FORUMS: list search recent posts

Current Opinions On FrameFlex?

COW Forums : Avid Media Composer

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Michael Thibault
Current Opinions On FrameFlex?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 5:36:30 pm

I'm a little confused as to whether FrameFlex performs in a roundtrip to Resolve. I've watched/read a lot of the tutorials and read the forums posts but most of them are a year or more old and don't seem to reflect the current 8.4 version of Media Composer.

Here's what I'm doing: I'm cutting a feature and importing 2.5K AMA linked media clips which I'm then transcoding to DNxHR SQ and editing into a 1080p timeline. Once the clips are in the timeline I apply the FrameFlex 2.39 letterboxing, and when necessary, plot repositions based on camera framing.

Okay... so are any of these moves going to carry back to Resolve for finishing? I've read yes and no and really have no idea. Frankly, FrameFlex feels really glitchy and I can get stuck for fifteen minutes trying to do the simplest slow zoom in. Otherwise, it seems to work.

Should I just abandon this and go back to 3D Warp and an Anamorphic mask? I don't care either way, I just don't want to bounce back to resolve in two months and find out all of my repositions have to be redone. I know that the 3D Warp data will translate successfully.

Avid Media Composer 8.4, FCP 7, cutting on an iMac Retina 5K, 27" 4Ghz iCore i7 with 32GB of RAM


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Current Opinions On FrameFlex?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 6:13:54 pm

I haven't gone through all the different permutations and workflow advantages yet, but one thing to consider is working in a 2.39 aspect ratio project rather than letterboxing in a 1080 (16:9) project type.

FrameFlex can go to Resolve fine, it's the return that needs careful attention. If you bake in the transforms in Resolve or not or you render to source dimensions in Resolve, and let the FrameFlex still be active on the timeline when the color corrected footage comes back.

Is the source footage 2.39 or are you masking to 2.39?


Michael


Return to posts index

Michael Thibault
Re: Current Opinions On FrameFlex?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 6:25:29 pm

The source footage is 2.5K, 2400x1350 24p. I rendered the RAW footage to DNxHR HQX at the native dimensions. Brought that into Avid via AMA and transcoded down to DNxHR SQ. So I'm masking to 2.39 in a 1080P sequence so I can reposition/blow up the footage as desired.

I don't want to bake in the FrameFlex masking, just be able to send it back to Resolve with all the moves and repositions carrying over, and then when I bring the color corrected material back it properly reformats.

One thing to mention is that I don't apply the FrameFlex letter boxing until it's in the sequence. So, not the AMA linked clips but the transcoded DNxHR SQ clips. I don't know if this matters.

Avid Media Composer 8.4, FCP 7, cutting on an iMac Retina 5K, 27" 4Ghz iCore i7 with 32GB of RAM


Return to posts index


Michael Phillips
Re: Current Opinions On FrameFlex?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 10:07:14 pm

So in this workflow, when you transcode your color corrections in Resolve, you will render back out 2.6K media as DNxHR? If you transcoded to DNxHR LB, then you will want to conform back to masters and color correct from there and then create a higher quality DNxHR. If you started off higher quality, then the roundtrip will do.

You can also consider creating a 1920x800 or 1920x802 project and already have the viewers be at your 2.40 or 2.39 respectively without having to deal with masks and still have the original source media to reframe with. The exports from this project type will match your defined raster without dealing with black bars.


Michael


Return to posts index

Michael Thibault
Re: Current Opinions On FrameFlex?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 11:52:21 pm

Yes, I'll render back out at full 2.5K resolution. The workflow is that the DNxHR HQX files are in the same directory structure as the camera RAW footage. So the footage should relink in Resolve to the high quality dailies without issue.

I am editing in 19020x1080 but I like the idea of cutting in an a 1920x800 or 1920x802 project. But this is where FrameFlex is more robust that the 3D Warp plugin--it's a lot more pokey to recompose the frame in 3D Warp, especially if I'm plotting move. FrameFlex does shine in this respect.

But if I used your method, would that be safer when I bounce back to Resolve?

Thanks for al your help.

Avid Media Composer 8.4, FCP 7, cutting on an iMac Retina 5K, 27" 4Ghz iCore i7 with 32GB of RAM


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Current Opinions On FrameFlex?
on Jul 4, 2015 at 11:50:08 am

How did you make the DNxHR HQX footage? Resolve will use REEL ID to conform and does not really rely on clips being in the same folder to do that. And if these files are in the same folder, it tells me that they are not native Avid MXF files in Avid MediaFiles folder as there should not be other file types in those folders. It seems you made a .mov wrapped DNxHT or a OPAtom 1a MXF wrapped DNxHR where Avid's native MXF file use OPAtom. And from there you are AMA Linking (or just linking in 8.4)? Also, if you intend to go back to camera masters for the conform, why work at such at high quality DNxHR data rate? Are you working in 1/4 or 1/16 proxy?

It depends on the type of re-framing you want to do. If it involves any type of rotate to level off a horizon etc, then FrameFlex cannot be used as it does not have rotate. I had a project where it was shot 4K and I finished 2K DCI just so I could reframe and level a bunch of shots. If I wanted to keep quality in MC for the rotate, it required jumping through a bunch of hoops to do so. It was easier for me to just do all that in 3D Warp tool, save off FX and apply to other shots in the timeline and the conform was flawless in Resolve to the camera masters and the quality of the resize rotate was much better. So it depends of what your needs are. You can see the quality difference in my latest blog where I try using MC 8.4 to create 1080x1920 (portrait) editing for a museum piece a I did a few years back. This was a simple 90 degree rotate and resize and you can see the big quality difference:

http://24p.com/wordpress/?p=233

But I created a 1920 x 800 project and am trying some round trips and will let you know.


Michael


Return to posts index


Michael Thibault
Re: Current Opinions On FrameFlex?
on Jul 4, 2015 at 3:07:56 pm

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I created the DNxHR HQX media from Resolve. I then placed them in a directory structure by Day|SD Card. After importing them by AMA into Avid I then transcoded them to DNxHR SQ which now exist in the Avid Mediafiles folder (and sub-folders). These are essentially the 'proxies' I'm cutting with. They allow me to work with a cleaner looking picture than a 1/4 or 1/16 rate proxy and I get a better sense of what I'm getting on blow ups.

Theoretically when I roundtrip back to Resolve I can tell the sequence to use 'highest quality available media' and it will relink to the DNxHR HQ files. Then relinking to the original 2.5K RAW files would be a snap in Resolve.

I did assign "Reel Number" (Reel # in Avid?) in Resolve when I generated the DNxHR HQX files, although they don't transfer to the AMA bin in Media Composer.

It really sounds like it's just less hassle all around to create a 1920x800 project and just 3D Warp the clips as necessary. FrameFlex has a lot of promise, but like most things Avid, is a little half baked. I really don't need to find out I'm standing in a puddle of poo three months from now and having to rejig all my shots in Resolve.

Avid Media Composer 8.4, FCP 7, cutting on an iMac Retina 5K, 27" 4Ghz iCore i7 with 32GB of RAM


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]