Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
ColorGHear TOOLKIT- color grading SYSTEM for AE
  • 1015 Replies sorted by
  • @magnus387 Awesome, man. It's really great that you are just taking CGT and running with it. I can't wait to see the finished video.

  • @shian The new reel looks great! Yet i wonder if some less contrasty grades would perhaps add to the diversity? :)

  • @johnnym -- I can't make everybody happy. I don't do less contrasty (read: boring) I don't get hired to do it, it's other people's thing. For me to be engaged in my job on-set, and actually care about the gig, it can't be boring. I have to love what I'm seeing. So I neither apply for, nor market myself to those who want that look. There are plenty of other DPs doing less contrasty work. They're better at it, they enjoy it, and they tend not to stand out from the crowd. (By that I mean, there are so many people doing it, that it's hard to be unique in a sea of boring... Beautiful, but boring.)

    I got the gig I recently booked BECAUSE my stuff is heavily stylized and contrasty. It was what they were looking for. They wanted a new look for their show. They got a glimpse at the RED footage I referred to in my last response to you, which was my best work yet, they were blown away by it, asked who did it, did a little research on me, got my number and called me in.

    Stand apart from the crowd... Or don't... It's up to you.

  • @shian Fair enough. I didn't mean this as criticism (but rather cheeky), so i'm sorry i came across that way. I just wonder if something like Roger Deakins is possible with a GH2. You're pretty much the only person i know with enough experience to say. (That guy from Musgo he never answered on his grading.)

  • @johnnym I'm not upset. Just explaining myself.

    I like that you are aspiring to achieve something akin to Deakins's work. You'll eventually discover everything I'm about to tell you for yourself --- As you gain access to quality gear, you'll find there's a reason it's so pricey. A simple set of CP2 Primes is in a completely different league from my modest Nikon glass. Move up to the Zeis Master Primes, and the Super Speeds, and you've moved into a another class. THEN start comparing that super-expensive glass to Cooke S4's, and Panavision Lenses, and you begin to see that 50% of that look you are searching for is coming from that glass, another 25% from the characteristics of the recording media (be it film, Alexa, RED) and the final %25 is the artist.

    Now with that: that final 25% chunk is the most important to getting something unique and beautiful, but even inept lighting shot with expensive glass, with a 4K 4:4:4 medium will still look pretty damn good. When I first started (and when I first started I was completely inept) I was shooting album covers, and publicity photos for my musician friends on 35mm film. And the film was so forgiving that I somehow managed to make stuff people liked, and would pay for, and I naively thought I could do the same with Digital Video and start making movies. I was wrong, and it was then that I had to learn my craft. And I like that I've learned to make the low end equipment look decent, because I know with the high-end stuff I can make magic. It's like learning to play guitar on that beater you bought at the pawn shop for $100, and then finally getting to play a $3000 PRS, and the thing almost plays itself, and sounds heavenly.

    Get as close to what you want to do with the equipment you've got, build yourself a workshop and spend every moment you can playing with your medium. Shoot, analyze, make corrections, shoot again, revise...learn, shoot again, and you'll eventually get there, but with the understanding that there's a reason the High-end stuff looks the way it does. And hopefully when your opportunity to prove yourself comes you'll be ready to shine.

    But to answer your question, with the same lenses, and the same lighting and exposure, absolutely. But don't expect to get that look with lo-end glass. If Deakins shot with the GH2, Panavision Lenses, and his lighting and expertise, it would look like his stuff - minus the characteristics of the higher-end medium.

  • Great answer, thanks man. I'll check if some of those old Speed Panchros can get you near the S4. By the way, that short film with the car cam (and the trees) looked absolutely amazing i thought.

  • @Shain, great work man. Cant wait to it, let us know when it is going to air so we can all take a look. Can't wait for the film school videos, learned so much from your videos thus far. If you ever need a hand on set, feel free to PM me, I would love the experience.

  • Re: "(That guy from Musgo he never answered on his grading.)"

    @johnnym vesubio gave some insight into his CC on Musgo here: http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1623/perhaps-the-first-full-feature-movie-on-the-hacked-gh2/p2 (3rd post down), as well as pre/post CC stills near the bottom of the page.

  • @Shian Hi Shian, was curious about your workflow for the GH2 Files. I understand that you edit with 32 bit per channel under the Color Settings, but which Working Space do you select? Should we be using HDTV (Rec. 709)?

