Colour Grade a video in Photoshop....

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

....Anyone done it? What was it like?

I've got a video that's going to be graded sometime next week (when we get sign-off from the client) and the guy doing the grade mentioned he'd be keen to try doing it in Photoshop, since apparently it now supports quicktime video.

Since I don't have a very recent version of Photoshop I can't test this function myself, but I was wondering if many people out there had graded a video in Photoshop, and if so, how did they find it? eg., Was it a huge strain on their processors, was it a convenient and time efficient workflow, etc. My understanding is you can't get a video out to a broadcast monitor via Photoshop, so an additional final tweak in a dedicated program like Color would be necessary.

The project is 3 minutes long, all ProRes 422HQ 1080p material, a music video so there's quite a lot of clips/cuts.

The benefits we perceive in using Photoshop is obviously having much greater control over manipulation of the image.

Since time is of course a factor, is it worth having a crack at doing the grade in Photoshop or should we just stick with a dedicated program? Opinions from people who've tried it would be much appreciated.

[Ramesh Jai]

I've done it once for a 30 seconds TVC. I exported the TVC as Tiff files, created an ACTION as I colour corrected a frame and then created a DROPLET to apply to all the frames that made up the shot.

Bottom line: Images were way crispier and there are more options for correcting images in PS then in FCP. I even did some cloning, etc. If I had the time I would ALWAYS grade in PS. It is worth it.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

there are more options for correcting images in PS then in FCP.

I should point out we have access to Color and I think some other grading programs, so FCP isn't an option. But thanks for your thoughts.

As I understand it, the latest version of Photoshop can handle actual video files, ie. you don't even have to treat each individual frame?

[Ramesh Jai]

.. As I understand it, the latest version of Photoshop can handle actual video files, ie. you don't even have to treat each individual frame?

Now that will be really helpful.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

Now that will be really helpful.

....but the big question is: how is the workflow?

Do you need massive amounts of processing power to make it effective?

Is it going to be more time consuming than working in dedicated grading software?

Is it hard to compare different clips for the sake of matching them up, considering Photoshop is designed for handling still images?

Do these possible limitations cancel out any benefit Photoshop might have over using proper grading software?

[Dave Blackham]

Have you considered Color Finesse with in AE ?

Dave
UK

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

Have you considered Color Finesse with in AE ?

The person doing the grade has put it on the table, yes. He's quite familiar with AE. But my own colour skills are limited to FCP and Photoshop, I've never really used AE.

We'll probably end up going with Color or AE, but we were both intrigued by the prospect of doing the grade in Photoshop.

[Gunleik Groven]

What about Shake?

[Kyle Presley]

AE is like the video equivalent of PS.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

Completely unfamiliar with Shake too! I'm pretty straightforward in my tastes, I just like to cut in FCP. I don't even like transitions, I might occasionally use a fade in/out..... :sarcasm: Whenever I do a job for a client I get someone else (a professional) to do the colour grade. Although I have a good eye and know my shit when it comes to colour, I made the decision a while ago to focus my energy on directing. So I know I could learn to use AE and Shake and whatever else, but my time is prioritised differently. I'm happy just telling someone else exactly what to do. :innocent: I bet you weren't expecting such a long-winded answer.

Kyle, when you say AE is the "video equivalent" to PS, do you mean exactly the same functions are available in AE? If so, why would Photoshop even have video functionality? Or do you mean there's virtually enough you can do in AE that, combined with the fact it's designed for video, far outweighs any minor limitations it might have compared to Photoshop?

[Stefan Scherperel]

I have used Photoshop CS3 for video quite a bit. It actually has some great functionality as well as some tools that aren't available in After effects. Of course it does have some things it can't do, basically any effect that has to be added per frame (blur, sharpen, masks, noise reduction) will have to be added to each frame manually, unless I missed something. Playback is pretty good, and file compatablility is second to none. The biggest issue that i have is trying to figure out which color space to work in. I'm guessing Adobe RGB is not correct and there is a definite gamma change.

[Simon Blackledge]

make sure you set yourView > Proof setup correctly..

s

[Kyle Presley]

Completely unfamiliar with Shake too! I'm pretty straightforward in my tastes, I just like to cut in FCP. I don't even like transitions, I might occasionally use a fade in/out..... :sarcasm: Whenever I do a job for a client I get someone else (a professional) to do the colour grade. Although I have a good eye and know my shit when it comes to colour, I made the decision a while ago to focus my energy on directing. So I know I could learn to use AE and Shake and whatever else, but my time is prioritised differently. I'm happy just telling someone else exactly what to do. :innocent: I bet you weren't expecting such a long-winded answer.

Kyle, when you say AE is the "video equivalent" to PS, do you mean exactly the same functions are available in AE? If so, why would Photoshop even have video functionality? Or do you mean there's virtually enough you can do in AE that, combined with the fact it's designed for video, far outweighs any minor limitations it might have compared to Photoshop?

