Timeline for Converting MLV to Prores
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11, 2015 at 11:42 | vote | accept | Undistraction | ||
| Jan 11, 2015 at 11:42 | comment | added | Undistraction | Thank you very much. That has really helped clear things up in my head. If you have time, an expanded answer would be great for me and for anyone coming to this question fresh. | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 11:19 | comment | added | Jason Conrad | If that doesn't make sense, I'll add it to my answer and do a longer writeup. I was just trying to fit an explanation of "round tripping" into 600 characters. | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 11:12 | comment | added | Jason Conrad | It depends on how you plan to work with the footage. From your question, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you plan to throw away the RAW, keep a lut-ed version of the prores, and edit and grade from that. To answer your question, "why might I want to do something else": You might save the RAW, and export rec 709 proxies to an editor (rec 709 because it's ok to look at, not good to grade. Editors don't like staring at log all day. proxy b/c it edits quickly). He returns the timing of his edits to you. You do your colorist work on the original RAW, no quality sacrifice, effort minimal | |
| Jan 10, 2015 at 17:27 | comment | added | Undistraction | Thanks for replying. You say 'A lut is really just a starting point for your grade', but in this situation, where I am discarding all of the sensor data, why would I want to do anything other than retain the maximum possible amount of data? Why might I want to do something else? | |
| Jan 10, 2015 at 16:23 | history | answered | Jason Conrad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |