I had a bunch of scanning being done while I was away, and HDDs are winging their way back as I type, I haven't seen the scans myself yet, but will have some images soon. Fingers crossed they will have good versions of the few missing frames I am still chasing.
FrankT said:
All these complications and surgeries... it's not adding up to something life-threatening, is it? :(
I thought my previous not-so subtle avoidance of the question might be enough, but to sate any interest, yes it is something I have been battling on and off for years, and yes it is often terminal, and I'm not really going to go into any more detail on public forums, other than to say I have nearly as many scans of myself as I do of Star Wars. I am currently recovering, there will be more to come, but we take it one thing at a time, and every day any of us is still on the planet and able to look around us and be with family or friends (even ones we have never 'met') is a good day.
Now back to our scheduled programming.
If the LUT opens okay in Resolve, and you want to use the LUT in AE, load up a clip in Resolve, apply the LUT, right click on the clip in Resolve and choose "Generate 3D LUT" and export it to somewhere on your computer.
After Effects can then load the exported LUT.
brycebayer said:
I know I can load the LUTs into Resolve but it would just be more efficient as a plug-in. You need to make the LUT and then put it into the LUT folder and then re-open Resolve.
A plug-in would be a great next step. But an amazing job never the less. Fantastic work.Star Wars has truly inspired so many technological advances in our industry. For better or worse. I do feel as though we are starting to get over the shitty hump. I think we are all learning how to use digital to make things better. I recently saw the new Dolby projection system in NY and it's amazing. The Revenant looks absolutely stunning on that screen. I feel as though digital is finally surpassing film in substantial ways.
True, film can't hold a candle to the new dolby projection system, it is truly astounding.
Oh, and please no Ep7 spoilers in my thread, I know there is a new trailer out, but I am avoiding all things 7 till I go see it on December 17th...
I agree, I originally suggested the LUT thing privately, as Dre could potentially sell this software with a bit of extra work. It is based on published algorithms though, so that may cause issues, not sure.
You don't need a plug-in, just load the LUT into resolve.
g-force said:
Jeez Poita, is there anything you don't know?
-G
I don't know what is happeing in Ep7. I have avoided all trailers etc. to keep it as fresh as possible. New trailer is up now, I am busily not watching it...
I sent them the LUT format, then they did all the brain work :)
Image registration is a massive task, you would be better off pre-registering and cropping your target images before using the colour matching tool.
Hard to know if the scenes were changed for home release, or if the trailer wasn't colour timed (which is often the case).
Either way, the tool is working well.
I'll start a new thread.
In the meantime, these guys can sort you out re film and film camera hire.
It is looking good so far, I am laid up in bed, with a bit more time than usual to converse on forums :)
Yes I have to drive between 2 and 6 hours each way, depending on the hospital I need to travel to, and it does usually mean extended stays away from the family. That and recuperation time can put a lot of stress on the family unit, when there are 3 kids to get ready and to and from school, one with special needs, and a boisterous 2 year old to contend with.
But I am lucky to live in a country that has universal (if somewhat eroded lately) healthcare, so although I lose money through not being able to work, the health bills are not crippling like they are in the US and some other countries. Not being able to work, or to be able to watch the youngest one so that someone else can work is a real problem, but at least there are not outrageous hospital bills on top of that.
Being unable to move much and watching the rest of your family have increased workload can be a bit difficult, I feel like a total bum, but hopefully will be up and around properly in 4 weeks-ish if all goes well.
Pain is no fun, but it passes eventually, and so far, apart from a bit of a scare when I popped some staples (note: do not try to stifle a sneeze, post op) requiring some re-closing of the wounds, this time things seem to be progressing as planned.
The interesting thing about all this (apart from how fantastically well Dre's tool works) is watching everyone's preferred grade of the Rebel soldier.
I've looked at that frame on countless prints now, and I agree, if someone sat down to do a grade now, without having seen the film, or a bunch of other 70s cinema/lived through the 70s, and using today's digital grading tools, then most would go with the less red, more tonally balanced look that is popular in some of these grades.
However on film, the guy is a bit red faced and blotchy, being from the red-headed tribes myself, that is pretty much how we show up on film. He's an older, pale guy with sun-damage, and it shows up pretty heavily on the film.
Current sensibilities would have us grade that look away, and make him look more pleasing to the eye, in the 70s typically they wouldn't, he would be red faced and a bit blotchy on-screen, unless he was the leading man/main character, in which case they would have gone to town on make-up.
The original 1977 Star Wars grade is all over the place, probably because of time constraints, the range of film stocks and composites and budgetary pressure, and the tools available at the time. People looked rougher in the 70s, their skin wasn't as good, and they lived a little harder, and you can see that in the original prints, especially on the older characters.
Every colourist that attempts to grade Star Wars now, even if they are looking at the original prints, will do a very different job, and it will most likely be quite different to the original, even if they are trying to capture the same look, and you can see that in the variety of opinions on the un-named trooper here in this thread.