Just that AE is streamlined for video. Most of the stuff you can do in Photoshop is covered in After Effects, but AE goes above and beyond Photoshop for other things besides the grading.

[Edgar Pitts]

That is a lot of work to do Photoshop. At 24fps and 3 minutes, there would be 4,320 frames. It certainly can done, but IMHO you would be far better off using AE even with the learning curve.

I would recommend Magic Bullet Looks. We recently used this to grade a feature and it has a very nice feature set for the money.

If you have access to a colorist, they could help you develop the "Looks" and then you can apply and tweak each shot as needed.

If you are an expert in PS, grade a few stills to your liking and then try and duplicate the grade in AE. It takes a little trial and error, but you will be better off the end.

I hope this helps.

Edgar

[Charles Angus]

I think I would throw up blood from my eyes trying to do a grade in PS or Shake (and I love Shake).

AE with Color Finesse, maybe...

Basic AE has most of the functions of PS, to answer your question.


The real issue here is how nice it is to use, I think. All of these apps will give good results. Color, while buggy, is made to do color work. It is set up in a logical and usable fashion. Moving on up, Autodesk, Assimilate, Quantel, all have excellent offerings for color work.

[Santiago Marti]

there is a format, called filmstrip, it used to work very well in photoshop. also, i remember someone, i think rob legato, that did the color in photoshop for scorsese's movie, the aviator. there is a link somewhere, but i couldn't find it!

[shashbugu]

actually a lot of the correction tools from lightroom are now in photoshop cs4, very precise and accurate tools. it will be pretty easy to write an XML type plugin that brings your footage into photoshop seperated by shots. That will be the day though. truth is the tools you need are in photoshop,, but the enviroment and interface sucks for longform video color correction

[shashbugu]

at the prosumer level, colorista, looks and color are the best tools out there

[SalaTar]

there is a format, called filmstrip, it used to work very well in photoshop. also, i remember someone, i think rob legato, that did the color in photoshop for scorsese's movie, the aviator. there is a link somewhere, but i couldn't find it!

They just exported a LUT from PS, didnt work in it

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

Began grading today, we opened the 3 minute video up in Photoshop and it was amazing!

So far only worked with ProRes 422HQ, and haven't done any render tests yet, but there were no performance issues, wasn't sluggish, no dramas.

The video has it's own timeline and you can apply layers only to specific frames. In other words, you just isolate each shot/set-up/angle with it's own layer, extremely simple (although admittedly not as simple as a dedicated shot-by-shot grading program, but as shasbagu pointed out this could be worked around with a plug-in).

Not sure if it's possible to send a signal out to a broadcast monitor, but I'm sure this is a function that can be added.

It's pretty exciting to be able to grade in Photoshop. At this stage it may not be an option for large projects, but for a three minute music video it's sweet as.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

also, i remember someone, i think rob legato, that did the color in photoshop for scorsese's movie, the aviator. there is a link somewhere, but i couldn't find it!

This intrigued me so I googled it - and found a link!

http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/pdfs/The_Aviator_021405.pdf

[alex trettenero]

wow.
grading in photoshop is an option i have never considered.
i definitely must try.i must find out how and if you can keyframe gradings.
but, i'm just curious:
as a long time adobe user, when i tried apple color the first time, it took me a while to get used to it, but then i really fell in love with it and it is now my primary grading tool, although i prefer adobe edit suite over fcp.
so, the question is:
what exactly is the grading you couldn't achieve with color but could be done in ps?

thanks.
i hope apple will make a step forward on integrating color with the other applications.

Alessandro.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

that's a fair question with a number of possible answers.

for me personally, i would have to say the number one reason is familiarity, i've been using photoshop for over ten years and know just about everything about manipulating an image with it. dedicated grading software i'm an absolute novice with.

from talking with other people, i think it's also fair to say the sheer range of ways to manipulate an image in photoshop outnumbers any other software. except maybe the really high end di stuff?

i would also assume, although i could again be wrong, that on a mathematical level ie. bit depth, accuracy of calculations etc. photoshop must be superior to the other programs discussed here. (i would appreciate if anyone able to confirm/disprove this assertion). this might not always result in observably better results, but take for example working with underexposed footage or footage from very tough lighting conditions - having that extra mathematical accuracy makes a big difference.

there are some other benefits, for example being able to take advantage of photoshop's scaling capabilities, having a wide variety and extreme degree of control over blur, sharpen, grain etc. filters...

for me personally, having the ability to do what i can do with photoshop really extends the benefits of shooting RED, versus HD, even further.

[P Andersson]

if we are going to have a DSMC it is only natural that the softwares are going towards FCPAEPSSHAKE

[Jason Sinclair]

I have done frames in photoshop via the actions command. PS seems to me way ahead of any video programs in terms of control and color correcting but it does get difficult outside the standards as some of the filters which would be totally cool change when lighting changes. Its best to take a few seconds and export tiffs and have a play. The renders are obviously better quality than AE.