Complex mask renders look blocky in the feather region

Has anyone ever had a multi point mask that just renders a pattern in the feather region? It doesn't happen on simple masks with less than 6 points or so. This footage was originally edited in Premiere and then sent to Speedgrade. This is a recurring issue on this system. Also, in this case Speedgrade crashed almost immediately after I took this shot.
2011 MBP 2.3GHz Intel Quad Core i7 OSX 10.9.5
8gb 1333 MHz DDR3 ram, Adobe CC 2014 - up to date.

I direct link Speedgrade from Premiere, apply masks but never seen that abnormality in your feather region. However, for my complex masks I strickly use Speedgrade in ircp projects. I was trying to duplicate your abnormality and did not succeed. I even saved the complex masks from the ircp and applied as lumetri in a prproj direct link to Speedgrade (which I don't recommend with respect to proper workflow - my test).
I did get abnormalities with lumetri in Premiere when I used the masks in Premiere - as in the ellipse mask or maybe it was the free draw bezier to mask the Speedgrade lumetr. I added some points and feathered out - did not like the abnormalities in the feather region and trashed the idea.
I do add an adjustment layers in Premiere which I add my lumetri to in Speedgrade.
In Speedgrade ircp projects, my current sample has 4 layers, 3 of those layers are masks, where the masks have between 20 to 40 points and double that for feathering. My Speedgrade crashes constantly while building masks and I am forced to save constantly. If I move to fast in Speedgrade the result is 'crash'. Sometimes I stop to admire the work Speedgrade does and then move for the save button and 'crash'.
My point is - I have never seen that abnormality in my Speedgrade projects. I did think I saw it in my current sample, but it was a tiny spot. It was a beach line, where my two masks met and the feather region overlapped - and the tiny spot was a sun-faded dead stump on the shore line - seeming to be over-exposed and Speedgrade trying to tell me I was stripping pixels seemed to be. That sample no longer exists , as I reversed the one mask and worked at things from a different direction.
I have no problems with Speedgrade - I love what Speedgrade does to adding, enhancing, changing color,,,,,

Similar Messages

CS6 problem. When I open the Mask panel, it takes up the entire screen width and the Looks controls disappear, Also, there is a new panel below the Mask panel that seems to have no purpose that I can find. The documentation says "Mask and Look panels - Th

CS6 problem. When I open the Mask panel, it takes up the entire screen width and the Looks controls disappear, Also, there is a new panel below the Mask panel that seems to have no purpose that I can find. The documentation says "Mask and Look panels - The Mask panel is now placed next to the Look panel. WIth the masking and grading tools placed side-by-side, you can now work faster on the mask workflow." Is there a way to move, hide, or otherwise manipulate the panels for a custom layout? All the examples I can find on the Web show the Looks panel to the left of the Mask panel where the controls are available.

Ok, here is what I have so far. Appdelete the iWork and reinstalled. Pages and Number work, but not Keynote.
Now, I downloaded a couple apps that I need, and no matter what I did, the spinning ball came up and the download stopped till it unlocked itself. It is really frustrating because the download was not completed and whatever came through would not mount. Could this issue be the internet connection? Permission fix showed a lot of Airport issues. I will try to run permissions fix again.

H.264 Blu-ray Rendering is Blocky at Start

Hi,
I'm rendering some 1920x1080 23.98 video out to H.264 Blu-ray M4V files in After Effects. Once we start authoring the Blu-ray disc in Scenarist we notice the very start of the video, for the first 12 frames or so, is very blocky. It then cleans up and looks great throughout the rest of the video. We are using a bitrate of 25 average and 30 max.
A temporary solution is to render out to uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2 quicktime and then compress with our CinemaCraft(which doesn't support ANY type of compressed files). But this is a few extra steps and the quicktimes are so big it's kind of a pain and rendering straight out of After Effects would be ideal.
Does anyone have any experience with why it may end up blocky at the start? I've tried this on both Mac and PC versions on After Effects CS3. I don't have CS4 yet, so maybe that solves the problem.
Sorry if this has been covered before, I searched around and didn't see anything. Thanks for any help!
Rey

Ultimately, you're going to get a lesser quality encode directly from AE - it's just not the ideal tool for compressing anything using a temporal compression algorithm, by nature of how AE works.
It's rare for me to use AE as a compression tool. Standard operating procedure is to render a lossless/uncompressed file from AE and encode with a more appropriate tool. In your case, if you're using a Mac, Compressor is the obvious choice. On the PC, you've already mentioned you have Omni CinemaCraft. Either of these tools will be superior to AE as an encoder.

Video looks Blocky, Blurry, Fuzzy in AE (1280X720 29.97fps)

Im trying to make a montage of gameplay I have recorded of myself playing PS3 the files are .m2ts, so im using Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5 to cut the video into clips so I could then export them into AE (After Effects).
So it can make it esier to work with other than cuting the video in After Effects this way I have all my clips organized the way I want.
The way im doing that is by going over to Export --> Media --> with these settings Format: QuickTime Video Codec: Photo - JPEG Quality: 100
Now I open the rendered .MOV file using Windows Media Player and everything looks flawless nice video quality is not gone.
So then comes the AE part now my clips are ready to be mastered and added effects to so I go into Import --> File --> and choose my .MOV file which I have exported from Premiere Pro
But for some reason my video looks Blocky, Blurry, Fuzzy real low quality which is not what I want I have it set on Full and yet it looks horrible.
It looks like AE is having trouble opening the video properly or something in the settings is wrong but from my point of view the composition matches everything from the clips: 1280X720 29.97fps
Here is the picture of how my video looks on After Effects as you can see the text is wierd looking and in the settings you can see I have it on 100% and Full
This next picture below is how it looks on my Windows Media Player as you can see everything looks way nicer
Now this last image is the settings that come up on AE so that you can see my video has the right settings
If anyone can help me out with this I would really appreciate it I know there has to be a solution out there!
Thanks in advance

I recommend you read this for starters and then work your way through thze AE help, including the topic relevant here.
Mylenium

MacBook Pro retina 13" (late 2013, Haswell) why is the highest resolution rendered in 3360x2100, which the system obviously can't handle?!

Hey Apple and Apple users,
I just recently switched from an MacBook Air (mid 2013) to the new Haswell MacBook Pro retina 13" (late 2013 model).
The main reason to do so was the better screen and the option to run higher scaled resolutions, as advertised.
I was willing to trade in the Air's low weight, smaller formfactor and the extra batterylife for the better screen.
When it comes to resolutions:
1280x800 is just a joke nowadays, why is the MacBook Pro still based on it? 13" and 1440x900 work quite fine...see MacBook Air.
1440x900 is okay in everyday life situations, but sometimes you just need "more space" as the third scaling option calls it as well in the display-settings.
1680x1050 on 13" can sometimes be challenging, but it is really fine if you need to work and have a lot UI elements to deal with (Photoshop etc.)
So 1680x1050 scaled on the 2560x1600 screen would be my daily driver for work. So I expected a scaling factor of "1.5238..." (2560/1680) will be used most of the time.
Frankly spoken...I am really disappointed by the 13" retina MacBook Pro and the way OS X Mavericks is handling the scaling.
It obiously works well and responsive with the 1280x800 non-scaling resolution ("best for retina, scaling factor 2: 1280 --> 2560).
Is still "okay-snappy" at 1440x900 (scaling factor 1.777...: 1440 --> 2560).
But it totally breaks down at 1680x1050 (scaling factor 1.523...: 1680 --> 2560).
I use "Mission Control" all the time and it is stuttering and slow...overall a sluggish and unbearable experience.
The same goes for Desktop-Switching by swiping the screens or resizing and moving windows and files around.
So I was wondering why...and then I noticed that when taking a screenshot of my entire screen (CMD + 3) the image size of the screenshot was 3360x2100 and not the expected 2560x1600.
This means Mavericks is not scaling the UI with the appropriate factor (see above). For retina MacBooks it ist simply rendering one pixel of the classic, non-retina Interface in now 4 pixels (2x2) and sending this straight to the screen, which then "scales" it down to the resolution it is able to display.
Why is this bothering me? – Because the machine has to do a lot more work to render the higher resolution that can't even be displayed, due to the screens limitations.
2560x1600 = 4096000 pixels = 100%
3360x2100 = 7056000 pixels = 172%
This means the MacBook has to render 72% more information than actually can be displayed on the built-in screen and are just lost.
Of course this makes the overall UI feel sluggish and idly! Especially with the not that performant Intel Iris IGP and no dedicated graphics card.
All this extra "rendering" just results in a worse battery life due to the extra work that the graphics card and CPU have to do.
First, Apple...are you serious about this?
What can we do about this?
Is there a way to have this properly scaled?
Thanks in advance to everyone.

