Personal View site logo
ColorGHear TOOLKIT- color grading SYSTEM for AE
  • 1015 Replies sorted by
  • I guess ETTR wouldn't give greater latitude for video frames since they are not in RAW format.

    I heard this general rule about JPEG exposure. Avoid overexposure for low-contrast scenes and underexposure for high-contrast scenes to capture more details. Of course it can be broken for intended purpose.

  • @stonebat some of it is in the current dynamic range tutorial, the rest will be covered in the Film School series, but in general, the sweet spot is between 0 and 1 stop over. 1 1/3 is pushing it.

  • @shian Looks like your tutorials are going to be even more valuable in Adobe production premium CS6 with Adobe's Speedgrade! Check it out. They even have "looks" which are essentially some of your pre-packaged settings presets. Can't wait to get my hands on it. http://success.adobe.com/en/na/programs/events/1203_16108_nab.html

  • @all @shian ok guys I m getting crazy here, i have been trying to open a premiere pro CS 5.5 sequence of a short that i m working on, in after effects to be able to use ColorGHear...I wanted to open the original sequence from premiere, this way i wouldn t convert and degrade anything and would use the mts files directly...I opened the project everything seemed fine at first...I graded it...rendered to queue; rendered it but now EVERY TRANSITION/DISSOLVE DONE IN PREMIERE PRO, every text, even the sound mix disappeared after render...It s like it just kept the basic cuts...WTF is happening...i lost a whole day of work on that...Can someone please help me???

  • @Philldaagony Speedgrade as a stand alone has always been awesome. But temper your enthusiasm until you actually use it. you might actually find CGT easier to use.

    FINALLY a 3D tracker in AE!!!!

  • @AlexManta dude, screen shots. I don't know what your timeline looks like. I'm guessing you likely broke some of the connections by pre-comping, BUT without seeing it, it's hard to tell.

  • "Powerful Layer based Color Grading" From the SG whitepaper - what I've been saying all along. Why CGT is superior to MBL and Colorista. And until CS6 is released, your best option in AE. Unfortunately, you might not find SG to be as powerful as CGT in terms of curves, etc.

    Screen Shot 2012-04-12 at 8.34.22 AM.png
    550 x 887 - 226K
  • @Shian Actually just opening the premiere pro project in after effects gives me errors, it doesn't import titles and it doesn t play the audio mixed either, i m truly sorry to be a beginner at this, but your tutorials make me want to use your workflow...But maybe it seems that after effects doesn t import dissolve or titles or audio mixes from premiere pro..that s what I think i saw on adobe s website...

  • @shian right now i m trying to render a full res matching version MPEG of my premiere pro sequence and i will import it in AE and reput all the colorghear tools on it...What do you think?? Will i lose a lot of quality??

  • @AlexManta as I'm not a PP user its hard for me to suggest a work around. I always export the sound mix to a wav file and bring it in to AE separately. I would export the titles as a 32bit TGA or PNG sequence with an alpha channel, and lay it in over the top in AE.

    Then delete (or turn off) the titles and the audio, and save a copy of the project without titles and sound, and see if that imports properly.

  • @shian and by the way I love your tutorials and colorghear man you rock...It's really impressive what it does to my footage..Thank you so much.

  • @shian yes it should work...but what the cross dissolve??? Do you have any ideas??

  • The dissolves should come in just fine. AE interprets them as keyframed opacity. I've imported other people's PP projects and that was how it worked. So I don't know what's happening unless you are precomping the clips and splitting them up, but even then it should still work as it is still ramping the opacity of the clips up and down.

  • @shian Thanks I'll try my best to find my way through all that...Thank you for your knowledge and advices Shian.

  • @AlexManta I've run in to this problem too as a PP user. Haven't yet figure out how to resolve the problem, I will try and look it up a bit more today and see if I can find anything and report back, likewise, if you find anything, id appreciate a notice.

  • @AlexManta @sanzadez @shian I wonder if you could do all of your grading in AE. Then from AE choose save as PP project...open in PP and just re-do all the transitions... haven't tried that but I think it may work. You would then just be rendering out your final file Via PP and Media Encoder ... Shian? Thoughts on this?

  • This issue applies to pushes and other transitions of that sort...I had some in my title sequence and discovered this myself. Now TYPICALLY unless your making Oceans 14, or a Star Wars knockoff you wont have allot of non-disolve types of transitions but still this is a tricky issue. My current work around, albiet archaic is I am grading all the clips and sending them back to PP as Prores 444 Linear off Quick times. I left the titles(I built in Motion) In PP deleted the original edit and am re-building with the graded shots...

  • What I have been doing when I do need to use transitions as such, I link the clips in PP to AE. You can right click the clip in PP and select "replace with AE file" or something like that. Then color grade in AE and it would link to the PP timeline. For the most part I don't have to do this because I don't use dissolves often, as far as titles go, I just create them in AE and use them there. When using the above method I used to just export out of PP but after a post in the Driftwood thread, it showed some degradation when exporting from PP, so I don't plan on exporting out of PP anymore. If you have any advice @shain we would love to hear it. But as you said, you don't use premiere so I wont hound you for a fix. Another way to fix the dissolves may be to do them manually with key-frames and opacity rather than just applying a cross dissolve effect. Not sure if that would work as I haven't tried it, but just came to mind right now.