  • @Shian I'm curious if you've tried out the Cineon converter in cs5.5? I'm currently editing a project and I'm thinking about the best / easiest way to export for grading in AE..

  • @RRRR I'm assuming you're not referring to the Cineon converter in AE which just converts log to linear and vice versa. Because other than that, I don't know what you mean.

  • @everyone So after what seems like hundreds of long, frustrating hours trying to figure out a way to turn FCP X into a pro color platform, I have given up. The best I can do is create a bunch of looks, and package them into what I'm calling "ColorGHear Lite." There are no curves adjustments, and no way to apply a modular grade to the footage (well, there is, but it's prohibitively time consuming and processor intensive, and doesn't yield anything approaching the quality of CGT for AFX)

    So my question is; would there be any interest in a group of presets for FCP X, along with tutorials for using them in conjunction with secondary corrections and the basic FX included with the software to get the most out of FCP X's color tools, for around $25 ($15 for current users)?

    It won't give you the power and flexibility of CGT for AFX, but it might help you get more out of FCP X than you are already getting.

    (If there's no interest, then I won't bother putting in anymore time on this.)

    On a brighter note, I have to admit, now that I'm used to the interface, I can edit twice as fast with X than with FCP7. I hated X when I first started using it. I mean REALLY HATED IT. But in many ways it's a giant leap forward in terms of editing simplicity, and media management. You just have to accept that it is a complete redesign, very little of what you knew from previous versions is present in the new design. So you have to learn an entirely new system.

  • @shian ah, my bad.. I assumed only premiere had it. Ignore my previous question! :)

    (I don't need to get ahead of myself in the project.)

  • @jshzr No. avoid linear. Work in the default, just make sure you calibrate your monitor.

  • @shian Adobe-> AFX -> Premiere. Natural evolution and simple way to improve your business.

  • I began on Premiere, Cut my first feature on it, used it for years, until I started editing in a professional arena on FCP, and when I came home to edit on Premiere I wanted to shoot myself in the face. When the frustration reached its peak, I was in the market for a new computer, switched to mac, and fcp. It ain't perfect, but being able to quickly get an edit done, export an XML, and get to grading in AFX is valuable to me. I still have PP 2.0, thinking of upgrading to PP CS5, and one day soon I will, but for now, still too many memories the hassles of editing with PP.

  • World is moving forward, things evolve, but habits stay. Get a decent PC, a good NVIDIA and CUDA CUDA, enjoy the breeze. Shian, I really think you should give a try since PP and AFX are more and more integrated. More interesting is that PP can do most of what AFX does but in real time, no rendering, and... CS6 is coming out with the IRIDA color correction that may be the next BIG THING and you should be ready to take advantage of it. I push for the PP because for me the use of AFX is a kind of a luxury, as I already said I don't have all that time for rendering, but also I honestly think that if you want make money out of your knowledge, Premiere is the way to go because has been the big thing of 2 years ago and is getting better.

  • @shian

    If I were you, I'd wait for Adobe Production Premium CS6. Integration with SpeedGrade will be interesting.

  • GHrain Killer tutorial is now live.

  • Alright, been waiting for this. Thanks Shian I know you've been busy. Cheers

  • Keep in mind that this just covers the basics of the node. The next tutorial will cover it in more detail along with how to do Davinci style grading with multiple masks, tracking, secondaries, etc. As well as using GK to smooth things out.

    Basically its like pre-requisites in college. You have to understand "101" before you try to learn "102". So rather than dumping a bunch of complex stuff on you all at once. I'm teaching you bits of the whole, so you can have a firm grasp of all these individual concepts, but in the next tutorial we start putting everything together to do some intense stuff.

  • Also I just realized I didn't zoom the camera in on all the detailed stuff. I'm gonna go back and re-render and re-upload the tutorial. (somehow I knew that was too easy when the whole thing rendered out in under 15 minutes.)

  • @Shian thank you for your hard work and look forward watching it

  • @shian, you wrote "what i've found with 444 is you have to remain in a logarithmic LUT throughout post until you get to QT Pro, QT Pro does an amazing job of translating Log back to Linear with no loss. I'll cover this in the tutorials, but if you leave AE in linear rather than Log, your footage will seem to wash out... because it's baking linear back into your footage.... You don't want that."

    Then you showed us how to export using QT Pro and AE output module. I've been using your render settings for AE.. and just getting curious. How do QT Pro differ from AE? I could do comparison by myself, but I don't have QT Pro.

  • What is the latest news about FCP(X)? I heard they put X on hold...

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions