You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Exporting file and other questions - evaluating

Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 3:20am

Post 1 of 15

FXhomer123690

Force: 20 | Joined: 27th Oct 2009 | Posts: 7

Member

Hello,

While evaluating software, I found that it doesn't export it on transparent bg but instead puts extracted image on the white background. I noticed that on the white background it leaves the original shadows and I wonder if there is a way to selectively address such parts of the image.

It is also unclear how the licensing model would work after release of the new version in November. Would the customers who had just bought the current version be able to upgrade to v. 3 or they would have to pay?

I also noticed that the colour temperature is off (at least for foreground). How does increasing the Kelvins make it cooler? 3200 is a tungsten value, but with your software it’s bright orange. Am I missing something?

Apparently software doesn’t support transparency. To crash it, create transparent tiff file of the same resolution as foreground image. Load it as a background. Try to export image. Software either crashes, or shows the image that the file can’t be saved.

I absolutely need to be able to export the foreground on transparent background. Am I missing a setting? Please advise.

I hope my concerned are answered - it's a light-weight, fast and impressive product otherwise. But if I can't grab extracted layer it would be useless for compositing.

Thank you,
Tatiana
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 4:09am

Post 2 of 15

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

If you want to export the foreground with alpha transparency, don't import a background. Import the foreground you want, get the key set how you want it, and export to either TIFF or PNG.

Color temperature won't be altered by the program; if your colors are altered, are you sure it isn't the spill suppression that is shifting them? Try switching it to Extended mode and see if it helps.
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 4:15am

Post 3 of 15

FXhomer123690

Force: 20 | Joined: 27th Oct 2009 | Posts: 7

Member

I did not import background at all. However, it still saves the foreground image on the white background. It is just not working.

The settings I am talking are in the "Filters" --> "Color Temperature" tab. Clearly in Kelvin, but the values do not make sense.
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 4:53am

Post 4 of 15

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Sorry, I misunderstood you about the color temperature. You are correct, it does seem to be backwards. I'll point that out to the developers, shouldn't be too hard to flip it the right way round.

When you say the foreground exports with a white background; what program are you opening the file in where you see the white background? The only program I know of that does anything remotely odd with the alphas is Photoshop, which retains the alpha channel but doesn't apply it to the background layer of the file, and that only happens with TIFF files. Are you using Photoshop, or are you having this problem with a different program? Every other graphics program I've tried the files it the transparency works fine. If it is Photoshop, chech the channels palette, and you should find that your alpha is still there.
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 12:36pm

Post 5 of 15

FXhomer123690

Force: 20 | Joined: 27th Oct 2009 | Posts: 7

Member

Also, with the Kevlin values, you should not be cutting the low boundaries at the 3000. Under low light conditions and in special situations the values below 3000 could be used.

Yes, it indeed creates an Alpha. Thank you for your reply.

What about my question on a possibility to upgrade to the v. 3 in November if I purchase v.2 now? I am relactant to spend money if there is something possibly better is on its way.

I must add that your dedication to your product is amazing - the response time in the forums is beyond all expectations.

Thanks,
Tatiana
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 1:02pm

Post 6 of 15

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

FXhomer123690 wrote:

What about my question on a possibility to upgrade to the v. 3 in November if I purchase v.2 now? I am relactant to spend money if there is something possibly better is on its way.
Owners of PhotoKey 1 and PhotoKey 2 will receive discounted upgrades to Photokey 3, but it won't be a free upgrade. Our policy has always been that point updates (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc) are free while whole version upgrades (v1, v2, v3 etc) are paid for.

We'll be releasing some more information about PhotoKey 3 later this week.
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 1:10pm

Post 7 of 15

FXhomer123690

Force: 20 | Joined: 27th Oct 2009 | Posts: 7

Member

Please mention target release day.
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 2:41pm

Post 8 of 15

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Right, I just finished a discussion of color temperature, and we were both wrong. In color temp, orange colors are cooler than blue. For a technical explanation of this, see this article in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

But if you think of heating up a piece of metal, or coals in a BBQ, they will turn orange at a much lower temperature than they will turn white (blue). This is the opposite of what are considered 'warm' and 'cool' colors from a design perspective, but as you mention, Tungsten colors are cooler than sunlight, and are also yellower than sunlight.

To add to the confusion, both Apple and Adobe display the spectrum on their Color Temp controls backwards, likely because it makes more sense that way to your average user, but we are looking into whether there are other reasons as well. For now, though, the Color Temperature controls will stay as they are, reflecting scientific accuracy rather than common sense.
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 2:43pm

Post 9 of 15

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Axeman wrote:

reflecting scientific accuracy rather than common sense.
That should be our new company tagline.
Posted: Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 11:43pm

Post 10 of 15

FXhomer123690

Force: 20 | Joined: 27th Oct 2009 | Posts: 7

Member

Rating: +1

Perhaps, a quick call to any reputable camera maker(Canon, Nikon) or film manufacturer (Kodak, Ilford), Filter manufacturers for photography and cinematography that serve Hollywood (that probably got it all wrong too) (Rosco, Lee) would be more educational?

Read on the colour temperature here to understand what is behind the temperature as related to film or digital negatives:
http://www.aeimages.com/learn/color-correction.html

I am not going to be elaborate on the science behind that process; I will also refrain from suggesting a different tagline for the company.

I published number of articles on photography that specifically address color temperature for photographers; also, my duties include educating photographers around the globe - first time in 30 years of doing photography somebody told me that "I am wrong" on the colour temperature.

Please educate yourself on colour balancing before making such statements in public forums that Adobe got it wrong and somebody who suggested you correct the software to reflect the reality is wrong. I am not sure people at Adobe are going to be amused by your statement.
Posted: Wed, 28th Oct 2009, 1:07am

Post 11 of 15

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

I didn't say that Adobe got it wrong, just that they display it a different way, and I meant no offense to you by my statement.

My response was based on several conversations with technicians, researching a number of articles, and information found in the American Cinematographer Manual.

Thanks for that link, there is some really good stuff there.

Surely we can agree that tungsten color (3200K) is more orange than tungsten color (5500K)? And that 3200 degrees is lower (cooler) than 5500 degrees? And that candles, at 1000K and at the extreme cool end of the spectrum, are very much orange in the color of their light.

I didn't get a chance to read through all of that article yet, but it seems to agree with this from the section I read.

The Article wrote:

Be careful with the terminology here! The hotter the body gets (measured as the temperature in degrees Kelvin) the more the color moves from red towards blue. But we say that red is a "warmer" color than blue! So a warm body radiates a cold color and a (comparatively) cold body radiates warm colors. I know, it's confusing...

The photographic color temperature is not the same as the color temperature defined in physics or colorimetry. As mentioned above, the photographic color temperature is measured only on the relative intensity of blue to red. However, we borrow the basic measurement scale from physics and we will measure the photographic color temperature in degrees Kelvin (K).

Isn't that explaining that colors that appear 'warm' (oranges and reds) are in fact cooler temperatures than colors that appear cool (greens and blues)? And that the scale that is used to measure them is borrowed from Kelvin, where red is cool and blue is hot?

Obviously this is a complex and fairly technical subject, and I've no doubt that as an educator in that subject you know more about it than me, so I'm interested to learn more about how it works. I imagine the guys from FXhome who write the program also would be interested. But at the moment, everything I've found indicates that orange is cooler on a kelvin scale than blue, but that all of the established companies set up their controls the other way round. I intend to thoroughly read the article you linked when I get a chance, to see if it explains why that is, but if you happen to know the answer, that would be great.
Posted: Wed, 28th Oct 2009, 1:37am

Post 12 of 15

FXhomer123690

Force: 20 | Joined: 27th Oct 2009 | Posts: 7

Member

Rating: +1

I think the reason your scale is flipped is because you are taking the temperature directly, without thinking that when using a film or digital negative, you are doing colour correction.
While indeed, the scale that is used in physics uses the values that you mentioned earlier, the scale for the film colour temperature, for the RAW files in Photoshop, or settings in digital camera work to "color balance".
This short article on wikipedia might shed more light on the relationship between the actual physical value and the value of 3200 K used for tungsten film colour balancing that produces cool blue cast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_film
Posted: Wed, 28th Oct 2009, 2:11am

Post 13 of 15

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Aaah, that makes sense, though I am still working on grasping the finer points of it. Having virtually no experience with actual film I don't have as solid a point of reference for this as I would like.

I would think that the Color Temp slider would allow you to shift the image toward whatever color temp you want for the final image; you are saying that it works the other way? That shifting the color temp lower, rather than being a way to shift the image toward orange hues, is a way to compensate for the low color temp (the orange hues) already in the image? And this would be done by adding blue to the image to bring the white back into balance? And that's why blue is generally seen in the lower end of the Color Temp controls, because that's what you add to those color temps to balance them.

Coming from a perspective of color correction, based on working with actual film stock, that makes sense. And now that I've spend 15 minutes trying to word this correctly, I think I've explained it to myself enough that I understand it clearly. You can let me know if I got that right. Thanks for the insight.

It still seems counter-intuitive to my mind, but I think I'll get the hang of it eventually.

Last edited Wed, 28th Oct 2009, 2:15am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 28th Oct 2009, 2:15am

Post 14 of 15

FXhomer123690

Force: 20 | Joined: 27th Oct 2009 | Posts: 7

Member

Yes, that's why the "flipped" version for photography media is the correct version.
Email me privately and I will send you more resources including my pulications tomorrow - I rather not to disclose my identity here. My email should be in a database of the forum users. If you can't find it, post email I can reach you at.
Posted: Wed, 28th Oct 2009, 2:18am

Post 15 of 15

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

I sent you a pm with my email in it. Thanks again.