Quite a few Sony Vegas users read this blog, but I might have to move to CS4 or FCS soon. While Vegas is possibly the best *editor* in terms of usability, it doesn’t satisfy me regarding color grading — which is the main thing I do.

Even when using the 32bit mode to grade, I get blotches and ugly artifacts. Using a mask without having too much halo is impossible too. Using motion tracking is not supported. Basic color plugins like a vector-based rainbw-color plugin (like the super-buggy third party Aav6cc) are missing. And if that’s not enough, Red Giant Software has stopped maintaining Magic Bullet for Vegas, does not develop any new products for Vegas, and BorisFX also left the Vegas camp too a few months ago. In other words, Vegas becomes much-unsupported by third party plugins, and itself doesn’t have all the features (or the usability in the current tools) a colorist needs. In my view, Vegas is irrelevant right now, even if it has thousands of users and it gets a lot of new ones every day (who buy it because it’s the best *frame editor* for the price). The problem is with actual support (like on things I wrote here), advanced features, and the nonexistent third party plugin support.

Check this amazing grading done in AE by Charles-Etienne Pascal, where he didn’t use any third party plugins at all (special thanks to Charles-Etienne for letting me use the grabs). The outcome is milky. Doing a similar 32bit grading on Vegas resulted in visible artifacts (when viewed in 1:1). For some reason, Vegas’ own color plugins don’t take a lot of pushing before they show artifacts.

For those interested on how it was done, it involved 3 video tracks, one with a mask around the eyes to lower the gamma in them and make them visible, a track with a mask around the head to change the face color using Color Corrector, change the lighting on the face using bump map’s spotlight option, and some unsharpen mask, and a third track that changes the gamma/colors on the background to make it darker.

The easiest way to come somewhat close to that look without having to use all these tracks and masking, is by using the “punchy” Magic Bullet Looks template modified, and unsharpen mask.

Nevertheless, Adobe’s CS4 might be in my near future.

Canon chose a pretty bad format for their consumer digicam and video dSLR products: h.264 in the MOV container, without B-Frames. This creates a kind of format that is very difficult to edit in real time. As I type this, even the fastest desktop PC on Earth can’t decode in real time that footage under Sony Vegas, or even Premiere. As of now, here are your editing options with such footage:

1. Edit as is
It is possible to edit these files as is, by dropping them in the timeline, but you should expect anything between 0.3 and 5 fps. Which means that it’s unbearably slow to do educated guesses on how to cut your project. Additionally, Vegas has very poor support for Quicktime, so after you add a few of these files in the timeline, you should expect crashes.

2. Proxy Files
Proxy files allow you to use small-sized, low-quality copies of the original files that edit faster — and just before you export, you switch to the original files, to export at full quality. Here are tutorials for Vegas Platinum, Pro, and Premiere. The problem with this method is that, at least with Vegas, there’s still a big risk of crashing during exporting (because it would use the original MOV files). Also, exporting is very slow, because the decoding is slow (before it even starts encoding).

3. Cineform
This is the best solution for the problem. You buy Cineform NeoSCENE (or NeoHD), and you drop the files in its utility to transcode them. Cineform is pretty fast decoding h.264, and transcoding the 4:2:0 files to a 4:2:2 format, that’s visually lossless, and easy to edit. The only downsides are that the created filesizes will be double over the original and the gamma will slightly change, but these are a small price to pay for having a stable, and fast format to edit with.

Q&A

Q. Why not use Divide.Frame’s accelerated decoder?
A. Because it’s unstable, and it doesn’t work with all versions of Vegas or Premiere.

Q. What format should I use for proxies?
A. I would suggest you use 640×360 mpeg2 at 1.5 mbps. It’s the easiest format to edit, by far. The Premiere tutorial linked above can be modified to create such proxies rather than its suggested h.264 proxies.

Q. Why not use mpeg2, or XDCam or other high bitrate format instead of Cineform?
A. Because they are not lossless.

Q. Why not use another lossless codec then, like the freeware Huffyuv, Lagarith, Avid DNxHD?
A. Because they are almost as slow to edit as the original files.

Q. How about Matrox’s mpeg2 I-Frame 100 mbps codec?
A. This is a good codec and it works well with Premiere. But it doesn’t work as well with Vegas. More here.

Q. Which format would have been best to be used by Canon?
A. AVCHD for their consumer digicams, and AVC-Intra for their video dSLRs.

Q. How are the Mac users dealing with the problem?
A. The footage has to be transcoded too, to the intermediate ProRES/AIC codecs before it is able to be edited. There is also Cineform NeoSCENE for the Mac too.

I just heard Madonna’s new single, “Revolver“. It’s a good song, but it’s not as smart as it could have been. Upon listening to it, I immediately imagined it with a cleaner electronic sound, reduced auto-tune, with traditional Chinese singing/sound at places, and even with some hard guitars at some other spots. In other words, I needed a “bigger” tune that the one released, one that’s more complex musically (one that had many genres combined). Same thing as I like TV shows and films to be like.

And this made me think. What’s with me and “bigger”, “grander”, “more”?

Really, this is a problem. Why the hell I can’t be happy with whatever is being made available to me? Why am I after “more”? Is it because most of the available products/art are indeed “cheap/easy” and mediocre? Or is it because I am thinking too much about the whole thing and don’t let life just flow?

Maybe the answer is in both. Truth is, I am difficult to please. And I just can’t change that. I don’t think I will be finding nirvana any time soon.

I watched the “Fast & Furious” movie tonight, and it was beautifully graded for the most part (its grading was similar to Transformers 2 with saturated red/yellows and teal everything else). However, there was one scene I didn’t enjoy. I didn’t really gave it much thought while watching it, but when I watched the gag reel and they had the same scene, ungraded, then it really popped up in my mind how much natural and nice the ungraded shot was compared to the final one. What do you think?

And this is how I would grade it:

Update: Interesting. The colorist of this movie is the one who did Terminator Salvation among others.

The rumors now say that 800m winner Semenya is a hermaphrodite. If that’s true, what should be done about her case? Should she compete with men, or with women?

I think that ultimately, biology should decide if Semenya is mostly a woman, or mostly a man. Her chromosomes should be analyzed, and a decision taken based on that. Chromosomes don’t fall in between, even if external examination reveals a hermaphrodite with both the sexual organs of a male and a female. Chromosomes can reveal if she’s biologically a woman, or a man, without an in-between.

No, this is not a case of discrimination, it’s about fairness to the other athletes. It’s about competing against others that bare the same biological characteristics as you are (no matter the personal sexual preference, and no matter the external organs). Since there is already a concrete scientific method at the biological level to recognize men from women, there’s no reason why not use that method.

Again, this is not about discrimination. In the case of gay marriage for example, it’s their business! No one should interfere with the sexual preference of other people! But in the case of competing against other athletes, it’s the business of these other athletes, as it has a direct impact on their careers. For example, usually only the first 6 of each competition get an extra prim (usually a few thousand dollars each). But if you happen to finish 7th, because the 1st place was won by someone who was biologically a man, sucks for you.

To my eyes, her body is mostly a man’s body btw. Even pro female athletes that have way too much muscle still look like women with muscles. Semenya on the other hand, she looks more like a man to my eyes. Look how she has no hips, something that it’s not possible to remove with body building (hips are required for easier birth, so it’s usually a tell-tell sign of a female, even among pro athletes). But that’s just external examination.

I hope she continues to live as a female, obviously this is her sex choice. But if her chromosomes tell another story, then she should compete with men. Nevertheless, this won’t be an easy decision for IAAF. It’ll be a PR disaster no matter which decision they take.

UPDATE: I just read on some AU newspapers that she has 3x the testosterone a female should have, because of internal testes, and she has no ovaries/womb. So basically she is a hermaphrodite, with female external reproductive organs, male internal, and male physic.

In my opinion, again, IAAF should rely on low level biology to determine the gender rather than what can externally be noticed by visual examination.

And if she’s found to actually be more of a woman rather than a man, then IAAF has no right to stop her from competing against women. Because in that case, she simply has a natural advantage, like some athletes are taller than others, or with longer legs than others, or with bigger lungs than others. She just happens to have more testosterone.

If IAAF bans *all* hermaphrodites off competition, even if there’s a scientific way to determine their gender at a biological level, then that’s a discrimination issue and they should be taken to court.

Many users buy an HD 24p camera these days trying to reproduce the “film look” (aka the “movie look”). They think that if they shoot some random stuff in 24p, and do some color grading, and maybe add a bit of grain, their video will look like a movie.

Fat chance. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There are a number of factors that make a video look like a movie. In my experience and personal opinion, here they are, in order:

1. Framing

If your shots are just some random shots of random stuff, you will never achieve the film look. You need to think hard as to how to frame your subject, what’s in its background, what’s in the surroundings, the rule of thirds. Also you need to expose properly, use the right shutter or aperture values for each scene etc. If you dissect video to its primordial state, it’s just a number of pictures in succession. Therefore, you must operate like a photographer would.

2. Audio

IF your video has speech, then you must capture it right. Capture little ambient noise, clear voices, and use a good music score to complement the rest of the scenes. If your video does not feature people talking, then the music used must fit each scene. You might even have to sync each scene with the track’s beats.

3. Cutting

Do quick cuts when you edit your movie. Don’t waste your time in shots that are useless and don’t progress the story. For example, just an hour ago I watched an HV20 short film where the editor spent 20 whole seconds showing the actor getting out of a car (different shots with the actor moving one hand, then one foot, opening the door, getting one foot out etc). Get to the point, don’t elaborate on useless shots. If you don’t have enough shots to make a meaningful short film then it’s your fault for not storyboarding before you shoot.

4. Lighting

Without good lighting, you are screwed. Audio and lighting are so underrated among videographers. Your light composition must be part of the emotions you want to convey to your viewers. It’s an extra character. Invest in two 500 Watt lights ($100), and a reflector ($100). And if you shoot outdoors, make sure you have the sun on your back! The best times to shoot outdoors and use the available light is either in sunrise or before sundown (“golden light”).

5. Camera Motion

Modern movies have constant movement in most of their scenes. Either with a dolly or a steadycam. Few shots are completely stationary shot from a tripod (usually TV series do that rather than Hollywood movies). The cheapest solutions here are a Glidetrack, or other cheap steadycam solutions. Overall, consider that you will have to pay at least $300 for them. For longer dolly shots, consider this DIY dolly tutorial.

6. 24p

It helps shooting in that frame rate, but in my opinion you can get away with 30p too if you must. As long as you shoot in a 1/60th shutter speed, your motion can get pretty close to movies’ 1/48th. And even if it might not look exactly right, the rest of the video’s quality or story can make up for the lack of real 24p. Basically, what I am saying here is not that 24p is not important, but that it is just 6th in my list. Not 1st.

7. Grading

Colors set the mood of the movie, so grading is important. Just don’t overdo it with contrast and saturation. Film is traditionally low saturation and low contrast, so lay off the god damn saturation/contrast controls! So, modify your camera’s settings to shoot as “flat” an image as possible, so you can easily color grade it in post. I have set all my cameras’ color controls in the lower values possible (contrast/saturation/sharpness/skin_tone), and that goes for my still cameras too.

8. Shallow DoF

Most people think that if they get an adapter/camera with shallow DoF, they would achieve the film look easily. WRONG. It helps, but shallow DoF is not really a necessity. There are many classic films that had deep focus, like “Citizen Cane” and “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, and most recently, “Crank 2: High Voltage”. The quality of your photography, and the immersion of the viewer to your film are more important than blurry backgrounds. 35mm adapters are overrated, and most of such videos I have watched were over-the-top blurry. Besides, if shooting outdoors, you can always get a bit of blur by backing out and zooming in with your camcorder towards your subject, at around 75% of its log zooming scale. You will get just enough background blur to give the illusion to the viewer that this was not shot on video, and at the same time you direct the viewer’s attention to the actual subject. In other words, you don’t always need shallow DoF, and when you really do, you can get just enough of it with a consumer HD camcorder too if you know how to shoot & frame properly. Most of my HV20 videos have enough background blur for example, more than I would care for. Heck, I achieved as much shallow DoF as I needed even with my point and shoot HD digicam.

And of course, there’s the story itself, which is the most important element in a short movie. The reason I didn’t include it in the list above though is because not all videographers shoot short movies. Some just shoot abstract art, or nature and travel pieces, so it’s not always a part of the film *look* quest.

Finally, here are some nice tutorials about some of the points above.

I checked out the state of Creative Commons videos on Vimeo today. Apparently, 25 out of the 36 “most liked” videos tagged with “Creative Commons”, are mine. If you do a search for the words instead of using the tagging system, 14 out of the 60 “most liked” are mine too (and this method doesn’t always yield *videos* licensed under CC).

And this is pathetic. There are so many other greater videos on Vimeo. It might satisfy my vanity, but it’s ultimately a testament to a sad state of affairs in the world.

What I gather from the situation is that not a lot of videographers license their videos under a free license. And many of these “vimeo people”, are yourselves, readers of this blog. Hence the intimidating title of this blog post.

So I ask you: why don’t you license your videos under a free license? As long as you don’t shoot commercial projects, or recognizable people (who haven’t signed an image release contract), why not specifically license your videos under a Creative Commons license? What keeps you from spending 2 more minutes to divulge the license in your video’s credits or description on its Youtube/Vimeo page? You see, if you don’t specifically license your work, it automatically falls under the “all rights reserved” law. Nobody will be able to reuse your video under these conditions. It’s locked.

Is this what you really want? To no one be able to re-use your work for remixing, or as stock footage? If yes, why? Why not share with the world? Why not make the life of others easier (including commercial entities if you choose to)? Is your video such a major masterpiece that you feel that you could financially benefit from it in the future? Honestly, the truth is that for 99% of you (and me), I doubt it.

Your artwork and your name can only live on if others re-use your art and give you credit for it. Not if you leave your videos rotten in a Vimeo or Youtube URL that no one is visiting anymore after a few years. Think wide-angle here.

Besides, Creative Commons is the only way to win the RIAA/MPAA war. It’s the Gandhi approach: if you don’t buy their stuff and use freely available art instead, RIAA/MPAA will eventually cease to exist. There is no way to win that war with the current copyright laws (that no one in DC seems eager to change), or knee-jerk reactions like with the Pirate Bay crap. The only way to win the war is for the consumer to choose a different provider. But for the consumer to do that, YOU must help. YOU must create ENOUGH ART licensed under a FREE license to TURN the boat around.

You see, even the independent scene is not enough to turn the boat around. Back in 1939, the previous RIAA-alike organization died because of the indies taking over their market when the royalty prices went up. Twenty years later that new organization, previously “indie”, had become the new tyrants of the market. History repeats itself, so it’s not *just* indie stuff we need to endorse this time, but art licensed in such a way that prevents the next RIAA or the next MPAA from getting reborn with another name. And Creative Commons is perfect for that. It’s even better than Public Domain in some cases, because PD works are not legal in some countries. CC licenses have been “ported” to many countries’ legal systems instead.

Please view the excellent presentation here to help you understand more about how this works. I have also written an article here that explains what CC means for videographers.

Think about the whole thing tonight, before you go to bed. Think about where you are situated in the world, and what you give back to it in the intellectual level (rather than just your cold hard cash via taxes).

A few quick shots from Sausalito’s coast, overlooking San Fransisco. We stopped there after visiting Muir Woods this morning. Too bad SF was completely under the fog during shooting. It’s the second time that I go to Sausalito trying to get that shot with SF only partially in the quick-moving fog, but it has proven to be elusive so far.

The timelapses were all shot with the Canon SX200 IS digicam in video mode. Tilt-shift effect added in post. HD version, and download of the video here.

At last, a new video! I have missed the whole experience from start to finish. I shot the following within 20 minutes today. I shot it in 30p and then slowed it down 25%, and exported at 24p. HD version, and download of the video here.

I love how the shooting turned out, and how easily Canon SX200 IS’ footage can be color graded. It’s the most amazing sub-$500 HD digicam in the market right now. I even wrote a review for it, read it if you are interested in a P&S camera with usable footage.

I love the shot at 1:15. I was just shooting that flower, and that girl just walked into the frame out of nowhere, dancing! It’s one of the best shots I have ever shot — even if it was captured by accident.

Andreas pointed on Twitter to this beautiful film on Vimeo, a film that some claimed it was shot with an HV20, others with an XH-A1. I emailed its director, and he confirmed that he shot this with a Canon HV20, and a Cinevate Brevis35 adapter. This is the most “liked” HV20/30/40 video on Vimeo ever, ahead even from “White Red Panic“! Enjoy!