Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: Pete_G on June 26, 2014, 01:50:44 pm
-
Seems like Resolve 11 Lite is now available as a beta version. Lots of enhancements to the editing side of the software,
for those who just need basic editing features, i.e. short form films and, of course, colour grading - this might be the only app you need. I haven't tried it yet but I'd be surprised if it wasn't stable, knowing BM's track record, and the fact that Resolve 11 (paid version) has been around for some months now.
-
Seems like Resolve 11 Lite is now available as a beta version. Lots of enhancements to the editing side of the software,
for those who just need basic editing features, i.e. short form films and, of course, colour grading - this might be the only app you need. I haven't tried it yet but I'd be surprised if it wasn't stable, knowing BM's track record, and the fact that Resolve 11 (paid version) has been around for some months now.
I have a feeling that Blackmagic is going to evolve resolve into a full editorial suite, which would be a good idea, considering the void left from fcp 7.
I use resolve 9 regularly and for roundtripping and coloring with some basic effects it's very good, especially with RED footage and briefly tested 11, though as you mention 11 is fine for quick cuts, with simple transitions but not really a full fledged editorial suite.
I think we'll eventually see a suite (from someone) that editing, coloration and even some effects are done on the same timeline. Coloring on the timeline is priceless as it let's you match and tweak to impact the story and no matter how qualified a colorist you are, I've never done a video where I don't do some final adjustment on the timeline.
But resolve as a coloration tool is wonderful, especially for the cost.
IMO
BC
-
11.1 is now out and it just keeps getting better. I'm giving it a real look. Right now the features that it is lacking I can mostly work around, though one shoot is heavily multi cam, so that's out.
-
11.1 is now out and it just keeps getting better. I'm giving it a real look. Right now the features that it is lacking I can mostly work around, though one shoot is heavily multi cam, so that's out.
I just did 1 hour 46 minutes of rushes using resolve and it's editing funcitons. Running a full tilt mac silver desktop and a RED rocket card for the RED footage it worked ok, but for editing, it's pretty rough and loads up quickly.
(1/2 my footage was RED, 1/2 70d) all in their native codecs.
What I found was you need fast scratch disks, fast graphic cards and open cl and btw: save the project every few seconds as you will get a crash with mixed footage.
The results though are good because resolve has nice footage rendering.
I also suggest buying film convert for resolve as it gives a much nicer look to the files, especailly dslr files, though film convert is somewhat buggy to load properly.
Actually, though I never edit fully in fcpX, since I was mixing 4k and 2k footage It would have been a lot faster for simple rushes type edit to use fcpx set for proxy media, then export a fcpXxml to resolve and then round trip back.
I hope blackmagic makes a good editorial program, but today, it requires too many workarounds to do anything complex.
BTW: I would never consider color grading in fcpX at least not for finish as it's rendering, look and system is way time consuming compared to Resolve 11.1.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks BC, that's great info.
-
Thanks BC, that's great info.
Resolve is excellent but unless I'm missing something, it is missing some simple functions, like eye dropper wb, better keying, easier key frames, etc.
FilmConvert is worth the price, just for the wb slider alone, though you must read the instructions for installing and install the correct packets for your camera.
Just a note.
One thing I noticed on the rushes, which were 4k red and 2k 70d. When I went to render a single clip in flat pass, the rendering meter said 56 hours. I restarted to clear the video ram but got the same result, so set two more scratch disks and open cl and the rendering went to 2 hours 46 minutes.
Could have just been a glitch on my system, but 56 to 2 hours is a big deal.
IMO
BC
-
Resolve is excellent but unless I'm missing something, it is missing some simple functions, like eye dropper wb, better keying, easier key frames, etc.
Honestly, I'm too new at this to comment intelligently. It does have a setting tab in the color tools to work with a colorchecker card, but I don't see eye dropper wb. The eye droppers seem to be more for selecting specific colors. One person I work with is neck deep in Adobe and another uses either FCPX or Media Composer, so my hope is that Resolve can be a little more for me than just color, but I don't know.
FilmConvert is worth the price, just for the wb slider alone, though you must read the instructions for installing and install the correct packets for your camera.
Thanks, I will look into it.
One thing I noticed on the rushes, which were 4k red and 2k 70d. When I went to render a single clip in flat pass, the rendering meter said 56 hours. I restarted to clear the video ram but got the same result, so set two more scratch disks and open cl and the rendering went to 2 hours 46 minutes.
Could have just been a glitch on my system, but 56 to 2 hours is a big deal.
Good tip on the scratch drive. Right now I am working remotely with just a laptop and chalked up the slow speed to that. How much scratch drive space does it need?
-
White balance in Resolve 11 depends on whether you are shooting ProRes or raw.
I'm always shooting raw.
So I just select my camera type (Blackmagic) in the camera setting and my footage generally comes up fairly well balanced.
There is a download to help with ProRes white balance made by a guy called Captain Hook.
http://www.captainhook.co.nz/blackmagic-cinema-camera-lut/
For quick grading, I find dropping one of his LUTs on to my clip get's me very close to where I need to be, very quickly.
Resolve is very different to photography applications. It's very complex and a steep learning curve.
I've just started the Ripple Training Resolve 11 course.
You can do everything you need to do in Resolve 11, you just need to understand how to do it. I must admit I find Capture One a lot easier.
I bought Film Convert and didn't like the results. Yeah it's very easy to use and very quick, but it just softens your footage and adds fake film artefacts, in my humble opinion.
-
I did a vid on grey balance in resolve.. https://vimeo.com/72582560
-
It sounds like some of you have missed the new Color Match feature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byTporDXYxA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byTporDXYxA)
-
I am climbing the learning curve in digital filmmaking.
So far I concentrated on short (15min) nature cinécollages
(combining video clips with Ken Barnes stills, and the four kinds of sound).
Examples on VimeoPro.com/goff/Alps.
I have pretty well mastered Final Cut Pro X, including its fiddly colour correction tool.
Now I am ready to embark on round tripping to Resolve, which will I hope enable me to correct and grade video clips to the same image quality as still images imported to the film after they have been processed in Phocus.
(Still and video need to work together well in cinécollages).
My question concerns the choice of computer for processing short cinécollages.
FCPX works well enough on my MacBook Pro. But Resolve 11.1 light stutters.
So I conclude that I need to buy a more powerful Mac that will do FCP and Resolve comfortably.
Apple are pushing their MacPro for FCPX & Resolve.
But would the new 27 inch iMac do the job?
Apple rumours carry a story that suggests the IMac is "as powerful" as the low end MacPro.
But would that be the case for FCPX and Resolve?
I would appreciate your advice,
Goff
-
http://software.blackmagicdesign.com/DaVinciResolve/docs/DaVinci_Resolve_Mac_Config_Guide_June_2014.pdf
CPU speed and GPU speed and memory size are what counts.
-
Thank you, Peter, for drawing my attention to the Blackmagic note. As I plan to explore 4K next year, I guess I shall have to fork out for a Mac Pro. Goff
-
I just start to shoot Magic Lantern raw video on Canon 5D MarkIII. For the post work, I just wonder what is the main difference between color grading the footage in Photoshop Camera Raw then import the sequenced jpeg or tiff clips to FCP X verse do that part in Resolve 11 Lite?
-
It sounds like some of you have missed the new Color Match feature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byTporDXYxA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byTporDXYxA)
Thanks for this, I did not know it was there. But this tool illustrates my frustration with Resolve; there area lot of steps in there to get to what C1 Pro and others can do with one simple click of the greydropper tool on the 18% grey square. I think the video editing softwares need to look at how easy the still editing software is.
-
Thanks for this, I did not know it was there. But this tool illustrates my frustration with Resolve; there area lot of steps in there to get to what C1 Pro and others can do with one simple click of the greydropper tool on the 18% grey square. I think the video editing softwares need to look at how easy the still editing software is.
Word.
I've used the color checker, but it's a cludge of a workaround, where a dropper, slider will do it.
It makes you go to a separate function to base out the wb and if your using mixed light and have some intentional bleed you get mixed results.
Honestly, get film convert or some other plug in that allows you to use two sliders, one for wb, one for exposure and be done with the base cc, or somebody at Adobe ask for lightroom do do motion tracking and video.
IMO
BC
-
Film Convert only works for ProRes, not Raw.
I've found ProRes (exposure and white balance) very difficult to nail on the BM cameras, so therefore shooting exclusively raw.
Film Convert is also a film stock emulation, not really a grading app.
I recently tried the colour checker feature and found it pretty much a two click operation (with raw). Click to match the colour chart on your footage, then click to adjust exposure to taste. results were excellent, using a variety of different lenses.
The real hassle comes when having to shoot colour charts for every lighting scenario when out and about filming.
As a C1 user I've been requesting Phase One make processing of motion video easier for a couple of years now. You can get amazing results very quickly if you are prepared to process thousands of TIFFs for a one minute video sequence, then reimport them to an NLE. A Capture One motion version would be the ultimate (with tracking of course).
-
I just got a Panasonic GH4, for very short interviews and documentaries, and am starting to find my feet - expect it will take 6 months at least.
First glance at my footage, white balance is the only real issue. Any advice?
I'm thinking of adopting Resolve Lite in due course, because it's free.
Paradoxically, after my first tests, sound worries me more; I cannot figure out how to do clean sound on camera, and think I will go with Sennheiser HF and lav.
Edmund
-
Edmund. I have used a Røde Lav mic with great success, plugging it into the stereo input socket of my Leica M240. Not only does it produce voice cleanly, but it also captures the ambient sounds well (i.e. Foley sound).
For example a recording in the garden captures bird song in the background on a voice over.
You can see the results in Vimeo.com/goff. The short film of making a calendar of butterflies in the Alps is topped and tailed with voice over in the garden at home. I have a number of Røde mics. They all perform very well. Excellent value for money. Goff
-
First get a small Cage from Wooden Camera. It is the most adaptable and won't add much bulk to your system, though allows you to add a few things when needed, especially a top handle for dutch angles.
Second buy good nd faders to use as your f stop. Tiffen test out well.
If your using the 2.8 zooms remember in reality at wide open your at 5.6, so for subject isolation try to step back when you can and add a few more feet in focal length (but that's an artistic decision).
For sound the GH4 has lousy shielding and pre amps, so you can live with it, or buy a tascam that you run from mic to tascam to camera. That will help dramatically and the tascams are cheap.
For mics I've got em all and the radio Senihauser Lavs I find are the best, also their microphones. They make a small mic that is fairly fragile but mounts on camera and is good for foley.
For one person interviews use a radio lav and get some pads that go between the body and the mic. This cuts down on rubbing and clothes crunching noises (you can find them on google).
For multi person interviews either add another lav, or if the subject(s) are stationary and you don't have a boom operator mount an adjustable directional mic (with windscreen) on a stand and point it out of camera frame to the subjects. It works very well.
I have Rode, don't like most of their mics and most people go with Seinhauser. That's your call.
I would get battery powered rather than phantom powered mics, if you can.
Remember you can fix an image (sometimes) but rarely ever fix bad sound.
For WB never set it on auto when filming as it will change as conditions change. You will need to do some testing for coloration and tone out of camera as the gh4 does not have an S-log or a technicolor log.
Try to get somewhat flat and hold the highlights as much as possible, manually adjust the color temp. Keep reference files so you footage will match as close as possible.
Adjust your screen (at least the brightness to more match your computer so your not surprised when you shoot).
You can move the color settings around in the menu and you'll probably won't to remove as much yellow and red as possible as panasonic sets their file to that bias.
Unless your working to a separate hdmi recorder, the file is 8 bit so it's somewhat fragile (though the best of the h264 cameras I've used). Do some tests where you set your file to the camera's lcd or viewfinder then put it in the computer and see how it holds the highlights. Usually whatever you set in camera, you then stop down 1/3, but that's very user dependent. If you stop down too far your going to get a lot of noise.
You'll probably work 4k because most people believe bigger is better, (sometimes it is), but the bps on 2k is heafty and I'd shoot 2k, only go to 4k if their is the possibllity of alaising or moire.
