Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

Is it possible to make TV Paint support .dpx file format? We use it a lot in our studio and now we always have to render extra sequences only for tv paint ..

Mikko

Hi Mikko,

Dpx is a 8-10 bits log or float picture format and TVP Animation is currently working in 8 bits picture format.

We can support the .dpx format, but you will lost the original quality when importing a sequence.

After reading the TVPaint 9 Pro manual I noticed that dpx files were supported. Yay

TVPaint wrote:Hi Mikko,

Dpx is a 8-10 bits log or float picture format and TVP Animation is currently working in 8 bits picture format.

We can support the .dpx format, but you will lost the original quality when importing a sequence.

But it will be 10 bit when exporting? I don't think so. Recently I posted here an evaluation of a DPX clip I sent to a filmout place and they recognized it as only 8 bit. They recommended that I export my work as Targas (or Tiffs too, I think) and that they will then convert it to DPX themselves, because their computer-to-35-mm film equipment can handle only DPX.

their computer-to-35-mm film equipment can handle only DPX.

Isn't this arrogance baffling? All those hight tech transfer facilities insist on having files delivered exactly oven-ready in what their expensive machines can chew. At the rates they charge I'd expect them to be able to converse from whatever file format they get. It really doesn't need more than one decent PC with a conversion program like GraphicConverter (Mac) or the like.

I'd expect them to be able to convert from whatever file format they get

But isn't that just what this place is offering; to convert my deliverables to their machine? The other place we had been considering, a company in Hollywood with a good reputation, said almost the same thing; we can use several formats, TIFF or TARGA and a couple of others, but they never mentioned DPX. I wouldn't be surprised if they have the same machine that can take only DPX and instead of telling me that they will convert my material to DPX, they just said that they can handle several formats. Both companies are saying the same thing.

I like my new place better however, for telling me exactly what they intend to do with what I give them and also for explaining that 10 bit has the advantage over 8 bit in that there is more color latitude to choose from for color corrections. Since we have absolute control of our colors in our creation process, we know that we will need very little color correction and this new place also brought that up and confirmed that in their first test, converting JPEG and TVP's DPX to film, found both samples showing stunning pictures. Then they suggested that TARGA would still be their preferred format from us.

Maybe TVP Pro could better stand up to the "PRO" claim if they bundled an 8 to 10 bit conversion software program to let us deliver 10 bit DPX to begin with (if this can be done at all; what do I know?) instead of making us pay a filmout company for doing the conversion.

Paul Fierlinger wrote:

Maybe TVP Pro could better stand up to the "PRO" claim if they bundled an 8 to 10 bit conversion software program to let us deliver 10 bit DPX to begin with (if this can be done at all; what do I know?) instead of making us pay a filmout company for doing the conversion.

Currently doing some test footage at Pac Title (Hollywood). They use ArriLaser film recorders. They aren't charging anything [extra[ for any conversions. Sending them Tiffs right now. They can deal with most any file format-and would probably only say something if you gave them something lossy. Producer came away with "We can deal with anything, but you're best off doing this..."

8 to 10 bit dpx conversion wouldn't benefit you. You can't add information with a conversion. TVP "Pro" would be more "professional" if they supported more than 8 bit color depth in the first place.

I couldn't find your other thread on this, though I tried. I believe I mentioned before that color is affected when you record to film, and again when the neg is printed. Your colors have to be interpreted by a couple of other people. I don't know how you go about guaranteeing colors if you can't supply paint swatches to match to visually. I don't know that it's all that critical anyway. I guess you just view tests, and converse about them.

If you're being charged for file conversion, you'd probably be better off with downloading image magick (or some other file conversion utility) and doing the conversion yourself. http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ I'm pretty sure it will convert AVI's or Quicktimes straight to a DPX sequence.

So here's a silly question: If I remember correctly, you're outputting from Vegas, back to TVP, then an image sequence for filmout. Instead of that, why not output a QuickTime or AVI from Vegas, then let the filmout guys convert that to DPX (if you're paying for it anyway)? As far as I can tell, DPX from TVP is somewhat lacking [technically] anyway.

Perhaps, with the passage of time, all of this has worked itself out anyway?

So here's a silly question: If I remember correctly, you're outputting from Vegas, back to TVP, then an image sequence for filmout. Instead of that, why not output a QuickTime or AVI from Vegas, then let the filmout guys convert that to DPX (if you're paying for it anyway)? As far as I can tell, DPX from TVP is somewhat lacking [technically] anyway.

Perhaps, with the passage of time, all of this has worked itself out anyway?

Vegas Pro (notice the sarcasm in my voice?) can output as an image sequence just two formats: JPEG and PNG, both of which are considered inferior to Targa. In my case I'm not being charged, that's an expense covered by the producers, but I'm sure I'm not the only one wanting to go to 35 mm film.

