the best workflow for me

[Jeremy Walton]

Hello,

I've been posting on some of the Avid forums. I really want to establish the best possible workflow. I'll post some of the responses I got below. Just curious what everyone on here has to say.


This is basically what I wrote on the forums...


"So I need to streamline my workflow with the following in mind. Red epic 5K, HD footage (5d and Canon xa-20), MC, after effects for some visual effects, and resolve to finish. I would like to finish with a 2k master.


This is some of the responses I got...


"For me the easiest workflow would seem to be in Resolve add your Red footage (and Canon 5D etc) to the media pool.
Render the clips in Resolve to DNxHD 36 (Target folder can be an "Avid media Drive"\Avid MediaFiles\MXF\1
Export an AAF from Resolve with Round trip to Avid settings
In Avid open the Resolve AAF in a bin and your media clips will populate the bin and be online (If you rendered to a valid Avid MediaFiles\MXF\1 folder)
When you have finished the edit export an AAF from MC.
Open in the original Resolve session and Resolve re links your AAF timeline to the original Red files.
For the VFX shots you can export an AAF of those shots from Avid, bring that AAF back to Resolve and render your original footage files into 2K files for After Effects.
Sometime in the next 6 weeks Resolve 10 is scheduled to be released and it is supposed to have enough editing ability to be able to cut your 2K VFX shots back into your MC cut AAF timeline."


"My workflow for this would be:
Transcode all RED material to DNXHD36 in resolve with AAFs etc.
AMA all 5d 7d etc, and transcode to DNXHD36.
Cut show.
At end of show I would then split my source material my V1 would be my RED material,
All AMA material would get relinked in Avid on V2 etc. I would relink to originals in AVID. V2 would get exported by me as an uncompressed qt, 175x along with an edl for notching. This bakes in all of your repos that you've been using with the 2.35 consideration.
In resolve my V1 RED would be built, V2 would get notched, and cut over V1...."

 

[MichaelP]

Seeing as you are looking for a 2K master, and not an HD (1080) master, I would go with the first method. Also making the assumption you'll do the 2K finish in Resolve? Or some other application like Smoke?

Michael

 

[Jeremy Walton]

Def using Resolve to finish in 2k. I don't understand the VFX workflow though. I know I can export low rez clips to my VFX guy working in after effects. But to finish doesn't he need the 2k file? Actually if it's red footage shot in 5k shouldn't he have those files to work with? After I do my online shouldn't I export the raw files to the VFX artist, then he gives me the same clips back with the VFX added, then import those clips into resolve?

As for transcoding in Resolve, am I bypassing REDCINE X?

So when do I sync sound? When I open the media from resolve in Avid do I sync the sound to those clips? Then export to pro tools and when the sound has it's final mix bring into resolve?

 

[MichaelP]

Any temp effects in Media Composer would have a pull list created and the the high resolution files sent to the VFX artist to work with. If you just want to temp stuff up in AE, then send the Avid media. I would always cut the final VFX back into the sequence to that the AAF/EDL can track it as a new source when doing the conform. Export anH.264 out of MC to use as a guide track in Resolve. You can use RCXPro if you want, but since you are processing non RED stuff as well, the consistency of REEL/SOURCE naming will be important and setting it up once in Resolve will be consistent for all formats.

Sync audio in Media Composer - faster, with more control, and all BWF metadata attached. You can choose during the AutoSync process to only use the MIX track (if recording multi ISO tracks) and the editor still has access to the ISO's if needed.

Michael

 

[Jeremy Walton]

I guess I don't totally understand but understand it enough. I have a while before I'm worried about VFX. Ok, I'm going to throw a couple more questions at you. I've had different responses for this too. I'm shooting 5k full frame, but frame in the monitor for 2.4:1 or 2.35:1. I'm not sure what frame guides epic has. For my HD footage that shoots 16X9 I have a Marshall monitor that shows 2.35:1 framing. I'll frame for that. Now when I am working in Avid with the AAF how do I apply the mask? I was told all the masks in Avid were wrong. Applying the 16X9 mask would be the best to matching 2.35:1, but I don't want close. I hate when people say that. I'm sure there's a proper way to do this. I was also told in MC7 there was something called target mask that would work. OR should I even be doing this in Avid? I would like to because I could reframe the images that need it at that time. Thoughts?

The other question, to keep it simple... if I had all my raw 5k footage and HD on one drive when transcoding in Resolve, do I create the DNxHD 36 AAF and Avid project on another drive? Or does all the original footage and Avid project need to be on one drive. I assume no, but is there any rules to this? Thanks again!

 

[MichaelP]

All professional productions will shoot a framing chart. That media is brought in and you create a custom matte with the basic matte effect to match what the camera and the cameraperson are seeing. Basically matched the grid in the viewfinder. Save that effect off to the bin and you can apply it as needed to the top track. See http://www.arricsc.com/pdf/frameleaderDigital_2009-08.pdf for sample charts you can shoot for your desired aspect ratio. In v7, there is a new feature called target mask - basically the same concept. Either apply a preset mask (and these are correct for HD) or you can create a custom one to match your framing chart. I would suggest the 50% opaque one allowing you to see if you want to reframe and what the extra pixels might be. But that's a personal preference.

As far as transcoding, you can keep everything one drive depending on size, or you can have as may drives as the OS will allow. In all cases, the native Avid media will live in a root folder structure on each drive that looks like: Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1 and 1 can be any number but MC managed the number of files in each to optimize for the operating system.


Michael

 

[Job ter Burg]

I was told all the masks in Avid were wrong.

They are not wrong, but they are wrong. Meaning that they are right if you work in SD 4x3. In 16x9 and HD the numbers on the Avid masks are incorrect, because these masks were made by calculating percentages, so with a different canvas size and pixel aspect ratio, the same maths don't work out.

The maths is not that hard. The Avid mask can be adjusted manually, with the V-size position. The 16x9 mask in Avid gives you 25% of matting (V-slider set to 75). In a 1920x1080 project, this means an aspect ratio of 1920/(0.75*1080)=2.037037037:1. If you adjust the V-slider to 74, that would result in 1920/(0.74*1080)=2.402402402:1. If you adjust the V-slider to 76, that would result in 1920/(0.76*1080)=2.339181:1. Since the V-slider only has full point increments, that's the two options you have, and you cannot get any closer (sorry!) than that in Avid with a Mask. However, the actual aspect ratio of the projection will never be 100.0% accurate. That's why I feel more comfortable framing for 2.37 (when it comes to booms and other unintended stuff) than for 2.40.

Also, I always ask the cam department to shoot me a framing card, and I paste that into the start leader for each reel in editorial. I don't often find the need to set the Mask to anything other than V=75 to match that framing chart.

I think Target Mask gives you more options to set the aspect ratio more precisely. Target Mask's size is set in the Project window, under Format. You can add it to the source and/or record monitors by right-clicking them individually and choosing 'Set Target Mask'. However, if you need to matte the output to your client monitor, Target Mask only seems to be available to Avid DX hardware. Third party hardware does not support this feature.

Applying the 16X9 mask would be the best to matching 2.35:1, but I don't want close. I hate when people say that.

You say 2.35:1, but that has not been the actual aspect ratio for some time. There have been various definitions of what a scope aspect ratio actually is (2.35, 2.39, 2.40): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format#2.35.2C_2.39_or_2.40.3F. DCI currently specifies 2.38694:1, which in HD would mean 804.374999 pixels (which you cannot do, of course, as you only have full pixels).

P.S.: I think RedCine-X and Resolve would allow you to apply the matte during transcoding, but that deprives you of the option to vertically reframe shots. Just saying it's an option.

 

[MichaelP]

Thanks Job - Job is correct in saying they are partially wrong. Another way to create a custom matte is to take advantage of the Target Mask and use that as a guide to create the VFX matte if you still want to have that available. Currently the Trarget Mask is not on any exports, so you may want to have the VFX one on standby to apply as needed. Ans yes, 2.35 sort of went away in the 70's but is still what is referenced in the industry as shorthand for scope. In your case you're doing a 2.39 extraction to recreate a scope look, so as we both suggest, keep all the pixels active so you can repo as needed.

Michael

 

[Jeremy Walton]

I use 2.35:1 because it always comes up. My Marshall monitor I bought last year displays 16x9, 1.85:1, 2.35:1. If that isn't used anymore why do they give that option? I know the term gets thrown around, 2.35:1, 2.39:1, 2.40:1, but technically speaking they're different as Job showed in his math. I know when I look up new movies on IMDB and look at the cameras they used the format says 2.35:1. Check out 300 rise of an empire. Epic 5k 2.35:1. Why do they still use that then? So when these 100 million dollar movies are in post they're basically doing what is described above? I just thought there would be a standard way of doing this. It seems more like guesstimating. Am I wrong to think that?

 

[MichaelP]

Like we said, it's because it's been such a long used term in the industry lexicon that it continues to get used to this day, even if it is wrong. They may be saying 2.35 but chances are that it isn't. But again, if you're masking an image, you can make whatever aspect ratio you want since it's all arbitrary at that point. But if using digital camera's in today's market, it will be 2.39 or 2.40 etc. As far as IMDB goes, anyone registered with a credit can go on there and add/remove/correct/update, so the same people who think 2.35 is the term used for anything widescreen are probably the same people updating IMDB...

Michael

 

[Job ter Burg]

the format says 2.35:1.

2.35 is often used, even when they actually are releasing 2.39:1. And again, no cinema in the world will show the exact same aspect ration or size. There will always be some safety margin, and it will not be the same on any given screen. Same goes for TV, by the way.

Test the difference, apply a Mask and change it between .74, .75 and .76 and see how awfully small the difference is.

 

[Jeremy Walton]

haha that is very true!! Ok, thanks for the info!!!

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think RedCine-X and Resolve would allow you to apply the matte during transcoding, but that deprives you of the option to vertically reframe shots. Just saying it's an option.

I can't recall ever doing a color-correction project where we didn't do some reframing. This is very fast and easy in the color-timing bay (assuming Resolve or Baselight or equivalent software), and the 2.40 matte is applied at the very end of processing. We would much, much rather be given full-frame material prior to the color-correction session. Don't apply a matte before the color correction, or else the danger is that we can wind up color timing the ​matte.

 

[Job ter Burg]

Marc, in this case the matte would applied to dailies for offline editorial. Still, I haven't done a film where I did not reframe a few shots, so I'd still recommend not matting the dailies, but color correction would happen on the original source file, not the matted offline dailies.

 

[James Hogarth]

Hi there,

I'm new to this and don't know how to post a new thread.

I'm going on to a shoot that uses epic at 4k and wondered what the best workflow is.

I'm used to Alexa and da vinci

post are using avid to edit.

please help…

 

[MichaelP]

James - what do you perceive as being that different? I suspect your deliverable will be the same or very close to the same regardless of camera used. You can use Redcine X to make native DNxHD media, or keep using Resolve like you have. The only real differences will be how you manage look of image and sync audio requirements. will it just be an RMD transcode or will there be additional color correction to match shots?

Michael