Yeah, I could only tolerate about 10 seconds of that kid's voice before deciding it was time to take a quick moment away from CG Pro tutorials and record this.

wtf... so easy to add audio track from QT pro.

Can QT Pro weld a video file and an audio file? Or you meant another trip to editor like FCPX or PP?

Thanks @shian. I just tried the new version.

This time I imported audio file that was mixed from PP... cuz mixing audio is kinda painful from AE.

Then I disabled audio from source files. 4444 linear off rendering took only 30 mins where it used to take over 2 hours. Woohoo~!

It may be looking for a different version of CF. but the 3-way versions are identical to the CF versions. And they exist for just this type of occurrence.

@shian stay safe and be on the look out for fools on the road. I've been feverishly waiting to add Color Ghear to Premiere Pro. :)

For CS5 and CS6 users: ColorGHear Toolkit version 1.1 has been released. You can download it for free in the member downloads section of the site. It includes the 10 new GHears that will be added to CG Pro.

CG Pro coming this week. barring anymore unforeseen car accidents, etc... ;)

I don't have a light meter or lights yet, so that's probably what is holding me up, but I haven't got a firm grasp of EV/Footcandles/LUX/etc. yet. Lights are close to the top of my "to buy" list (although I am currently using a Velbon tripod from the '70s that I lock with a big c-clamp from Home Depot, so a tripod might come first). I'm pretty decided on an "AS-Arri" 3-light kit. They're just the workhorses and are cheap. I personally prefer the light properties of Kinos, but those are bulkier, more expensive and kinda fragile. With the "AS-Arri" kit, I get three lights in a suitcase, and maybe have some extra cash left over for a couple dirt-cheap little LED panels. Those always come in handy, as you can just throw them wherever, in tight spots, etc.

@shian you say you use IntraVenus because it is slightly softer . . . what are your thoughts on filters (physical, in front of the lens)? I'm starting to think pretty seriously about getting a couple of the go-to filters (black pro mist, etc.) because DSLR stuff that I've seen using them often seems to have certain qualities that come across as more "Hollywood"-esque. I'm especially keen to switch from my vari-ND to solid NDs in order that I can properly use ND filters and polarizing filters together (particularly useful for shooting through car windows, etc.)

EDIT: also, have you tried Driftwood's Moon stuff yet? Folks sure seem to be a-raving, especially in terms of gradability.

Yes and no. I only use the in-camera "Spot" meter to read different portions of the image. Which to me tells me way more than than the histogram's broad "image overall" reading. And I want people to understands EV's, because with a handheld meter, an understanding of EV's, and LUX, and Footcandles you can begin to think about lighting and exposure on another level. You can start lighting without a camera. You can light a scene in a CG environment just as easily as the real world. You can start lighting scenes in your head. When everything shifts from just doing what you're taught to a full understanding of light and photography.... that's when the fun begins.

That is my goal. It's not enough to just get a good exposure, to move to the next level one must begin to think and create in that space, and then paint with light. A monkey with a point and shoot can get a good exposure. But when the light goes on in your head, and you suddenly see the world differently, like Neo in the Matrix, everything changes. That is my end game. That is where I want to take people. All of this stops being a chore and becomes fun at that point. It should be fun, otherwise, why do it?

For instance sometimes under exposing skin tones is quite awesome, other times you want to overexpose. But you have to understand why in order to be able to use it. For instance, "House of Cards" looks amazing, and they purposely underexpose skin tones, and it's a great look. But even so, they are not underexposing everything. Underexposing everything in frame would create yet another look... and not a very flattering one.

That said, the histogram has it's uses, but don't rely on it solely.

And if I could custom dial in the peaking, I would use it. 100% doesn't help me. 90% or 80% would be great. I used to use an 80% zebra on my old HVX.

@stonebat well my workflow is a little unorthodox (u should be used to that by now), but very effective. I'll cover it in the tutorials. But the simplest answer to your question is, no... U can't. But I have devised a way to take advantage of the strengths of all 3. Depending on what you are trying to do, in some cases, you'll need to use Davinci's round tripping functionality, and in others its completely lossless. I've come up with a number of ways to use Davinci EVEN if your system won't run it properly. For instance if u are on a mac, and lack the proper video card to be able to render out correctly.

but yes in most cases Davinci is much faster. even when tracking.

Davinci is terrible at only a handful of things, things which AE excels at.

@shian are you jumping among FCPX, Davinci, and AE? That must be lots of jumping...

The more I use Color Finesse, the more I hate it.

@shian For example, I'm manipulating the ranges in a completely different way in each window, but the waveform is not changing to reflect any difference.

... unless this tool is only used to define what the program sees as high/med/low, but I could have sworn that your waveform was jumping around in real time while you were doing the tech grade of your dog.

@QuickHitRecord - screenshot? I'm not following what you're describing fully.

@B3Guy - only Intravenus...and because I like it, perfect grain, great color, and slightly soft... without getting into the icky 5D type softness