Okay...I thought deeply about this issue.
Even looking into ways to maybe fixing this on the software side. But it occured to me that this is to deeply embedded into the system that it won't be possbile to come up with a sufficient third-party solution.taht
The problem is that there is no intermediate step inbetween "standard DPI" graphics and "HiDPI" (image-resources named "[email protected]").
But there should be one, to minimize the amount of image information that needs to be processed by the device.
This effects especially the MacBook Pro retina 13", as it has the less powerful Intel Iris IGP, when performing on the highest scaled resolution (equivalent to 1650x1080).
As well as the MacBook Pro retina 15" without a dedicated, second Graphics Unit,when performing on the highest possible scaled resolution (equivalent to 1920x1200).
Those devices don't have enough resources to handle the consequential "HiDPI" resolutions of 3360x2100 for the 13" and 3840x2400 for the 15" model.
(Comment: 3840x2400 = 9,2MP, which is more than the standard 4K resolution of 3840x2160.
I analyzed the scaling factors as follows:
Factor "2" to display 1280x800 on the 13" model and 1440x900 on the 15" model in HiDPI.
Factor "1.777..." would be required to display 1440x900 on the 2560x1600 screen of the 13" model.
Factor "1.714..." would be required to display 1650x1080 on the 2880x1800 screen of the 15" model.
Factor "1.523..." would be required to display 1650x1080 on the 2560x1600 screen of the 13" model.
Factor "1.5" would be required to display 1920x1200 on the 2800x1800 screen of the 15" model.
As all the models seem to have no problem with rendering the intermediate scaling step (1440x900 for the 13" and 1680x1050 for the 15" model) at HiDPI, hence with the scaling factor 2. There is no real need to provide the UI-elements.
But in my opinion there is a strong need for a "MidDPI" ([email protected]) intermediate step for all the UI graphic elements that wis based on the scaling factor 1.5.
This would result in the following:
13" MacBook Pro retina with 2560x1600 screen:
1280x 800 @ 2x = 2560x1600 (no surplus, native screen resolution)
1440x 900 @ 2x = 2880x1800 (the surplus of 1088000px = ~1MP can still be handled and compansated by the weak Iris IGP)
1680x1050 @ 2x = 3360x2100 (the surplus of 2960000px = ~3MP is too much for the weak Iris IGP)
NEW 1680x1050 @ 1.5x = 2520x1575 (with a small border of left=20px, bottom=13, right=20, top=12 pixels, which means ~2,2mm and ~1.3mm around the 1.5x scaled image!).
15" MacBook Pro retina with 2880x1800 screen:
1440x900 @ 2x = 2880x1800 (no surplus, native screen resolution)
1680x1050 @ 2x = 3360x2100 (the surplus of 1872000px = ~2MP can still be handled by the Iris Pro IGP)
1920x1200 @ 2x = 3840x2400 (the surplus of 4032000px = ~4MP can't be handled sufficiently by the Iris Pro IGP)
NEW 1920x1200 @ 1.5x = 2800x1800 (nu surplus, native screen resolution, no border needed!)
The big advantage is that all the graphics have already been remodeled for the HiDPI mode.
So scaling those "factor 2x" images down to "factor 1.5x" should be comparably easy!
Example:
Left: Traditional "standard DPI" icon of "all my files".
Right: "@2x.png" for the "HiDPI" modes.
Middle: "@1.5x.png" suggestions for the "MidDPI" mode; easily scaled down from the lovely HiDPI graphics.
With this simple introduction of the "MidDPI" modes a significant amount of processing power can be saved.
This not only improves battery life when driving those higher scaled resolutions, but also lets the user access those resources for what really matters: processing power for the primary job that the Mac needs to get done.
Thanks in advance.

Create DNG Profile - Why does it look different in the DNG Editor vs LR/ACR?

Hi everyone, I am sorry if this has been covered before -- perhaps you could give me a link to the relevant info.
I have a client who shoots with a Leica DMR. The reds are way to saturated and magenta. We created a new camera profile in the DNG editor using a color-checker chart, shot at D6500 and Tungsten. Looks great, and Lightroom recognizes it. The issue: when we look at a photograph in the DNG editor with this profile, it looks much better. When we look at the same photograph in LR/ACR with the profile selected, the reds are still too saturated and magenta (though way better than without our profile). Why would a photo look different in the two applications, with the same profile?
As shown in DNG Editor:
As shown in LR:
Thank you for any light you can shed on this.
Laura Shoe

Here is an additional comparison further highlighting the magenta issue (amongst others). Shot with Leica R9 w/DMR(firmware1.3) using Leica Vario-Elmarit-R 35-70mm at ISO 100, f/4.8, 1/60. Manual WB=4912K, no Exp Comp.
Here is screen shot of same DNG image. Un-altered in either app., no presets, no sharpening, or noise reduction. CaptureOne (v4.8.3) on the left, and LR2 (v2.6)
Here is what the above screen shot looks like thru CS3:
you must click on image to see CS3 rendering - browser is not accurate
Anyone no what's going on?
PS the images were shot just shy of perfect focus to test sharpening in both apps, same levels applied to both images (C1 on left, LR on right). Here are the results:

Using FCE 4 to edit mov file, inserted 8 chapter markers by double tap M, enter title, click add chapter marker. Rendered and half of the chapter markers unrecognized or not functional. Delete FCE prefs and redo project did not help. How to fix?

Using FCE 4 to edit mov file. Added 8 chapter markers by double tap M, enter title, click add chapter marker. Rendered and 4 of the chapter markers are skipped or not functioning. Deleting FCE prefs and rebuild project did not solve. Solution anyone?

Thanks for taking a look, I am pretty new on a Mac, is this the data you need?

CS6 Is it possible to change the feather on a selection

Is it possible, once a selection is made to change the feather one uses?
I chose the poly-lasso and set feather to 20px, once the selection was completed and cut out I see I needed about twice the amount of feather.
So is there some way to increase the feather to 40 without loosing the selection and having to start over?

Hi Harry,
Yes, there is!
1) Here I have a selection I created with the elliptical marquee tool, with a 20px feather.
2) Go to Select > Modify > Feather.
3) Set the desired value and hit OK.
4) You will see the selection shift slightly, but the image will look like nothing happened. You need to copy the selection to a new layer. Do this by hitting command C to copy, the command V to paste. It will automatically paste to a new layer.
5) Hide the layer underneath to show the new feathered selection.
Please let us know if you have any more questions.

Photoshop cs6 3d rendering looks different

Hey
I have Photoshop via Creative Clouds and it is great
But I have one question:
Suddenly the 3d rendering looks different. Before it was some squeer boxes that appear on the screen and now they are dissapear and it is just one box with marching ants around it. How can I get it back?

That difference is because Adobe introduced the new Render Tile Size parameter and defaulted it to Huge.
Note: You should time your rendering if you decide to make a change. Using smaller tiles can mean your render times may take a lot longer, depending on the system. I find my renders go quite a lot faster on Huge.
-Noel

I need the IP values and Subnet Mask which is given by the ISP for my jetpack so i can configure my smart tv

i need the IP values and Subnet Mask which is given by the ISP for my jetpack so i can configure my smart tv

Your public IP Address is provided by the ISP. Your smart TV does not need to know this information unless you plan to host some kind of an application or service for folks on the internet through your TV. It wouldn't work anyways since all Jetpacks sit behind a VZW NAT firewall and blocks hosting capabilities by default.
What you more than likely are referring to is the Default Gateway and Subnet mask of the Local Area Network being hosted by your Jetpack. By default these values should be something like 192.168.1.1 and 255.255.255.0. You can confirm the DG and SM by connecting a computer to the Jetpack. Every computer has a way to look up the networking information. On a Windows OS you would open up a CMD window and type in "IPCONFIG".
If you shoot us the model number of your Smart TV we may be able to look up a User Guide to confirm what kind of info is needed to connect to a wireless network. Most of the time exchanging the IP information is done automatically during the connection process. It would also be nice to know which Jetpack model you have so we can compare the User Guide for that device with your TV.

Font rendering looks terrible

I have the Firefox 26.0 running on Windows 7 Ultimate and have noticed that the font rendering often looks terrible. For example, have a look at the lower left title on the New York Times:
http://webspace.lenscritic.com/firefox/2.png
Interestingly, when the page is first rendering I get a split second where it looks fine, but then it quickly changes to what you see above. Here's what it looks like in the early stages of rendering when it looks fine:
http://webspace.lenscritic.com/firefox/1.png
I have tried disabling hardware acceleration (in Tools > Options > Advanced > General > Browsing) as well as setting the gfx.content.azure.enabled pref to false and gfx.direct2d.disabled pref to true, none of which made any difference.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Hello,
Some help articles:
*[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ Check plugins]
*[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ Last Firefox]
*[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration Upgrade your graphics drivers to use hardware acceleration and WebGL]
*[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/websites-look-wrong-or-appear-differently Websites look wrong or appear differently than they should]
*[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode Firefox in safe mode]

Mask Rendering Bug in FP 11

Wondering if anyone else has seen a bug with masks not rendering in FP11. Simple mask layers applied to layers containing animated movie clips. Nothing too fancy. Content plays as expected when published in Flash Professional CS5 IDE, but the masks don't render - ie., content that should be masked is fully visible when the swf is viewed in the browser in Flash Player 11.1.102.55.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Simon

Hi Chris, you can view the issue in this sample swf: http://simonabrams.com/test/maskbug.html
After some investigating, we realized that the animated mask clip stops on a keyframe that is blank - in other words, there isn't a graphic on that keyframe to mask the content below.
This first screenshot shows the structure of the main timeline.
Inside the mask clip, you can see that there's a blank keyframe, so when the mask finishes animating, there's nothing there to mask the content below. So technically, it seems that this *shouldn't* work in older versions of the Flash player, but for some reason it does.
This is probably confusing, so I've uploaded the source for this file here: http://cl.ly/DgUl
I've also attached it to the bug I filed (https://bugbase.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=bug&id=3096641).
Thanks for your input.
- Simon

N96 - Media key - Pics look blocky

Hi folks,
On my N96, when I hit the media key to bring up the rotating menu and go into photos / pics most of the thumbnails
look very blocky,blurred and pixelated and still look blocky when I click on them to bring them out as such.
The original files look fine, if I copy them back over to the PC they look as they should do.
If I go into Photos from the menu I have the same problem.
I have no idea what's caused this, it's almost as if most of my pics have lost resolution somehow.
Any ideas? This is really annoying.
Nokia 5800... probably the best Nokia I have ever owned.

Hi,
Did display lose the quality of resolution in every case or only when you see pictures. How's with video, with screen.
1.If yes, I suppose this can be a displays failure and you should go to Nokia Service.
2.If not, try with software: default settings, soft reset, update - if it doesn't help go to point above.
N95 & N96 User

I am looking to buy the least expensive high resolution digital video camera to convert/record 8mm video tapes.

Hi. Thanks for your help in advance.
I am looking to buy the least expensive digital video camera with the highest resolution I can find in order to use it to record 100s of old (1960s era ) reel to reel video tapes. I am told that in order to do that I must record the "old" video onto a new platform, which means I will set up an "old" projector and play the tapes and record the video on a digital camera. I only want to do this once so I want the highest resolution format I can find. Therefore, I am looking for a camera to purchase. Any help is appreciated.

Hello Lance,
Transferring film to digital video is a complex, challenging process. To cut to the chase, the best way to do this is to engage a firm that specializes in film-to-digital transfer services. There are quite a few around. Costs for 8mm transfer range anywhere from about $0.15 - $0.40 per foot and there are usually significant discounts for bulk projects. Plus, depending on the cost of the video camera you would otherwise consider buying, you may find it costs less overall to use a service than do it yourself.
You also mentioned that you "want the highest resolution format" ... Once you project 8mm/Super8 film onto a screen the effective resolution will not even be what we might consider "standard-def" in digital video. And the larger the projected image the lower & lower the effective resolution regardless of what kind of video camera you might use.
A transfer service, however, directly scans each frame to digitize them and depending on the math the resulting digital image may technically be as "good" as 720p ... but the overall image quality will still be limited by the quality of the original film ... and still probably not up the level of "standard-def" digital video ... but way better than anything you could obtain with a homebrew projector-screen-videocam setup.
Why DIY? Well, it sounds inexpensive and simple. But in reality it is a very time consuming way to get relatively low quality transfers no matter how high-end or expensive a video camera you use. I can share more details if necessary, but DIY film-to-video transfer is not the way to go if you are really interested in quality results.

My renders look different on FCP 7!

Hi,
I've recently upgraded to FCS 3 & Snow Leopard.
At some point I needed to fix an old project created on FCP 6 and re-render it. The project of course opened fine, and I fixed what I needed and sent out to render (Exported QT and then compressed to Animation PAL via Compressor).
Looking at the final render, it looked somewhat odd. I then opened the previously rendered file (done in FCP 6) and played them side by side in QT7.
First of all the aspect ratios were different; although the info palette showed correct sizes for both videos (720x576), the actual size was different, as though one was corrected for 1:1 viewing and the other wasn't. Opening both movies in QTX was weirder: they had the same window size but the newly created movie seemed stretched and cropped to fit 1:1 viewing.
I then opened the movies in VLC, and lo and behold, they both were sized the same.
But the more major issue is that the newly rendered movie looks "softer". The previously rendered movie is crisp and sharp with contrasty colors, while the new one is just milder in color and detail; the difference is not extreme, but noticeable.
I cannot think of any reason why this could happen, because the render settings remained the same. I even tried playing around with different settings, as well as rendering directly from FCP, among other things, but nothing changed.
I'm fresh out of ideas, and quite frankly, pretty frustrated from this, as I need to make a tape master pretty soon.
Is this a bug in QT? FCP7? Snow Leopard? Or just some hidden setting I might have overlooked?
Your help will be much appreciated.
Thanks

In Quicktime 7 > Preferences... window you should see a bunch of options - make sure that you have checked "Use high-quality video setting when available" and "Enable Final Cut Studio color compatibility". Note also that default gamma handling in Snow Leopard is now at 2.2: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3712

Complex mask renders look blocky in the feather region

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for