Otherwise neither I or Sandra are color fascists. We are perfectly aware of the discrepancies between projectors, theaters, TV sets and individual eyesights. We just eyeball it, as we eyeball the colors on our monitors in the first place, each one of which show colors slightly differently. Isn't it interesting that everyone has the same reactions to Sandra's color schemes whether they are viewing our work on their home TV sets or computer monitors or even cell phones? It has something to do with the way she matches colors amongst themselves that give a pleasing appearance under almost any conditions. But one could say the same thing about bad colors; once poorly mixed and matched they will come out looking bad on anything.

Paul Fierlinger wrote:Vegas Pro (notice the sarcasm in my voice?) can output as an image sequence just two formats: JPEG and PNG, both of which are considered inferior to Targa. In my case I'm not being charged, that's an expense covered by the producers, but I'm sure I'm not the only one wanting to go to 35 mm film.

I wonder about PNG. I've heard it's quite good from a number of people. It supports 48 bit (including Alpha) (Maybe Vegas doesn't, but the PNG standard does), transparency, and lossless compression. I don't really know. I rarely use it.

Quicktime Pro should be able to export an image sequence too. I know there's a dpx plug-in for the Mac, so I would imagine there would be for Windows too (?) I guess it's mostly a workflow thing, isn't it? If you're happy with how it goes now, then no big deal.

You made me do some research on PNG and everywhere I look it gets high marks for being a lossless codec specializing in graphics and cartoons. I wouldn't be surprised if a filmout facility would routinely dismiss PNG from some experiences with live action footage and none with animated films. I am going to run a test after the labs return from summer holidays. (Sigh... I thought that was a domain only of the French.) Are we getting sophisticated over here?
PNG might just be my best ticket.

I just came back from our brand new Filmout studio in Philadelphia, called DIVE -- a fantastic, state of the art facility which opened a couple of months ago on Independence Mall. For anyone interested, all film services provided in Philadelphia are tax free.

But here are the tests I conducted. I selected a one minute segment from our film which I processed 4 different ways to see which route I should take when it comes to completing Tulip.

1. PNG exported directly from Vegas -- 2.5 GB It took about 2 minutes to render, maybe less.
This was the only option I had from Vegas (other than JPEG, which is NA for filmout purposes) so I created an uncompressed AVI of the one minute, 1080p sample and "uploaded" into TVP 9 as a non-preload (virtual) file. From TVP's timeline I rendered out:
2. Uncompressed TARGA which came to 10.8 GB and took about 3 minutes to render
3. DPX which came to 14.4 GB and took 4 hours to render
4. Uncompressed PNG, which came to 10.8 GB and also took about 3 minutes to render

All renderingss were to image sequence folders.

Each one minute file was thoroughly analyzed by 3 technicians who came to the conclusion that there is no discernible difference between the 4 files. Not even the smallest PNG file from Vegas so that is the way to go for me.

They rated TVP's DPX as top quality, if this means anything to anyone here.
The conclusion was that the Vegas Pro 8 PNG way is the fastest and best way for me and it also took the least time for them to convert to DPX -- about 3 minutes.

The quality of the picture was amazing on the large screen, which looked 100% the same as on our monitors. They then went through all the coloring possibilities and also gave us a simulated look of what the image will look like projected from 35 mm film. When they toggled through all 4 tests it was imposssible to see even a hint of a difference. I couldn't even tell the technician was toggling until I looked at his hand pushing the button.

The technicians admitted that they have had no previous experiences with PNG because they had never dealt with 2D animation and said they were stunned by the results.

I hope this information might help anyone who is in the planning stages of converting TVP to film.

This is really good news, and in the line of what I expected: carefully created 8-bit images don't loose any quality when transferred to 12-bit. I just wish I could have joined you for this screening!

It was nice a day, partly sunny and filled with tourists, but there was still enough room left for you.

Each one minute file was thoroughly analyzed by 3 technicians who came to the conclusion that there is no discernible difference between the 4 files. Not even the smallest PNG file from Vegas so that is the way to go for me.

They rated TVP's DPX as top quality, if this means anything to anyone here.
The conclusion was that the Vegas Pro 8 PNG way is the fastest and best way for me and it also took the least time for them to convert to DPX -- about 3 minutes.

The quality of the picture was amazing on the large screen, which looked 100% the same as on our monitors. They then went through all the coloring possibilities and also gave us a simulated look of what the image will look like projected from 35 mm film. When they toggled through all 4 tests it was imposssible to see even a hint of a difference. I couldn't even tell the technician was toggling until I looked at his hand pushing the button.

The technicians admitted that they have had no previous experiences with PNG because they had never dealt with 2D animation and said they were stunned by the results.

I hope this information might help anyone who is in the planning stages of converting TVP to film.

Paul, those tests are REALLY usefull !!
So much people asked me about the difference between DPX and PNG renderings ... I can now answer thanks to a real artist experience/experiment !

But how come that the one minute in uncompressed PNG's directly out of Vega is 2.5G and out of TVP its 10.5G?
What/how did you export from TVP into VGA to begin with Paul?