DrDre, thanks for the tool, it is another powerful kit, especially for getting quick preview renders from faded prints, if the LUT is working, then it will be extra fast for knocking out a workprint, thanks for all the effort you are putting into it.
Looking forward to testing the LUT version with Nucoda.
Try facing a mirror, and then look from one eye to the other and back again. You do not see your eyes in motion, but someone watching you can easily see the motion of your eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIF3FRwbG6Y
That is also a part of it, there are an array of small influences that also add to a feeling of nausea or headaches, but again, a camera movement issue, not a film/digital issue. But I'll stop clogging up the thread.
Bring on the next preview!
I am more excited about this than TFA :)
The brain doesn't handle resolution differently whether it comes from a digital or film source, what you are describing is a movement problem.
In both games, and handheld-shot movies like Cloverfield, there is a disconnect between your eyes telling you "I am moving aroung like crazy" and your inner ear telling you "Nope, I am sitting quite still thank you". *
You brain has a few options on how to interperate this, for people like you that get headachey and/or motion sick (my daughter cannot watch Cloverfied for more than 2 mins), the brain decides that if I am standing still, but the world is moving around me, then there is a fair chance I have been poisoned/ate dodgy food and so it triggers a sickness repsonse, and if you keep going, will most likely cause you to throw up, to help purge your body of what it perceives to be likely caused by a dodgy meal.
Rapid camera movement will cause this response in you whether done on film or in a game or a digital movie. The reason you don't get motion sick when watching movies shot on film, is that directors refrain from moving the camera quickly, as the 24fps makes the blur so bad that you can't tell at all what is happening on screen, so they simply don't have the option to do it.
Cloverfield was shown on film in many cinemas, it hat the same stomach churning results as when it was shown in the digital cinemas.
*(Brain Research Bulletin Volume 47, Issue 5, 15 November 1998, Pages 481–487)
ZkinandBonez said:
pawel86ck said:
ZkinandBonez- my opinion about movies shot on digital was negative (for example star wars looked flat as you say), but right now digtal cameras are much better, and I started to love films shot on digital because picture quality is most of the time very consistent, and looks realistic and sharp at the same time. Of course movies shot on film also can look good, but very few film studios care to scan their movies with good results. Few days ago I saw Edward scissorhands, and that movie received 4K remaster, and picture quality was superb. But again, very few movies (shot on film) looks like that, most of the time we get fuzzy and overprocessed picture with lots od DNR in order to mask film grain.
4K BD format will come out soon, and so I hope that we will see some quality remasters in regards to movies shot on film, maybe we will even see official high budged star wars remaster for 4K BD.
Sure, there's nothing inherently wring with digital, and it has gotten extremely good lately. But I mostly have two big problems with it (or rather it's use);
1. Digital bias - This idea that it's the new upgrade to celluloid really has to stop. It's an ingenious re-approach to getting roughly the same end result, but it's not a replacement. I have no problems with movies being shot digitally, I just wish people would stop referring to the use of film as a "hipster" thing, or calling it "out of date." Digital is an awesome new invention, but it has been over-hyped beyond belief. And film is currently evolving just as much as digital is; it just so happens to have been around for a fair bit longer.
2. Hyper-reality - I really can't stand when a movie is shot at 8k, or 48 frames per second. It's so redundant. I remember reading somewhere that the human eye sees roughly the equivalent of 4k (in digital terms), and that 35 mm film cover roughly the same amount. So why go beyond 4k when making a movie? There's just something so ugly about these 8k movies. I remember seeing The Hobbit and thinking "holy crap, what's wrong with Ian Holm's face!" in the opening scene. There's nothing wrong with it, but in 8k I can see every wrinkle and pore on his face. Heck I wouldn't have been able to see this if I was standing inches from his face in real life.
The whole 48 fps thing bugs me as well. I know people keep saying that the eye sees faster than 24 fps, but I feel like these films kind of proves otherwise. Wave your hand in front of your face and it'll look blurred. Look at any movement in the Hobbit trilogy and everything looks like a high frame rate video-game.
Digital is fine and all, but I really see no purpose to film anything beyond 4k and 24 fps. The result is a bunch of hyper-realistic, video-game looking mess. It's just a gimmick. It sounds cool, it mirrors current iPhone and flat screen TV ads. "It used to be 4k, but now it's 8k!" It sounds cool, but it's completely redundant. It's just cheap marketing.All in all though, I just wish it would even out a lot more so that the two mediums could co-exist with much more ease. Film has such a unique, and currently unsuccessfully emulated aesthetic, it would be such a loss to movie culture to lose it. Film also has a lot of financial benefits which no one is talking about either, which really bothers me and kind of confirms that there's a bit of a digital bias going on in the current film industry.
I'm currently in the process of applying to a film school, and I'm hoping to one day get to direct movies of my own, and I'd be really disappointed if I'd loose the possibility to shoot on film. It has such a natural and organic look to it, and has so many currently unsung benefits. And although I have no problem with other people shooting digitally, I have no interest in using it myself.
