Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

HDRx footage...

Ace said:
Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Wow.

Wow.Wow.Wow!!!!

For the first time I'm looking at a digital image completely smitten and enamored by the "feel". This feels like home. Someone mentioned kodachrome.. Or Velvia.. Wow.
Click to expand...


Yea dude. this is IT.

I mean really, truly IT.

OMG Jim does it again. and this time it's more then worth the price and the wait.

I did a grade on that quicktime footage, 8 bit compressed and all and still...it was the most amazing looking thing, as if you had a big soft light "filling" the faces in the bottom of the screen. WOWEEEEEEE
 
Oh, the motion artifacts - who cares! I watched it the first time and never even noticed.

this is so much bigger then a few motion artifacts its silly to even start that discussion at all.
 
laurikka said:
Long time lurker here, but I had to bring my own theory on how the Magic Mode works based on Jim's description of the blur characteristics:

Let's say we have a 180 degree shutter speed. Instead of having a continuous exposure over the 180 degrees, lets divide it in to three 60 degree exposures taken consequently without gap between them.
Let's take the middle exposure of the three and save it as one stream.
Then let's add the three exposures together and save it as the other stream.

Now we have a separate exposure that is only one third of the whole, clearly giving much more information to the highlights (1 1/2 stops?) , but covering only middle part of the motion blur, thus describing the sharper feel of the Magic Mode motion blur.

By varying the different exposure lengths we can manipulate how much the dynamic range is expanded, for example instead of three times 60 degrees, a series like 80;20;80 where the middle exposure would be only 20 degrees, thus giving much more dynamic extension.

Hope this makes sense, because I have to go to sleep now.

- henri laurikka
Click to expand...

Welcome Henri.
I think you are on to something here.
I hope you got some sleep.
 
whoop! someone needs to write some voodoo for me in Shake so I can adapt to the 'new' way motion blurs now! Also I really do like it, the sharpness + moblur trail—it's interesting.
 
Eisen Feuer said:
whoop! someone needs to write some voodoo for me in Shake so I can adapt to the 'new' way motion blurs now! Also I really do like it, the sharpness + moblur trail—it's interesting.
Click to expand...

Given that the foundry is part of the deal you might need to put your antiquated end of life software on the shelf and invest in Nuke ;)
(sorry I am saying this as a total shake lover who is very very sad about this programs demise but - really - except for the horrible horrible ugly interface nuke starts to become a proper replacement)
 
fALk Gärtner said:
Given that the foundry is part of the deal you might need to put your antiquated end of life software on the shelf and invest in Nuke ;)
(sorry I am saying this as a total shake lover who is very very sad about this programs demise but - really - except for the horrible horrible ugly interface nuke starts to become a proper replacement)
Click to expand...

Falk - with all due respect, "starts"? Really? Shake is so far behind Nuke I can't even begin to describe it. And most even semi-serious VFX/Post facilities are using Nuke as the primary VFX and Comp software. Also any pro compositor / VFX artist will disagree with You about the "ugliness" of the UI...

And for the record - I used to be addicted to Shake...

:devil: Peter
 
Shake was awesome in its day.... But it's just a toy compared to Nuke. So sad that Apple let it die only to give us Motion3 (what a turd).
 
Fusion is my second favorite.... :) Actually, I learned Fusion before I learned Shake or Nuke.
 
Their new pricing model makes them attractive, but people who's opinion I respect seem to prefer Nuke, regardless of cost.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Shake was awesome in its day.... But it's just a toy compared to Nuke. So sad that Apple let it die only to give us Motion3 (what a turd).
Click to expand...

If they make another seven movie I think cannibalize shake for the sake of motion must be one of the sins!
 
I love looking at image samples and test footage, but I would be so much happier to see pictures of Epic and Scarlet shipping invoices.
 
Lots of people saying stuff about Shake being obsolete, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure Nuke is pretty fantastic, but Shake is no toy. Its ability to pass through footage as a part of a workflow may be antiquated but I love Shake for exactly what it is—it contains all the basic elements of image modification I need where I can chain them together and create just about any effect I please. More important than investing in new software is the astronomical investment of time I've put into learning Shake (which I bought for $250!). There is very little that I would ever do (<that's an important part of the sentence) that I can't do in Shake. I'm not going to dabble in the headache-inducing :emote_hanged: that is 3D, I'm not working on trillion-dollar budget films, and I don't have an VFX team. I am the VFX team.

In fact I love Shake so much and despise Photoshop (screw Layers—and History. Honestly how has that crap survived the 90s over nodes)enough that anything that I can do in Shake I do there, like this guy: http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/271/1/a/NCnumber_here_by_EisenFeuer.jpg

It helps that I have my own library of probably 100 different filters I wrote in Shake :D

Anyway—HDRx, and all that cool new motionblur I was talking about.
 
Álex Montoya said:
Here a natural looking grade of that footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDXTUviCAMU
Click to expand...

Fun! Looks great. Here's what I came up with:

http://vimeo.com/15177915

Jim's right, it's a really hard color situation! Of course, Vegas in general is an assault on the eyes. I imagine it'd look much better starting with the .R3D file too. Anyone else come up with anything better?

Interesting; you can really see the effects of the h.264 compression where I pumped up the saturation of the Binion's sign. Seems like the color Red has never compressed well. Making jpgs of Cadillacs years ago, the red ones always had to be exported at a higher bit rate.
 
Eisen Feuer said:
. I'm not going to dabble in the headache-inducing :emote_hanged: that is 3D, I'm not working on trillion-dollar budget films, and I don't have an VFX team. I am the VFX team.
Click to expand...

But 3D (we're talking about 3D not stereo right? well either way...) is what makes Nuke shine. And 3D is the future of compositing. Shake handles the 'old style' of compositing just fine. Trouble is that style is far less efficient and slower than the new Nuke/Fusion workflow. ANnnnnnnnnyway here's something to justify the off topic ramblings. :D

HDRexTheory.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top