re: Mastering via FCP vs. mastering via After Effects

"Why would anyone who makes a living using AE want to share tips & tricks with you in discussion when all you do is bash the livin' daylights out of the app? "

-I dont agree with having bashed the application altough I have questioned its usefullness in this matter.
I use After Effects every day and it is definately my favourite application. For animation though and not for compositing.

Obviously some people use it and they use it very well. I am curious as to why they choose to composite in AE. To me it seems like someone cutting a major feature in iMovie.
-Sort of possible but by no means preferrable.

I asked this question with the best of intentions. I really do want to know how professionals composite with After effects.

This is what I'd like to know:

The algorithm behind the motion tracker in AE is inaccurate making the tracking very difficult.
-How does one work around that?
-3rd party app? Plugin?

The tools are too limited.
In After Effects the effects and tools come as Pre-made scripts whereas in Shake and flame etc you sort of build them up from scratch enabling you to have total control. From my experience the chances of the premade tools fitting perfectly with what you aim to achieve are small.
-So how do you achieve the perfect Green screen matte or warp for example with the tools in AE?
-Plugins?
-How is this physically done?

This is what I just dont understand.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

The power of a layer based model explained briefly for Johan:

You have 238 elements (layers).
You want to quickly make a tunnel in 3D space with them. Perfect. It takes 30 seconds.

You grab the first one. And write (no need to actually write most of it) a tiny line of code that basically says: please make the third term of the position vector (that would be Z position) a consequence of the layer stacking order, but multiplied by 10 so my layers are nicely distributed in 3D space. It takes much longer to explain than to do. It would be:

position = [position[0], position[1], index*10];

See what I mean? "index" is an attribute that it's in the core of a layer/stack model.

Go to Edit > Copy expression only.

Select the other 237 elements with a single mouse click (invert selection) See, again? Selecting everything but this and this in a stack, with a single command? Good luck with that with nodes.

Paste.
Total time: 30 seconds.

Now you look at it and say. Mmmm. I wish my 3D tunnel was even deeper. No problem. You just change index*10 with index*15, copy expression only, paste to the other 237 layers. Total time: 5 seconds. If you're a total control freak you apply a expression control slider to a null object, so you can dinamically control the resulting depth of your 238 layers with one little gizmo.

Change recipe to address rotation x, y or z property and thus make toruses, rings and so on in 3D space.

Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires - Argentina
www.adolforozenfeld.com

"So how do you achieve the perfect Green screen matte or warp for example with the tools in AE?"

With something called Keylight. Ring a bell? It's the keyer in Shake.

"The algorithm behind the motion tracker in AE is inaccurate making the tracking very difficult".

Perhaps the person behind the algorithm behind the tracker? AE's motion tracker has improved 1000 per cent in the last few versions. It's not the best out there, but it certainly isn't the worse either. Perfectly capable. I usually get what I want from it in 10 mins.


"In After Effects the effects and tools come as Pre-made scripts whereas in Shake and flame etc you sort of build them up from scratch enabling you to have total control"

WHAT?

"To me it seems like someone cutting a major feature in iMovie".


Oh, I see.
You're not actually interested in this at all. You're only interested in affirming what you already know. As I said, better ways to invest time.

Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires - Argentina
www.adolforozenfeld.com

Adolfo,

You are wasting breath, my friend.

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Adolfo and Joe.

You two have the wrong attitude.
I seriously want to know how this is done.

I am not bashing, I am questioning..

Adolfo I am perfectly aware of how to ANIMATE in the way you explained in you post above.
Its a great trick and exactly what I use After Effects for.
It is animation though and not compositing.
I'd much rather do that in After Effects than any other application.

"It's not the best out there, but it certainly isn't the worse either. Perfectly capable. I usually get what I want from it in 10 mins"

No the tracker is not perfectly capable for high-end compositing which is what we are discussing.
Its underdeveloped to the point of being almost useless. (This can be done properly with 3rd party apps or plugins though I assume)

"WHAT? "

-Yes thats right. You have premade scripts (effects) in Shake as well but they can be altered in any way you can imagine using simple mathematical scripts like divisions and multiplications etc. Thats hoe compositing generally works. Its not about applying effects and then dragging a few sliders until it sort of looks good.
In After Effects you get a pre-made effect with a few sliders.
An unfair but yet worthy comparison would be between the way that iDVD works compared to DVDSPRO. One is simple to use and has settings premade whereas the other may be harder to learn but flexibility is far greater.


"Oh, I see.
You're not actually interested in this at all. You're only interested in affirming what you already know. As I said, better ways to invest time."

-No you are mistaken. I was simply offering my perception of the differences in flexibility and usefullness between the two apps. This is MY perception and I hope I am proven wrong.


"With something called Keylight. Ring a bell?"
-This was my whole point. The keyers in AE are harldy flexible enough to tweak near perfect results. Not even close most of the time whic results in compromises. Compare the keyers in Shake and AE and then explain to me how you can achieve the same results with both.

Once again I have no interest at all in bashing you nor an app.
That is pointless and nobody benefits.
I am only questioning the statement that AE can and should be used as a professional compositing and/or on-lining app.
To me it makes no sense at all but I may be wrong.
So instead of being rude and sarcastic perhaps you can enlighten me?

And Joe I am the one wasting my breath with you.
You seem to take this personally which is quite bizarre to say the least.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

> No the tracker is not perfectly capable for high-end compositing which is what we are discussing.

I thought we we discussing onlining. I don't think anyone would argue that shake is a powerhouse compositor, but I don't think it would be a particularly fast or fluid environment to conform a feature film?do you disagree Johan?

-Stu

I thought we were talking about onlining too. That is what all my comments were about.

I use Shake to handle my compositing and green screen.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

"I thought we were talking about onlining too. That is what all my comments were about."

I apologize for loosing my temper. The thread was totally about onlining. I charged like a bull when I saw red

Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires - Argentina
www.adolforozenfeld.com

Stu and Shane.

Yes you are entirely correct this is off topic.
Its a continuation of a previous discussion and should have been a separate thread.
In that discussion I was arguing that for compositing Shake would be far better whereas for 2D animation After Effects is superior.

" thought we we discussing onlining. I don't think anyone would argue that shake is a powerhouse compositor, but I don't think it would be a particularly fast or fluid environment to conform a feature film?do you disagree Johan?"

Yes we were discussing on-lining and I originally misunderstood the point of the question. I thought we were discussing rendering out only, when in fact we were discussing the color grading part of the on-lining process.

Yes After Effects would generally be easier and faster than Shake for that purpose. And from what I just learned on this thread the render mechanism produces cleaner results in AE than FCP which is another good reason to use it.
After Effects generally takes longer to render however compared to Shake which would be a factor but perhaps not an important one. Shake would also be preferable if there are several on-lining machines built into a production pipeline.

If Dereks company were to use the on-lining system for greenscreening and compositing then I would definately recommend they get Shake.
If they wont do compositing, it really does not make a big difference what app they use.


I do have a question though:
-Why is it that when I render out a file from After Effects, using exactly the same codec as I brought in, the color (or gamma) changes slightly? I did a test just now to be sure and I dont get that result from FCP. Is this a gamma issue that can be adressed and fixed before render?

Quote

I apologize for loosing my temper. The thread was totally about onlining. I charged like a bull when I saw red

Quick! Everyone run to the forum thread about the best way to log talking heads...

...I'll distract Adolfo long enough for everyone to get away safely!!!





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Johan Polhem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> -Why is it that when I render out a file from
> After Effects, using exactly the same codec as I
> brought in, the color (or gamma) changes slightly?
> I did a test just now to be sure and I dont get
> that result from FCP. Is this a gamma issue that
> can be adressed and fixed before render?

This is a terribly annoying bug/bad idea in FCP. FCP tags files with gamma flags, assuming that you have a default 1.8 gamma display. This causes the quicktime movie to actually be too dark when accessed by other applications such as AE. Drives me freaking crazy.

-Stu

That is very interesting.
So what you are saying is that the problem is in FCP during capture and its only visible when you go outside of FCP?
Is there a good way to work around this?

And I agree it is annoying to the point of driving me mad.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

The problem starts at capture, but it isn't apparent until you use FCP's captures in other apps.

I imagine there must be other threads on this site detailing the suck of this.

-Stu

The problem is RGB vs Y'CbCr.

When you import a Y'CbCr file into a RGB application like Shake or AE or Motion, it maps 0 percent values to 0 and 100 percent values to 255. This means that any luma or chroma values outside super black or super white get clipped, and that the values inside these units get adjusted accordingly.

Older versions of FCP also apply gamma adjustments on import (as Stu says) but FCP 5.1.2 has a new system for handling gamma - it doesn't apply extra gamma correction on output anymore, and there is a user selectable preference for import gamma handling.

But if you are moving to or from RGB applications and FCP (in a broadcast environment), you need to understand the changes that being applied and pre-compensate.

I've only just started to get a handle on this, so I'm not the font of all knowledge on gamma in FCP. If you need to understand this stuff (most people don't, really) I can recommend a new book called The Encylopedia of Color Correction by Alexis Van Hurkman

Jude.