(End of rant.)
Think about what you are saying for a moment, if your eyes only see about 4K resolution, then watching a film in 4K or 8K, you would see no difference at all, as your eye wouldn't detect the extra resolution.
As for 48fps and the moving your hand in front of your face, again, if your eyes were blurring the movement, then the 48fps of your hand would look just as blurry as the 24fps of your hand, as your vision would be doing the blurring between the frames.
Also, there is no way you saw The Hobbit projected in 8K, I don't know of any 8K cinemas anywhere, and there certainly wasn't an 8K version produced for distribution. What you saw was 2K, so you certainly weren't overwhelmed with detail that was more than your eyes could perceive, as you thought was the case. The reality is that Hobbit in particular suffered from a few problems.
1) To get 48fps, they had to throw a lot more light at the actors and the sets, this made lighting far more difficult, and it simply wasn't lit as well as the the LotR trilogy. This resulted in seeing more of the flaws in the makeup, costumes and sets.
2) 3D. To get 48fps and 3D, and keep the images clear, they went for a deep depth of field, as it keeps more in focus. Particularly in the Hobbiton internal scenes where the sets are not physically large, this resulted in nearly everything being over-lit, and everything in-focus. It also required greater compression rates. There is little leading of the eye in these scenes.
These two things gave it that Soap Opera/TV feel, the flat-ish lighting, the higher compression rates smoothing out detail, and the deep DoF resulting in everything being in focus, yet smoothed out a bit by compression. They got better at it as the film went on, and when they could shoot outside, the second half of the film looks much more natural than the first 45 minutes. The Hobbit is a flawed production, it looked just as bad in a 2D, 24fps cinema, i wasn't really the framerates etc. that were the problem, it was the crew struggling with finding how to shoot this way, and making a bit of a botch of it. This is to be expected when trying something for the first time, but it is a shame they didn't nail it, as many people now hold The Hobbit up as the example of why 48fps looks terrible.
As for film being unique, and not currently emulated, well, that just isn't true, we did a test screening with 11 film based directors quite a few years ago now, showed the same sequence shot on film vs shot on digital, and not one of them could reliably pick which was which. You can make digital look just like film if you want to, but most are now starting to explore the ways to utilise the extra fidelity, light sensitivity and dynamic range that digital offers to find new ways to tell stories.
The reason you find the clarity of 4K, and the high frame rate disturbing, is that you have had pretty much your entire life, being trained to see narrow depth of field, soft images, low dynamic range, raised blacks and 24fps blur as 'cinematic'. All of those limitations of film, became the language of film, and directors started using those limitations and working with them to create that language.
So a narrow depth of field is used to lead the eye where the director wants you to look, it is used particularly with slow focus pulls to show beauty, not necessarily because it is beautiful, but they have shot beautiful things and people that way for the last 100 years, so we have learned to read and assimilate that language, and it kicks off an emotional response.
Had film from the get-go been 48fps and film stocks much faster allowing for deeper DoF, then a different language would have appeared, and we would think of high resolution, sharp, 48fps as being the 'film look' and not liking whatever came along and replaced it.
You can make digital look just like film now if you want, and 100+ years of artistic language doesn't just go away, especially because it works, but a new language will evolve, and new generations will prefer its look.
The new dolby HDR laser projection is just astounding, it makes film look terrible in comparison, I think it will be much more important that resolution going forwards, it brings a range of options to directors that will enhance story-telling and sense of presence greatly.
Time marches on, things improve, we old dinosaurs don't like change. There are truly beautiful, artistically stunning digital movies being made now, and there are awful, soap-opera digital movies being made now, just as there was 50 years ago. The great movies and stories will look marvellous shot on digital or film, it is down to the talents of the crew, and the story to be told.
If you want to shoot on film, no-one is stopping you, Kodak is making 35mm film for at least the next decade, 16mm film is abundant, and you can even buy Super8 film if the mood takes you.
But if you do become a good director, the medium will be mostly irrelevant, you should be able to tell your story, capture your audience and create something that will mesmerise, regardless of the aquisition method.
And put on dis hahspital gown!
It opens in da bahck.
FrankT said:
Geez, I hope he's alright! :( What was the surgery for anyway?
For the opposite of Arnie's famous line unfortunately, and some other re-plumbing.
I am back home, have some new totally bitchin' scars (as I imagine they might say in California) in the making, and will be off my feet for a while.
But it is nice to be in my own bed again.
How are you aligning multiple sources?
thorr said:
regarding punctuation whats that
i was talking to my mom a retired teacher last night about this very issue that people today are no longer educated properly and she cant stand reading newer books because they are full of grammatical errors
i guess nobody cares as long as the point gets across right
I'm actually feeling much worse, but supposedly will feel better in the coming weeks :)
Thanks for the kind words, and remember, if you really want to help out, go donate blood, I'd be dead without blood donors, it really makes a difference to so many people's lives and is really easy to do!