  • Yeah but the issue with DYNAMIC LINKING ...is this 1 This method will precomp everything in PP if you select several clips- so do "save as" first if you do this... (Which I didnt which Is why Im stuck with my archaic method...)

    2 Kiss your RAM goodbye...BOTH PP and AE have to be open to do this.... 3 PP is PAINFUL to work with after you grade the clips

    IN MY OPINION>>>> ..If you understand compression and choose proper settings in Media Encoder upon export you will NOT have "degradation" that's noticeably different from exporting via After effects.

    Note this is my opinion and doesn't constitute internet bickering...

  • @No_SuRReNDer Yeah, it does take a tole as both need to be open, but its not too bad for me. And I do try to do it as little as possible. As for point #3, I only done it after I have already edited everything as I want, so that I don't have to work with it too much in Premiere after I grade the clips. First I cut everything together, and then link and color. As for the degradation, I haven't really seen any noticeable difference. There was a post though by @bwhitz on page 8 I believe of the Driftwood thread that showed "degradation" under some circumstances. So it just got me thinking maybe from now on I should finish in AE all the time. About the bickering, don't worry, I am one of the people that enjoys a clean thread and feels all that bickering should be taken else where.

    EDIT: The post bwhitz made was about 5DtoRGB vs Premiere, so exporting out of AE rather than PP may or may not make a difference, have yet to test.

  • Appreciate that, I only offer my advice/opinions to help. One thing I think we can all agree on is that Color Ghear is awesome , regardless.

  • haha nice whitepaper @shian you could change speedgrade to colorghears and have a exact description. thanks again really honestly you have a very kind human nature!

  • To be as concise as possible on the subject:

    My workflow consists of the following (All Pro level film workflows are similar. Keep in mind, most 35mm feature films HAVE a Digital Intermediate that consists of DPX sequences. So the workflow was established using a model that had separate audio from video.)

    1) Edit in an NLE. ----GET FILM LOCK!---- (can't stress this enough)

    2) Export to Soundtrack Pro (or) OMF to Pro Tools or Logic (or whatever) for final sound mixing/editing. (If doing music video type work, this isn't necessary, just skip to step 8 for audio)

    3) Export Edit via XML, AAF, or EDL to AE/Davinci/SpeedGrade/Baselight for grading

    4) Grade

    5) I do all my titles and graphics in AE, so that's never a problem. BUT if they're created in Motion, or in your NLE, export them in a format with an alpha channel for compositing. (Quicktime Animation with Alpha, PNG sequence, TGA sequence, etc.)

    6) If titles and graphics not done in AE, composite titles and graphics onto Graded Narrative in AE.

    7) Export final narrative video track with Grades and composites to ProRes 444 or DNxHD 444 file.

    8) Export sound mix as wav or aif file. (or in the case of surround, multiple files, or ac3 file)

    9) Marry sound to video either in NLE with 32bit processing, or in Quicktime Pro (which just connects them with a wrapper. QT PRO users can hit "save" and skip to step 11 because all QT will do is weld them together with no loss.)

    10) Export final product to high data rate 444 codec.

    11) Using final product - make DVDs, Blurays, web videos, etc. (replace stereo audio with Dolby ac3 where appropriate)

    Adopt this, and thrive.

  • And to address my outburst in the Quantum X thread:

    The internet forum is a great place for new and different ideas to be shared. I LOVE that about forums.

    BUT what irritates me is that invariably someone without any qualifications, or any solid scientific data (by that I mean: tested, retested, verifiable and reproducible data to present) will choose to lay out a theory as fact. If someone says I have a theory about this. Hey that's great, but when someone throws out a mere theory, and declares it a fact, with little or nothing to back it up, and then tells someone who is qualified to make declarative statements, with sufficient data to back it up, and years of experience working at the highest levels of the field that they don't know what they're saying, and begins trying to torpedo other people's work (namely rarevision) I get really fucking pissed.

    Why, you may ask, would I care? Because it causes confusion. People come here for information and solutions, and in many cases they spend money on equipment and software based on the experiences of those participating in the forums, some who have proven to be trusted sources, and others who just want everyone to think they're the shit. You won't see me commenting a lot about the ins and outs of the patches, I barely understand how they work, but when it comes to Cinematography and Grading I really do know what I'm talking about. You don't survive in this town unless you can hang.

    It's really kinda petty on my part that I have had to repeatedly qualify myself around here. I don't like tooting my own horn. I like teaching. But I can't sit by idly while the un-intelligencia undermine what has been, and can be, an extremely valuable resource by polluting it with dumbass opinions.

    And then people get upset. They stand up and say, "I have every right to state my opinion, and you have to respect my opinion!" No, the fuck, I dont! I have to VALUE your FACTS, undeniable facts HAVE to be valued. Your opinion, especially if it's retarded, can fuck the hell off.

    That's my professional opinion on the subject -- :)

  • @Shain No need to qualify yourself here. I was pretty upset with the things that were said too as it was pretty much said you did not know what you were doing. All of us in this thread know that you know what you are talking about. What bugged me most was like you said, opinions were given, but they weren't presented as opinions, they were presented as facts without evidence. Keep up the good work, we all appreciate the work you put into Color GHear and the work you put in to the tutorials, I have learned so much from them.

    Okay, back to the original topic. The GHrain killer tutorial helped out A LOT!! I do have one question though. When applying it to an adjustment layer, should I apply it to the layer directly above the source, or is it just a matter of personal preference as with the other layers??

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions