this be something I have to deal with on a Friday afternoon?  I know they made video mixdowns render much faster and more efficiently years back but I wouldn't think they'd leave renders with sub performing code.

I'm on MC 2018.12.7 on a MacPro mid 2010 upgraded to 12 core 3.33GHz, 3.2GB ram, GTX-680 Mac OS 10.12.6.

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

Render settings are set to advanced polyphase for image interpolation, although I I don't know that that applies, for this render.  The motion adapter and timewarp setting are set to original preference.  I also tried just rendering a submaster effect and it created the same banding.  In media creations render tab I uncheck same as source and select DNX_115.  I really think this is related to all the questions in the past about timeline quality's interaction with renders and exports, but again I'm just guessing.  Clearly the code that is rendering a safe color or submaster is not the same code creating the video mixdown.

Given if I set timeline quality to green 8 bit it perfectly matches what I see after the DNX-115 render I really think somewhere under the hood when Avid goes to render DNX_115 it somehow effects the quality of the path heading to the render engine the same way timeline quality effects the output to the monitor.  Again just guessing but it seems render and video mixdown are using different engines or components or whatever the proper term would be.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:43 PM, JBeck wrote:

Have you checked the render quality settings?  JB

Sent from my iTelephone. Please excuse typos. 

 

On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:18 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

This just gets better and better.  If I clear my renders and do a video mixdown to DNX_115 then the results are clean without the banding.  So rendering to DNX_115 creates banding but doing a video mixdown doesn't?  It would seem the two seemingly identical processes are in fact different under the hood.  Is there some different code for renders that is flawed as opposed to video mixdowns?  How can any of this be something I have to deal with on a Friday afternoon?  I know they made video mixdowns render much faster and more efficiently years back but I wouldn't think they'd leave renders with sub performing code.

I'm on MC 2018.12.7 on a MacPro mid 2010 upgraded to 12 core 3.33GHz, 3.2GB ram, GTX-680 Mac OS 10.12.6.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134040) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

I have now duplicated the render issue on a trash can mac running MC 2018.12.7.  Given the render issue exactly matches what I see when I change the timeline quality from green 10 bit to green 8 bit I'm thinking that this may be a case where the underlying code seems to decide to turn the timeline quality to 8 bit in the render processing pass.  This is just a guess but given what I'm seeing it seems plausible.

The long threads of the past regarding whether timeline quality effect render quality come to mind.  To be clear I have my timeline quality set to 10 bit green when rendering the safe color to DNX_115.  Oh it's a rockin Friday Night Valentine's Day now.  But I'm not Loving this.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134039) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

Have you checked the render quality settings?  JB

Sent from my iTelephone. Please excuse typos. 

On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:18 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

This just gets better and better.  If I clear my renders and do a video mixdown to DNX_115 then the results are clean without the banding.  So rendering to DNX_115 creates banding but doing a video mixdown doesn't?  It would seem the two seemingly identical processes are in fact different under the hood.  Is there some different code for renders that is flawed as opposed to video mixdowns?  How can any of this be something I have to deal with on a Friday afternoon?  I know they made video mixdowns render much faster and more efficiently years back but I wouldn't think they'd leave renders with sub performing code.

I'm on MC 2018.12.7 on a MacPro mid 2010 upgraded to 12 core 3.33GHz, 3.2GB ram, GTX-680 Mac OS 10.12.6.

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

This just gets better and better.  If I clear my renders and do a video mixdown to DNX_115 then the results are clean without the banding.  So rendering to DNX_115 creates banding but doing a video mixdown doesn't?  It would seem the two seemingly identical processes are in fact different under the hood.  Is there some different code for renders that is flawed as opposed to video mixdowns?  How can any of this be something I have to deal with on a Friday afternoon?  I know they made video mixdowns render much faster and more efficiently years back but I wouldn't think they'd leave renders with sub performing code.

I'm on MC 2018.12.7 on a MacPro mid 2010 upgraded to 12 core 3.33GHz, 3.2GB ram, GTX-680 Mac OS 10.12.6.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134037) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

Okay I find this inconceivable.  If I render my Safe Color to DNX_175X, ProResHQ or ProRes 422 the major banding goes away and it matches my timeline in 10 bit green before I rendered to DNX_115.  This all makes perfect sense.  Now if I take those sequences rendered to  10 bit codecs and export a QT Reference and make a .mov or just use the QT Ref on my older version of Adobe Media Encoder the resulting DNX_115 files encoded by AME don't show the major banding issue I see with the Avid internal render or when I set the timeline to 8 bit green quality.

This seems to indicate that AME does a better job of encoding to DNX_115 than Avid does internally.  My sources are XAVC Intra 100 (1080P) shot at Rec 709 no log involved.  How can Avid not do a decent job of  rendering to it's own 8 bit codec?  Could the source being XAVC Intra 100 somehow play a role in the banding?  I don't know why it would.  The footage is a bit noisy on the wall but could that contribute to making Avid band the DNX_115?  This really puts a crimp in my workflow as I always internally do a final render of the safe color to the delivery codec so I can so same as source exports or QT Reference exports knowing i'm only sourcing media from the correct codec.

I rarely deliver in 8 bit but I would think over the years I would have noticed this behavior/shortcoming.  Maybe this particular blend of wall color and noise etc... just hit a sweat spot that makes Avid's internal render go "Bits Up"?  Always on a Friday.  ;-(

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134036) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

I'm sure it would be clean if I render to DNX 175X.  I can simulate the exact same banding by just switching the timeline to 8 bit green.  I guess the problem wall just hits the right combo of shallow ramp and subtle color approaching the Barney Pathological Signal they use to stress codecs.

I'll see if I take a section to DNX_175X and use Adobe Media Encoder to see if it does a better job.  I'm really thinking it's just the nature of 8 bit but it's worth a try.  I'll pretend you didn't say Resolve because if I try that and it works I might get to like it and then I'll be a slave to nodes and power windows and I'll never get done.  '-)

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134035) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

Does it look equally bad if you render to .mxf?  Probably, just curious.

Stating an obvious idea, but I know how sometimes we miss the obvious when on deadline: Try a small test render using DNx175x.

If that renders clean, consider using a different render tool to make the master - like, render out of avid to DNx175x, then try a re-render to 115 using resolve or media encoder.   Obviously, do short tests to figure out what works.

Just a suggestion… 

gh

----------------------------------------------------
Greg Huson
GK Huson, LLC
Secret Headquarters, Inc
Santa Monica, CA
www.SecretHQ.com   

On Feb 14, 2020, at 2:06 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

On a current series the delivery is a QT in DNX_115 with 12 tracks of audio.  I'm noticing banding after I render to DNX_115 for my Safe Color Effect.  My timeline is set to 10 bit green.  If the safe color is unrendered no 8 bit artifacts but once I render to DNX_115 there are  bit artifacts on certain shots that have walls with a shallow ramp luminescence.

I understand why the artifacts crop up when rendering to DNX_115 but I'm trying to remember if there was a console command that might boost the quality.  IIRC there was a command that effect title tool HDTITLEFILTER which turned of anti alliasing and there was a resize command to decide how Avid processed a resize,:

SYNTAX  Setresizetype 8 
   
NOTES  AVID supports three quality levels for real time resizing. This can be done with an effect like 
Picture in Picture, or automatically by the system when you place an SD shot in an HD 
sequence (or vice versa).  3D warp effects are not changed by this setting.  
 
1 = nearest neighbour 
8 = anti‐aliased bilinear (the default) 
9 = polyphase 

Now I'm wondering if there is any other console command that might improve the render of my 10 bit timeline to DNX_115 with less banding?  I realize it's the nature of the 8 bit DNX_115 codec to introduce 8 bit artifacts but is there any magic console voodoo that might improve how the conversion to 8 bit is smoothed out with less banding.  I'm probably just  dreaming but thought I'd ask the collective.  I haven't delivered DNX_115 in a while.

John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net

Re: [Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

The only way I know how to reduce banding in 8 bit from 20 bit is to add dither. Basically subtle noise. 

But I don't think Avid can do that automatically. 

Pat Horridge

[Avid-L2] Is there a way to improve 8 bit artifacting when rendering to DNX_115?

On a current series the delivery is a QT in DNX_115 with 12 tracks of audio.  I'm noticing banding after I render to DNX_115 for my Safe Color Effect.  My timeline is set to 10 bit green.  If the safe color is unrendered no 8 bit artifacts but once I render to DNX_115 there are  bit artifacts on certain shots that have walls with a shallow ramp luminescence.

I understand why the artifacts crop up when rendering to DNX_115 but I'm trying to remember if there was a console command that might boost the quality.  IIRC there was a command that effect title tool HDTITLEFILTER which turned of anti alliasing and there was a resize command to decide how Avid processed a resize,:

SYNTAX  Setresizetype 8 
   
NOTES  AVID supports three quality levels for real time resizing. This can be done with an effect like 
Picture in Picture, or automatically by the system when you place an SD shot in an HD 
sequence (or vice versa).  3D warp effects are not changed by this setting.  
 
1 = nearest neighbour 
8 = anti‐aliased bilinear (the default) 
9 = polyphase 

Now I'm wondering if there is any other console command that might improve the render of my 10 bit timeline to DNX_115 with less banding?  I realize it's the nature of the 8 bit DNX_115 codec to introduce 8 bit artifacts but is there any magic console voodoo that might improve how the conversion to 8 bit is smoothed out with less banding.  I'm probably just  dreaming but thought I'd ask the collective.  I haven't delivered DNX_115 in a while.

John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net

Re: [Avid-L2] Public Beta | MC 2020.2 | macOS Catalina

Thanks!

 

Agustín Goya

Editor (EDA)

WANCAMP | POST

tel. +54 11 4857 9083   

cel. +54 9 11 15 6545 2427  

Skype. agustingoya

agustin@wancamp.com.ar

wancamp.com.ar

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Roger via Groups.Io <rogershuff=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:

Sorry - you ened up in spam. See attached.

With Best Wishes, Roger Shufflebottom +44 7973 543 660

On Saturday, 1 February 2020, 19:16:38 GMT, label411 <montgomery.glen@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd love to see that guide as well. Thanks for offering it up. 

Glen Montgomery - Video Editor

Santa Monica, CA

http://coldpost.tv/

On Feb 1, 2020, at 11:03 AM, Roger via Groups.Io <rogershuff=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:



I can't say that I've 'embraced' T+ but it is now more usable than when first introduced. If anyone would like a look at the guide PDF I've done for my students, let me know.

RS

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134031) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Public Beta | MC 2020.2 | macOS Catalina

Sorry - you ened up in spam. See attached.

With Best Wishes, Roger Shufflebottom +44 7973 543 660

On Saturday, 1 February 2020, 19:16:38 GMT, label411 <montgomery.glen@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd love to see that guide as well. Thanks for offering it up. 

Glen Montgomery - Video Editor

Santa Monica, CA

http://coldpost.tv/

On Feb 1, 2020, at 11:03 AM, Roger via Groups.Io <rogershuff=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:



I can't say that I've 'embraced' T+ but it is now more usable than when first introduced. If anyone would like a look at the guide PDF I've done for my students, let me know.

RS

Re: [Avid-L2] Is the New Blue Titler Pro 7 conflicting with After Effects 2015.3?

I heard back from New Blue with a solution that I will try later:

""Yes that plugin was installed by Titler Pro. I'm surprised that it is preventing After Effects from opening, but if you don't need the exporter functionality we can just remove two files and it should fix the problem:

- Open Finder and go to /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Common/Plug-ins/7.0/MediaCore/Newblue
- Delete the files AfterEffectsNBExporter.plugin and AfterEffectsNBTag.plugin

After doing this After Effects should open correctly.""


On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:16 PM, John Moore wrote:

I found loading a 2019 version of After Effects will run without the error.  I searched the plug in folders and the package contents but couldn't find anything to do with NewBlue Exporter.  Hmmmmmm

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:19 PM, John Moore wrote:

In attempting to open an out of house Graphics Project of course my After Effects 2015.3 is not current enough but the Graphic Artist sent a 2015.X and 2016.X version of the project.  I'm 2015.3 but the 2015.X says it's 2015.1.2 or something like that and it won't open it.

 

Then after that dialogue I get the following Error Message:

 

 

Now I recently installed New Blue Titler Pro Ver. 7.  I had previously run New Blue Ver 4 and 5 without any ill effects to  the After Effect software.  I realize I have an older version but I can't afford to lose QT Ref capability in my workflow at this point.  I know in the future I will have to  go another route.

 

My quandary is has anybody else had issues with New Blue V 7 messing with Adobe Creative Cloud?  I'm wondering if there is a folder that contains this exporter that I can remove so I can at least run the After Effects software.  I've emailed New Blue and am waiting for a response.

 

John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134029) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] 4TB Glyph AtomRaid SSD Issue?

Melrose Mac was able to restore the drives although they couldn't tell exactly what happened.  My peripheral knowledge is they said the directory was messed up for  some reason.  I don't know what they used to repair the drive but of the two drives one was worse than the other and it cost about 800 dollars to repair the bad one.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134028) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] 4TB Glyph AtomRaid SSD Issue?

John,

What ended up happening with recovering the AtomRAID SSD? Success? Other?

Thanks and hope it worked out on some manner...

Jim

On Jan 15, 2020, at 4:14 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:

Production was asked not to use SSD drives to deliver our master but they did on Glyph AtomRaid SSD 4TB drives.  Now with two  nights of shooting the second nite both the master and backup drive are not working or show only part of the data on them.  Needless to say this is a huge issue.

The drives only have 5 percent of free space on them from the field and then they used them to offline with so now about a week after editing the one night set of drives have issues.  I'm speculating it's the whole SSD Trim issue and given there was only 5 percent free space to  start with the rendering to the drive etc... has lead to corruption.  One drive that still works says the OS can't repair the drive but the files can be copied.  I haven't seen the drives from the second night as they are at Melrose Mac for analysis.

I don't quite understand how the raid aspect of this SSD drive works.  I assume it's easier to get 4 1 TB SSD chips than a single 4TB chip.  Maybe it's even more.  Bottom line is there is real trouble in River City. 

Certainly step one is to never use the drives from the field to  edit from whether they are spinning or SSD.  That was not my call but we've been lucky for a long time until the field drives are SSD. 

Hopefully the drive gurus can pull them back on line. 

Re: [Avid-L2] Is the New Blue Titler Pro 7 conflicting with After Effects 2015.3?

I found loading a 2019 version of After Effects will run without the error.  I searched the plug in folders and the package contents but couldn't find anything to do with NewBlue Exporter.  Hmmmmmm

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:19 PM, John Moore wrote:

In attempting to open an out of house Graphics Project of course my After Effects 2015.3 is not current enough but the Graphic Artist sent a 2015.X and 2016.X version of the project.  I'm 2015.3 but the 2015.X says it's 2015.1.2 or something like that and it won't open it.

 

Then after that dialogue I get the following Error Message:

 

 

Now I recently installed New Blue Titler Pro Ver. 7.  I had previously run New Blue Ver 4 and 5 without any ill effects to  the After Effect software.  I realize I have an older version but I can't afford to lose QT Ref capability in my workflow at this point.  I know in the future I will have to  go another route.

 

My quandary is has anybody else had issues with New Blue V 7 messing with Adobe Creative Cloud?  I'm wondering if there is a folder that contains this exporter that I can remove so I can at least run the After Effects software.  I've emailed New Blue and am waiting for a response.

 

John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134026) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

[Avid-L2] Is the New Blue Titler Pro 7 conflicting with After Effects 2015.3?

In attempting to open an out of house Graphics Project of course my After Effects 2015.3 is not current enough but the Graphic Artist sent a 2015.X and 2016.X version of the project.  I'm 2015.3 but the 2015.X says it's 2015.1.2 or something like that and it won't open it.

Then after that dialogue I get the following Error Message:

Now I recently installed New Blue Titler Pro Ver. 7.  I had previously run New Blue Ver 4 and 5 without any ill effects to  the After Effect software.  I realize I have an older version but I can't afford to lose QT Ref capability in my workflow at this point.  I know in the future I will have to  go another route.

My quandary is has anybody else had issues with New Blue V 7 messing with Adobe Creative Cloud?  I'm wondering if there is a folder that contains this exporter that I can remove so I can at least run the After Effects software.  I've emailed New Blue and am waiting for a response.