Thanks.
I will look into this ASAP.
Please keep us updated with what you learn.
This really sucks.

I have actually re-cut a few ads and sent them back out to broadcast in FCP.
Do you need to compensate if you edit only within FCP and output through FCP?

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

>>Do you need to compensate if you edit only within FCP and output through FCP?<<

No. Only things that have gone out to RGB applications and come back, or have originated in RGB applications. That probably means Shake and AE and maybe PS, in your case.

Like I said, most people don't even need to know this - it's really only high end work that gets fussy about these gamma shifts - but if it's a big part of your workflow, and you've got the sort of clients who do know exactly what hue their logo is, so you are the sort of guy who does need to understand it.

Since I'm not a mathematical genius, it does my head in a bit, but the general rule is

In 5.1 and earlier -
FCP assumes that RGB image files were created on a mac, using the default mac display gamma of 1.8. It tries to make these images fit the broadcast standard better by adding an automatic gamma correction of 1.22 (credit to Adam Wilt for this number).
So, if you need to bring in a RGB still or .mov, give it a gamma correction of .824 (credit to Chris Meyer for this number) in the originating application beofre you send it to FCP.

Like I said, there are also export issues, which can be handled in a simliar way, and 5.1.2 goes a long way to addressing these issues.

Jude Cotter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you import a Y'CbCr file into a RGB
> application like Shake or AE or Motion, it maps 0
> percent values to 0 and 100 percent values to 255.
> This means that any luma or chroma values outside
> super black or super white get clipped, and that
> the values inside these units get adjusted
> accordingly.

Thanks Jude, that's true and something I've written a great deal about.

> Older versions of FCP also apply gamma adjustments
> on import (as Stu says) but FCP 5.1.2 has a new
> system for handling gamma - it doesn't apply extra
> gamma correction on output anymore, and there is a
> user selectable preference for import gamma
> handling.

This is music to my ears?where might that setting be?

Have they also solved the problem of not respecting ColorSync when displaying video in the UI? I have my displays calibrated to g2.2, and it seems like FCP is showing me my video too dark, under the assumption that I have the default Mac 1.8 gamma.

-Stu

>>This is music to my ears?where might that setting be?
<<

It's under User Preferences > Editing > Imported still Gamma. The options are :
Source, which acts like the previous versions of FCP, adding 1.22
1.80, which is the default option for images made on a mac
2.20, which is the default for images made on a pc, or
Custom, where you can add your own value.

You can also see in the browser what gamma level each clip has applied to it - it's a column called "Gamma Level".

Apparently since 5.1.2 no gamma adjustments are applied when you export a quicktime movie or image file.

Like I said, I'm only just getting my head wrapped around this stuff, so sorry I don't know about the UI color problems. I just rely on my external calibrated monitor. but if you've got info on how to work with colour correctly on a computer monitor, I'm definitley all ears. Except the bits of me that aren't actually ears, of course.

Jude, Stu.

Great. Thanks.

This has been bothering me for the past few weeks and now at lest I know where the problem lies.
Funny thing is I never noticed with Shake, only AE.

"So, if you need to bring in a RGB still or .mov, give it a gamma correction of .824 (credit to Chris Meyer for this number) in the originating application beofre you send it to FCP. "

Thats exactly what I needed to know...

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

This is turning out to be a great thread. Great info here. Lots of really good geeky drama in search of an ending.

Michael Horton
-------------------

I wonder why you don't see it in Shake, Johan? You should, really, if all this theory is correct. What codec do you use for transport? Is it a RGB codec? I'd be interested to hear the results of your tests in the future.

Michael Horton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is turning out to be a great thread. Great
> info here. Lots of really good geeky drama in
> search of an ending.

Sorry to be redundant but I feel the same way. A worthy read this is. Glad I clicked on it.

Just to dredge up this extremely long page-hogging thread again ...

Has anyone been using this in the real world? (Heh, Mark)

[www.bitjazz.com]

Bitjazz products seem a bit magical overall, so it would be interesting to hear of people's experience with this amazing sounding colour convertor. Here's a quote about it from Bitjazz

" Synchromy is a revolutionary nondestructive color-conversion technology for professional video and film production that can interconvert between RGB spectral color pixels and Y'CbCr video color pixels with absolutely no loss in image quality. Designed to increase the interchangeability of studio-quality digitized film & CGI and video formats in professional video and film production, Synchromy permits editors to switch between their favorite tools without having to worry about error accumulation from repeated conversion between RGB and Y'CbCr color spaces."