Ok, one last thing: I have a couple of raw greenscreen plates and their according graded versions. Is there a "right way" to do the keying process?
1) pull the key/matte from the undistorted plate -> distort the resulting matte plate & the graded plate 2) distort the raw & graded plate -> pull the key from the distorted raw plate Way one seems more "correct" and clean to me. Way two might result in a slightly worse greenscreen plate with wrong or missing details because of the transforming process. Or is this wrong and both ways result in a mathematically equal result? Thanks again! On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Frank Rueter|OHUfx <fr...@ohufx.com> wrote: > Just remember that pixel aspects are just a concept to correlate the > physical resolution of an image to what it should look like. > There is no such thing as a non-square pixel in this context, so it's > either making the images appear to be (un-)distorted via a viewer setting > (based on a factor called "pixel aspect") or physically (un-)distorting > them. The latter is required when combing different PAs, the former is > required to view the images the way the final output media will show them > (i.e. seemingly undistorted). > > When this gets confusing it's best to turn off the pixel aspect > compensation in the viewer so what you see is what you get. > > > > On 16/02/17 10:50 AM, Sven Schönmann wrote: > > Righty, I was expecting that. > > Thank you for getting back on this Frank. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Frank Rueter|OHUfx <fr...@ohufx.com> > wrote: > >> If you mix different PAs you have no choice but to physically >> squeeze/stretch to match. >> I tend to set up Reformat nodes to bring the supplementary clips in line >> with the main plate and ensure that transform concatenation is solid. >> >> But that's pretty much it. Technically using a 0.5 scale in your >> transform is fine too. You have to do what you have to do. >> >> >> >> >> On 16/02/17 5:31 AM, Sven Schönmann wrote: >> >> Hey everyone, >> >> I have the same situation like Lee has in the forum: >> >> https://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/129006 >> >> In my case I hit the point that mighty Frank is mentioning: >> >> "Unless you are mixing different aspect ratios you should not have to >> physically un-squeeze the footage (which would only introduce filter hits)." >> >> So, that's exactly my case. How should I approach the workflow when >> bringing in standard square pixel footage to merge? Using a Transform with >> a width of "0.5" seems awfully wrong. Is doubling the pixel width of my >> anamorphic footage the correct way? Seems also not very attractive to >> double the pixel count...and also some filter issues like Frank mentioned. >> >> Cheers >> >> Sven >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nuke-users mailing listnuke-us...@support.thefoundry.co.uk, >> http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> >> _______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list >> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing listnuke-us...@support.thefoundry.co.uk, > http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