John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net

[Avid-L2] Paypal scam - email scraped from groups.io

Beware paypal email you may have just received. It's come to the email address registered with groups.io. Not sure if they have just scraped the email addresses or have hacked the groups.io database. Presumably former.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134024) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Recommendations for upgrading GPU on MacPro 2010

Owen,  did you also buy the Sapphire Radeon RX 580?  It seems there are a number of different RX 580 cards with different names and price points.  If I can spend just over $200 to extend the usability of my dear old 2010, it would be worth it.  

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134023) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_

Re: [Avid-L2] Public Beta | MC 2020.2 | macOS Catalina

Or any segment with video.

With Best Wishes, Roger Shufflebottom +44 7973 543 660

On Monday, 10 February 2020, 17:34:04 GMT, TrevorA <groups.io@siempre.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

Had a quick look on 2018.12.10:

Tilter+

 

The T+ icon does nothing UNLESS an empty track is enabled, in which case it applies a titler+ effect to the empty track (between marks if there are any)

 

Once effect is applied:

 

Typing does nothing (well normal keyboard shortcuts apply)

 

Clicking in record monitor and typing does nothing (keyboard shortcuts ignored)

 

Click 'add text field' turns arrow cursor to I bar and enables clicking in record monitor - bounding box appears, typing now results in caption appearing.

 

Bounding box can be dragged by corner (retains aspect ratio) or horizontal or vertical edges (aspect ratio altered). Doesn't appear to be a constraining key to keep aspect ratio (really how often do you want to adjust aspect ratio of text?).

 

There are two bounding boxes - one has dashed lines, the other 'containing box' has unbroken line. Seems to correspond to the 'Frame' section of the effect editor.

 

Adjusting bounding box (to increase font size) is reflected in the 'translate' section of the Layer. Although horizontal maxes at 999.0, despite adjustment still being possible.

 

Shift up/down arrow selects next layer within selected container.

Shift left/right expands/contracts layer selection

 

Up/down/left right arrow moves layer (or container) up / down / left / right

 

Edit / Clear all - removes all text layers.

 

Select Next/Previous Layers / Word / Row - means arrow keys revert to normal function, not text editing. (Need to use Cmd+4 to select record monitor and then arrows affect text selection).

 

'Caption' box reflects text entry, text entry not updated with caption box though.

 

Leaving this until I really *have* to use it.

Re: [Avid-L2] Public Beta | MC 2020.2 | macOS Catalina

Had a quick look on 2018.12.10:

Tilter+

 

The T+ icon does nothing UNLESS an empty track is enabled, in which case it applies a titler+ effect to the empty track (between marks if there are any)

 

Once effect is applied:

 

Typing does nothing (well normal keyboard shortcuts apply)

 

Clicking in record monitor and typing does nothing (keyboard shortcuts ignored)

 

Click ‘add text field’ turns arrow cursor to I bar and enables clicking in record monitor - bounding box appears, typing now results in caption appearing.

 

Bounding box can be dragged by corner (retains aspect ratio) or horizontal or vertical edges (aspect ratio altered). Doesn’t appear to be a constraining key to keep aspect ratio (really how often do you want to adjust aspect ratio of text?).

 

There are two bounding boxes - one has dashed lines, the other ‘containing box’ has unbroken line. Seems to correspond to the ‘Frame’ section of the effect editor.

 

Adjusting bounding box (to increase font size) is reflected in the ‘translate’ section of the Layer. Although horizontal maxes at 999.0, despite adjustment still being possible.

 

Shift up/down arrow selects next layer within selected container.

Shift left/right expands/contracts layer selection

 

Up/down/left right arrow moves layer (or container) up / down / left / right

 

Edit / Clear all - removes all text layers.

 

Select Next/Previous Layers / Word / Row - means arrow keys revert to normal function, not text editing. (Need to use Cmd+4 to select record monitor and then arrows affect text selection).

 

‘Caption’ box reflects text entry, text entry not updated with caption box though.

 

Leaving this until I really *have* to use it.

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#134021) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [administrator242.death@blogger.com]

_._,_._,_