Fixing Dark Video in FCP?

[Paintedsheep]

UHD is still in development.

And the lab we use gives us a DVCPRO - NTSC master on a mini-dv tape;

But the video encoding algorithm is the same in Mini-DV and DVC-Pro...Same info.
Almost no difference in anything.

 

[adkimery]

ATSC and NTSC refer to OTA (over the air) broadcasting...It has nothing to do with your DVD player or Satellite or Cable...
You can view programs finished in HD (or UHD when it comes out) on the appropriate tv regardless of ATSC or NTSC.

If it plays back on a standard def TV in the US it conforms to NTSC specs. If it plays back on an HDTV in the US it conforms to ATSC specs. It doesn't matter if it's an OTA signal, a cable signal, a satellite signal, a camcorder signal, a video game signal, a computer signal, or a DVD/BR signal. Try playing back a PAL tape in an NTSC deck and tell me how that goes.

And I don't know that ATSC won't support UHD...it's digital...just more info than HD.
Look at the myriad changes that took place in all broadcasting mediums that were supported by the NTSC system...hundreds of "improvements"...

NTSC is 720x480/6, 60 fields a second interlaced. NTSC formats can vary in quality from low to high and can be analog or digital but they all still conform to the NTSC standard. There are varying quality of HD formats too (BR h.264 all the way up to Uncompressed 10bit 4:4:4 HD) but they all conform to one of the ATSC's HD standards. Of course newer and better formats will come out but they'll conform to ATSC standards or, in the case of something like Red, they'll be converted into an ATSC standard prior to distribution.

What makes you think that trend won't continue with ATSC?
HD is already on it's way out...you just don't know it yet.
UHD is on the way...no matter how much everyone spent on the upgrade to HD.
And when that happens I still won't upgrade.

Because equipment that's designed to work w/the HDTV standard isn't going to be compatible w/a UHD signal. People are still in the process of upgrading NTSC equipment that's worked for decades w/ATSC equipment so I don't think we'll all be willing to collectively spend billions again upgrading a few years from now.

They improve things to make more money...not because there was a necessity to change.

Actually there is a necessity to change in the US since analog b'casting is getting shut down next year. It's not a coincidence that HDTV has been pushed and marketed like mad at the same time that the US government has mandated a change from analog to digital b'casting.


-A

 

[Paintedsheep]

If it plays back on a standard def TV in the US it conforms to NTSC specs. If it plays back on an HDTV in the US it conforms to ATSC specs.

Actually that's not true...I can get a standard tv signal on my HDTV with a regular set of rabitt ears. ATSC is the new standard for OTA signal.

Because equipment that's designed to work w/the HDTV standard isn't going to be compatible w/a UHD signal.

Of course it will...it the same type of signal (digital) just with more info...aka...higher quality. We won't have to change the entire broadcast system...if we had to do that for every upgrade in quality we would have changed the system 300 times by now (technicolor, etc...)

Actually there is a necessity to change in the US since analog b'casting is getting shut down next year. It's not a coincidence that HDTV has been pushed and marketed like mad at the same time that the US government has mandated a change from analog to digital b'casting.

That's the cart before the horse type of thing...
The government didn't just decide that there was possibly a better way therefore the changes were then mandated....
The technology came first. Then the decision to change over followed.
And nothing said that HD HAD to be implemented...it was a choice.
ATSC allows DIGITAL broadcasting...it says nothing about HD. The fact is that the digital information band is much more efficient and can carry what would normally be gigantic amounts of info. It can support UHD and many other future formats...
I guess we can disagree on the future (not the facts) but the proof , as they say, is in the pudding.
Give it a couple years...everyone who bought a HD camera will be scrambling to buy a UHD camera.

 

[adkimery]

Actually that's not true...I can get a standard tv signal on my HDTV with a regular set of rabitt ears. ATSC is the new standard for OTA signal.

ATSC incorporates NTSC and PAL standards for backward compatibility purposes.

Of course it will...it the same type of signal (digital) just with more info...aka...higher quality. We won't have to change the entire broadcast system...if we had to do that for every upgrade in quality we would have changed the system 300 times by now (technicolor, etc...)

NTSC has had some minor tweaks/updates but the fundamental aspects of the spec haven't changed. There's a difference between a "format" and a "standard". VHS, DigiBeta, MiniDV, etc., are all formats of varying quality that conform to the NTSC standard. You can't take a signal from a different standard (such as PAL) and have it play back on a NTSC device w/o first converting the signal from PAL into NTSC. The same thing applies to HD and UHD as they are different standards as opposed to just different formats that conform to the same standard. For example, you can't pipe a UHD 7680×4320 signal into an HD 1920x1080 monitor and expect it the HD monitor to properly display that signal w/o converting the signal from UHD into HD any more than you can pipe an HD signal into an NTSC monitor w/o a standards conversion.

That's the cart before the horse type of thing...
The government didn't just decide that there was possibly a better way therefore the changes were then mandated....
The technology came first. Then the decision to change over followed.

The experimental tech came first back in the 80's. The real world tech didn't become viable until just a few years ago. The mandate to change from analog to digital b'casting came before the real world tech was viable which is why the deadline got pushed back a few times (the original date was like 2002 or 2003 I think).

And nothing said that HD HAD to be implemented...it was a choice.
ATSC allows DIGITAL broadcasting...it says nothing about HD. The fact is that the digital information band is much more efficient and can carry what would normally be gigantic amounts of info.

Yes, the switch just had to be to digital not necessarily HD.

It can support UHD and many other future formats...
I guess we can disagree on the future (not the facts) but the proof , as they say, is in the pudding.
Give it a couple years...everyone who bought a HD camera will be scrambling to buy a UHD camera.

How 'bout we check back in this thread in 2011 and see who owes who a beer. :beer:

How is the brightening up the footage goin'?


-A

 

[Paintedsheep]

How 'bout we check back in this thread in 2011 and see who owes who a beer. :beer:

How is the brightening up the footage goin'?

-A

Now that sounds reasonable! A beer it is.

Actually the footage is working out OK...barely acceptable but I've been able to stack a copy of the dark clips on top of the original and apply the ADD filter...
It brings it up a stop or two while leaving the darks-dark...it's a bit contrasty...but there's only so much I can hope for.
I live...I learn.
Thanks

 

[zoostory]

Hey, I didn't know I was going to start a Tape is Dead flame war. Lol. I'm glad you found a solution that works for you. Since none of us can see your footage, how can we really judge.

Someone earlier mentioned that DV isn't dead because a ton of TV shows still use it and such. Well since I have the good fortune of having worked on a major network television show and delivering for that show, the studio, and the network, as well as doing several commercials, and now working for another studio and another show... I can tell you exactly what the specifications for each network are.

And I can tell you that NONE OF THEM USE DV.

You're right, we shoot on film. We get telecine'd to DV for OFFLINE EDITING only. Even then, the DV tapes are just backups, we actually get a drive with the footage right from the house. We then edit at 14 to 1. So this footage is crap. But all we want from it is our nice sequence that we then take to our online facility. They also send 1080p HD files directly to our post house in cineon format.

For CBS we are required to finish in HDCAM-SR at 1080p at 4:4:4 color sampling at 23.98. We have a 5.1 mix and stereo mix, as well as a track left open for SAP.

CBS then down converts to DigiBeta for their SD broadcast. Which is still 4:2:2 color sampling, much higher quality than miniDV.

So, is tape dead? No, not at all. Tape is probably still the safest format for backups. But DV - the format - as an ONLINE FINISHING solution is reaching the end of its life. It's not just that it's 480 lines of resolution, it's that it's 4:1:1 color sampling, interlaced, and a whole bunch of crap.

HDV is a different format, also being phased out for proHD and some other formats. The 4:2:0 color sampling has rendered this format virtually useless for anything with VFX compositing, but I used it a few times successfully for documentary style stuff.

I'm sure a ton of people out there use dv, mini dv, whatever for youtube and internet videos and stuff... but that's sort of the bottom end of the spectrum in terms of quality requirements.

I would hope that someone shooting film, with all it's glorious resolution and latitude would NOT ONLINE on DV. Maybe use DV as an offline format.

 

[Paintedsheep]

Hey, I'm with you brother...I'm all about film.
To me, film is the thing which all other mediums are compared to.
When everyone was out plunking money down on HDV cameras I studied film.
When everyone else was checking their pocket books to see if they could rent the Red One...I was checking my pockets to see if I could buy film stock.

This project though, was a "just for fun" type situation that I was peer pressured into...so I figured I'd get some more experience with film.
I went back to DV because that is the only way I have to get the info in the computer...
And my editing software is FCP 4...and it won't handle HD footage, I'm told.
So that's my story...
Thanks for all the great info above.

 

[kgimedia]

The free lyric shadow highlight plugin works great!

The free lyric shadow highlight plugin works great!

http://www.lyric.com/fcp-plugins/index.htm

 

[Paintedsheep]

http://www.lyric.com/fcp-plugins/index.htm

Am I reading this right...?
It's FREE?
Must be a catch right?
I'll try it.