Major Hollywood film shot on Red bluray workflow.

[Gabriele Turchi]

Hi ,
I am wondering if for film like "knowing" or "social network" or Antichrist etc...

the bluray edition are usually made from film scan of the release print or if are encoded for bluray straight from the Digital master after the color grading session.

Reason is because as a colorist i am buying blu ray of movie shot on RED to RED footages picture quality and quality of the color grading comparing it with the footage that i am working on (pure digital pipeline and no film print involved )

so if anyone knows details about the workflow of this big movies out there please share .

Thanks a lot

g

 

[M Most]

Hi ,
I am wondering if for film like "knowing" or "social network" or Antichrist etc...

the bluray edition are usually made from film scan of the release print or if are encoded for bluray straight from the Digital master after the color grading session.

Reason is because as a colorist i am buying blu ray of movie shot on RED to RED footages picture quality and quality of the color grading comparing it with the footage that i am working on (pure digital pipeline and no film print involved )

so if anyone knows details about the workflow of this big movies out there please share .

The digital intermediate approach means that all deliverables are created from a single timed master, with some tweaks done on each to accommodate specific differences in the formats. So for most pictures, the primary target is the film release (although this is becoming a bit less universal with digitally shot material). Once the grading is done for the film version, lookup tables are applied to yield the digital cinema version and the HD video version. The lookup tables are designed to retain the look of the primary deliverable across all delivery platforms. All video deliverables - including BluRay - are created from the HD video deliverable, which is commonly supplied on HDCam SR videotape, but can be supplied in the form of a file. This is rarely done, however.

So, getting back to what I think is your question, electronic deliverables such as BluRay are created directly from the digital source master files, which is the original product of the DI. The days of creating video masters via a film transfer from an interpositive are long gone, except in the rare case of a picture that does not go through a digital intermediate process (Chris Nolan's pictures, for instance).

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

thanks mike ,

to be honest i was thinking were i could post this message , than i decided on cimetography because i can reach people like your knowledge here .

ok got it

i see what you mean about the LUT (i guess you mean baking -in the preview print LUT used for the Print LOG to the SR master right?)

Ok so from SR digital straight to Bluray encoders right ?
i thought that scanning the print again might give an even ""better"" film look .

Next question is :
in hollywood what is the workflow for teh encoding ?
I mean what encoders are widely used ?
Sonic Cinemaster ?
Sony Blu code ?
Cinema Craft
Others ?

PS:does anyone know who and using what system has been used for knowing grading ? ...it look pretty glorious and probably still the best Shot on Red images Film effect

Thanks

G

 

[M Most]

t
i see what you mean about the LUT (i guess you mean baking -in the preview print LUT used for the Print LOG to the SR master right?)

A version of it tailored to Rec709 color space and video gamma, yes, but with the same film color target.

Ok so from SR digital straight to Bluray encoders right ?
i thought that scanning the print again might give an even ""better"" film look

No, that's not necessary. All of the color characteristics of the internegative and print stock combination are incorporated in a properly done LUT. In high end DI work, the print is usually shown in a "butterfly" (i.e., side by side split screen) projection against the digital master to ensure the accuracy of the process. And the color science used by major DI facilities is accurate enough to stand up to this kind of scrutiny.

Next question is :
in hollywood what is the workflow for teh encoding ?
I mean what encoders are widely used ?
Sonic Cinemaster ?
Sony Blu code ?
Cinema Craft
Others ?

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that even though I work for a division of the largest producer of blu rays in the world (Deluxe), I'm not sure what they use. I think I heard Sonic Solutions mentioned at one time, but I won't swear to it.

PS:does anyone know who and using what system has been used for knowing grading ? ...it look pretty glorious and probably still the best Shot on Red images Film effect

The DI for that picture was done at Park Road in Wellington, New Zealand, on a Pablo system, employing custom LUTs their color science department developed to bring the Red images into something resembling film color space. That is not the way many Red sourced DI's are done today, but it was probably the right approach at the time.

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

The DI for that picture was done at Park Road in Wellington, New Zealand, on a Pablo system, employing custom LUTs their color science department developed to bring the Red images into something resembling film color space. That is not the way many Red sourced DI's are done today, but it was probably the right approach at the time.

do you agree that today the right path would be :
RedlogFilm + film print Lut (based on film stock target (and offcourse calibrated on your monitor ))
and than grade ?

i heard michale cione say that they prefer grade for DCI and than have lab convert it ...but i believe that film print Lut itself give to the image something very filmic ...

thanks

g

 

[M Most]

do you agree that today the right path would be :
RedlogFilm + film print Lut (based on film stock target (and offcourse calibrated on your monitor ))
and than grade ?

i heard michale cione say that they prefer grade for DCI and than have lab convert it ...but i believe that film print Lut itself give to the image something very filmic ...

I don't necessarily agree with Michael on everything, but on this one, I do. And we've discussed it more than once.

At some point, one has to let go of the notion that the only attractive on screen image is one based on the film aesthetic, and embrace what modern image characteristics represent. Digital images do not look like film, and film doesn't look like a digitally captured image. That doesn't make one good and the other bad. It just means that they're different. In the case of Red specifically, the camera was developed with digital display in mind. Any attempt to shoehorn the images into a film centric color pallette really ends up restricting the available color spectrum and introducing color oddities, no matter how good the color science is. The degree of color separation - the key to achieving real depth in a grading environment - is far greater when the information is used in its original form and targeted to a display technology that it's best suited for. Redlog Film still doesn't really solve this dilemma because at least as far as I can tell, there is still no color matrix available that is film targeted, only the gamma curve. So you're still pushing colors to places they really don't want to go when you grade through a film print preview LUT. Both Michael and I have set up multiple DI theaters in multiple facilities using a digital cinema centric approach, and we've both done it quite successfully. Of course, using that approach and needing to supply a film deliverable is very dependent on having a film recording/laboratory partner that can do a very, very accurate inverse transform from the P3 corrected files you provide to Cineon files for the film recorder. In Los Angeles, we're fortunate to have a number of vendors who can do that.

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

i see .
And it make sense .
A print lut might be a fast way to take away a bad digital look , but than i agree that it might limit you if you know how to color you images using secondaries .

PS:for just 709 Release , what color and gamma space you like start with as far as today for MX footage ?

g

 

[Stacey Spears]

in hollywood what is the workflow for teh encoding ?
I mean what encoders are widely used ?

The common encoders are:
1. Sony Blu-code - http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/blucode
2. CinemaCraft - http://www.cinemacraft.com/en/cchde.html
3. Thompson - I believe only Technicolor has it. The 2D encoder was called Tiger.
4. PHL has their own encoder
5. PEP - VC-1 encoder built by Microsoft (my project) and resold by Sonic as Cinevision PSE
6. Cinevision - http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/professional/cinevision/overview.html (MainConcept engine)

Deluxe has #1, 2, and 5. They may also have 6, but it is not really used.
GDMX (WHV) has 1 and 5.
Sony has 1 and 2.
Giant Interactive has 2 and 5.

CinemaCraft is probably the most common 264 encoder in use. It enables a bunch of low pass filters by default. Many turn them off because they really soften the image. Some leave them enabled because they don't know any better.

x264 now supports Blu-ray as well. Its better than MainConcept by leaps and bounds. It does not offer segmnet re-encoding, which all of the others have. It is also only 2D capable.

I have worked closely with Deluxe, GDMX, and Giant on their HD encoding. Also worked closely with 1k until many of them moved over to Giant. Once upon a time I worked closely with Technicolor, back when Mark Johnson was there.

The assests were generally delivered on tape and then captured as 10-bit 4:2:2. I know Pixar started delivering DPX image sequences.

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

Thanks Stacey

I have cinemacraft MPE (plugin for compressor ) , they claim is the same code of Xstream , but honestly i never noticed too much difference from the mpeg 2 encoder in compressor (which is 3 times faster having HD QT as source)

About H264 encoding :

is x264 soo Good?
is open source right ?
And the other software you mentioned are very very expensive right ?

How do you consider Matrox MAX ?

thanks'

g

 

[M Most]

PS:for just 709 Release , what color and gamma space you like start with as far as today for MX footage ?

g

There isn't any one answer. It depends on the material and the intended look. In general, I tend to use RedColor as the color matrix, but I switch between RedGamma and Rec709 for the gamma curve based on the material.

 

[Stacey Spears]

is x264 soo Good?
is open source right ?
And the other software you mentioned are very very expensive right ?

Yes to all of the above.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

is x264 soo Good?
is open source right ?
And the other software you mentioned are very very expensive right ?

x264 is quite high quality, but be very wary of it if you are using it for a commercial project. H.264 is a proprietary standard with a license fee, and x264 is unlicensed. Using it for a commercial project can potentially leave you in a bad spot legally. I highly encourage you to stick with commercial, licensed encoders for a commercial project.

 

[Wolfgang Woehl]

H.264 is a proprietary standard with a license fee, and x264 is unlicensed.

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html

 

[Stephen Strangways]

That license is aimed at software developers who want to develop and sell a proprietary software program that has x264 encoding capability.

x264 is not a unique format, it is a software library that encodes video to the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC format standard.
Once your video is encoded to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC by any software, is is then subject to MPEG LA licensing terms and royalties, if applicable.

 

[Wolfgang Woehl]

... it is then subject to MPEG LA licensing terms and royalties, if applicable.

And x264 commercial licensing promises to cover that.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html

Wasn't aware of that, good to know.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

And x264 commercial licensing promises to cover that.

No, it doesn't promise to cover that at all, and it is in fact for an entirely different purpose, solely that of licensing the x264 software library.

If you are a software company creating a proprietary software program such as an NLE or a video encoder, and you want to include the x264 software library as a way your software encodes video, then the x264 commercial licensing would cover that.

However, if you are a video content producer or service provider then your end product (whether you use x264 or any other encoder) is subject to MPEG-LA licensing.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

If you read the x264 commercial licensing short summary of terms, you'll see:

4. You're responsible for patent licensing if you're based in a
nation where patents are an issue. This isn't our choice; the rules
of MPEG-LA require that if Company A uses Company B's encoder in their
product, Company A must pay the fees, not Company B. FYI, MPEG-LA's
fees are zero for the first 100,000 units, 20 cents per unit until 5
million, and 10 cents beyond that, capping at around $5m per year.

In this example, you are Company A, a software developer. The x264 group is Company B. You must pay the fees to MPEG-LA, but that is for an encoder and decoder manufacturer sublicense, which is different from a content producer or service provider license, so that just illustrates the point that an x264 commercial license would cover you for x264, but not for the underlying H.264 patents that you need a license from the MPEG-LA for.

 

[Wolfgang Woehl]

Stephen, I see. Thanks for clarifying this. Misread section 3.

In the OP's use case -- encoding material -- none of this applies, though, anyway, does it?

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Wolfgang, I think we have strayed a long way from the OP's question of how the content he is using as reference material was encoded!

IANAL, but MPEG-LA licensing only applies to the apparent provider, not the content owner or the end user. So, if your content is sold on the iTunes store - licensing is up to Apple. If your content is broadcast by a digital cable or satellite provider, like DirecTV for example - licensing is up to them.

If you are personally selling Blu-ray discs with your content, you probably need to take care of licensing and royalties not just with the MPEG-LA for H.264, but also with the Blu-ray Disc Association License Office.

H.264 is royalty free for internet video that's free to the end user. So, whether your content is available for free on YouTube or your own site, you probably don't have to worry. If you are selling your content online, you probably need a license.

Seeing as we have gone this far already...

x264 is quite high quality, but be very wary of it if you are using it for a commercial project. H.264 is a proprietary standard with a license fee, and x264 is unlicensed. Using it for a commercial project can potentially leave you in a bad spot legally. I highly encourage you to stick with commercial, licensed encoders for a commercial project.

H.264 is a proprietary standard with a license fee, and using it for a commercial project without proper licensing can potentially leave you in a bad spot legally. It does not matter, however, which encoder you use to encode your content to that H.264 standard.

For example, Sony Vegas has licensed Mainconcept's H.264 encoder, so that they can legally use it in their software. However, that does not mean that you are licensed to sell H.264 encoded content because you purchased Vegas.

The x264 software library is not unlicensed - it is licensed under the GPL. That means that software that is also licensed under the GPL can use the x264 library. Commercial non-GPL software like Vegas cannot. Sony, however, could acquire an x264 commercial license and sell the next version of Vegas with x264 included.

No matter whether your content was encoded using a free GPL program using x264, or this hypothetical future version of Vegas that had commercially licensed x264, you would not be licensed to sell H.264 encoded content.

This should clear up some confusion:

1. Camera manufacturers license the H.264 standard from the MPEG-LA to manufacture cameras that record H.264.
2. Software developers like Sony, Adobe, and Apple license software and libraries like x264, MainConcept H.264, and DivX from their developers, and also the H.264 standard from the MPEG-LA.
3. You use that software to encode you content to H.264, and if you are the final "content provider" in the delivery chain, you license the H.264 standard from the MPEG-LA.
4. Your end user then watches that content on a Blu-ray player or set-top box, and the manufacturer of that licenses the H.264 standard from the MPEG-LA.

Summary: Everybody along the line who's making any money pays the MPEG-LA, except the end user, the encoding software developer, and the content creator.
If you are a content provider, you are never immune to MPEG-LA licensing requirements because you used software or hardware that the has already paid MPEG-LA licensing fees.
For this reason, it doesn't matter at all what encoder you use for a commercial project.
But furthermore, if you are just the content creator but not the provider, you don't need to worry about MPEG-LA licensing.

 

[Stacey Spears]

If you are personally selling Blu-ray discs with your content, you probably need to take care of licensing and royalties not just with the MPEG-LA for H.264, but also with the Blu-ray Disc Association License Office.

I have two Blu-ray discs on the market. I must pay $0.04 per disc for AACS. This is covered during replication. I had to pay a one time fee to AACS to become a licensee. (Content Provider license) I have to pay an annual fee to the BDA in order to use the Blu-ray logo. If I did not wish to use the logo, I would not have to pay the BDA.