But that's a judgement call.
BC
I just got a Panasonic GH4, for very short interviews and documentaries, and am starting to find my feet - expect it will take 6 months at least.
First glance at my footage, white balance is the only real issue. Any advice?
I'm thinking of adopting Resolve Lite in due course, because it's free.
Paradoxically, after my first tests, sound worries me more; I cannot figure out how to do clean sound on camera, and think I will go with Sennheiser HF and lav.
Edmund
-
First get a small Cage from Wooden Camera. It is the most adaptable and won't add much bulk to your system, though allows you to add a few things when needed, especially a top handle for dutch angles.
Second buy good nd faders to use as your f stop. Tiffen test out well.
If your using the 2.8 zooms remember in reality at wide open your at 5.6, so for subject isolation try to step back when you can and add a few more feet in focal length (but that's an artistic decision).
For sound the GH4 has lousy shielding and pre amps, so you can live with it, or buy a tascam that you run from mic to tascam to camera. That will help dramatically and the tascams are cheap.
For mics I've got em all and the radio Senihauser Lavs I find are the best, also their microphones. They make a small mic that is fairly fragile but mounts on camera and is good for foley.
For one person interviews use a radio lav and get some pads that go between the body and the mic. This cuts down on rubbing and clothes crunching noises (you can find them on google).
For multi person interviews either add another lav, or if the subject(s) are stationary and you don't have a boom operator mount an adjustable directional mic (with windscreen) on a stand and point it out of camera frame to the subjects. It works very well.
I have Rode, don't like most of their mics and most people go with Seinhauser. That's your call.
I would get battery powered rather than phantom powered mics, if you can.
Remember you can fix an image (sometimes) but rarely ever fix bad sound.
For WB never set it on auto when filming as it will change as conditions change. You will need to do some testing for coloration and tone out of camera as the gh4 does not have an S-log or a technicolor log.
Try to get somewhat flat and hold the highlights as much as possible, manually adjust the color temp. Keep reference files so you footage will match as close as possible.
Adjust your screen (at least the brightness to more match your computer so your not surprised when you shoot).
You can move the color settings around in the menu and you'll probably won't to remove as much yellow and red as possible as panasonic sets their file to that bias.
Unless your working to a separate hdmi recorder, the file is 8 bit so it's somewhat fragile (though the best of the h264 cameras I've used). Do some tests where you set your file to the camera's lcd or viewfinder then put it in the computer and see how it holds the highlights. Usually whatever you set in camera, you then stop down 1/3, but that's very user dependent. If you stop down too far your going to get a lot of noise.
You'll probably work 4k because most people believe bigger is better, (sometimes it is), but the bps on 2k is heafty and I'd shoot 2k, only go to 4k if their is the possibllity of alaising or moire.
But that's a judgement call.
BC
J,
I saw your reply just now. All of this is good solid advice. Such good advice in fact that I already found my way to some of it, and am now reading your post very carefully to do the rest.
In the mean time got a Sennheiser G3 lav wireless system, everyone over here is now using these. I have just about figured out how it can be used; we did some tests with a sound engineer friend running it both to camera and to my small old Nagra voice recorder -the equivalent of a Tascam I guess. The camera sounds a bit noisy with the Senn, but strangely I find it good for ambient with its own mics. I think mine is a "factory fixed" GH4, and the fix may partly consist of some white noise injection ...One interesting thing we figured out about the Sennheiser wireless is that if you use it with a line-level recorder, you mostly take the recorder preamp out of the picture, as the Senn transmitter module's pre is doing the hard work - so there is no reason to run a Senn wireless output to a super-expensive recorder :) In January we will do some mixing and sound cleaning tests.
As you state sound is clearly something that needs careful handling, one cannot afford to botch it. I think I'll continue to get some pro advice in to help setup and postprocess the sound - I've been told that it's standard to run an adaptative noise reduction algorithm on the voice recording, and I think one also "compresses" the audio to make it sound more punchy before release.
As you also suggested I got a variable ND throttle. But daylight here is so bad these days I haven't yet used it a single time :(
I agree that FHD is probably what you want at the end - but my impression after some tests is that on the GH4 daylight outdoor B-roll should be filmed in 4K, stabilized and downscaled; the 4K coming out of the GH4 is super-sharp and super-detailed, I'm amazed. I would agree that for indoors stuff and people HD is as you indicate is more than sufficient. Maybe you could detail some more of your own experiences.
My next purchase if I continue doing this will probably be a cage and external recorder, probably Odyssey 7Q+; the monitor, "histograms", better output quality and recording duration, but above all the fact of being able to see what I'm filming and focusing on seem essential. The finder is the weak spot of the GH4.
I really don't know about *video* color :) if I could do real Raw I would be happy, but failing that -GH4 not Red or Blackmagic- I'm aiming now for "out-of-camera" run and gun documentary-quality color and using Panasonic's Cinemalike V. If I ever get up to speed on grading my opinions may change :) My impression is the GH4 video holds the highlights better than my usual still-camera work, but the shadows go muddy a bit faster. I'm not complaining.
Overall, so far, I'm quite happy with the GH4 and I would recommend it to other people, although a cheap GH3 might be a better deal as "Cooter" pointed out.
My GH4 resource page is online (http://panasonicgh.blogspot.fr/p/blog-page.html), it may help other beginners get up to speed.
And finally, here is where I'll put my better tests (https://vimeo.com/user34257481).
Thank you for all the excellent advice - keep it coming!
Edmund
-
J,
I saw your reply just now.
My feeling is if you take these little 4/3 cameras and think of them as super 16mm (actually high resolution super 16) then you'll be very happy.
Be careful of falling down the worm hole of trying to produce a 35mm film look, because I've tried it with .95 lenses, adapters, recorders and you'll spend more than buying a used RED One. Honestly.
Even the A7s to get to real 4k, have a decent lcd and a separate viewfinder, a 4k recorder will exceed used R1 prices, so be careful.
Really, look at PBS's documentaries that are usually shot with smaller eng type cameras with little chips. They use lighting, composition to achieve a look (actually Top Gear is great at this).
One trick with the gh series is to mount a small cage and place a lightpanel led on the front and use it for slight fill and catchlight in the eyes and to open up dark hair. The G series tends to collapse the blacks (though they do pull up in post) but this added light fill light will go a long way to making grading easier.
Chris Sanderson did a post and turned me on to the small gitzo fluid heads which are actually fluid heads, (not friction) and the small one with a decent set of sticks is amazing, as long as you guide the camera by holding the body rather than the head handle as the gh cameras are small and too difficult to get a smooth pan unless you hold the body for stability.
I'm not dissing the panasonic, hell it's a wonder for what it costs and with inboard 4k. The two constant 2.8 zooms will cover about everything you need and the lenses have great fall off and good sharpness.
For sound, there are a lot of good small preamps, some made for an iphone) that won't take up a lot of space and allow you to get sound into the camera that is more than usable.
Once again I like the wooden camera cages, because they have a lot of mounting points and allow an lcd and and onboard mic without large adapters and things that go bump everytime you turn.
Best Of Luck.
IMO
BC
-
My feeling is if you take these little 4/3 cameras and think of them as super 16mm (actually high resolution super 16) then you'll be very happy.
Be careful of falling down the worm hole of trying to produce a 35mm film look, because I've tried it with .95 lenses, adapters, recorders and you'll spend more than buying a used RED One. Honestly.
Even the A7s to get to real 4k, have a decent lcd and a separate viewfinder, a 4k recorder will exceed used R1 prices, so be careful.
Really, look at PBS's documentaries that are usually shot with smaller eng type cameras with little chips. They use lighting, composition to achieve a look (actually Top Gear is great at this).
One trick with the gh series is to mount a small cage and place a lightpanel led on the front and use it for slight fill and catchlight in the eyes and to open up dark hair. The G series tends to collapse the blacks (though they do pull up in post) but this added light fill light will go a long way to making grading easier.
Chris Sanderson did a post and turned me on to the small gitzo fluid heads which are actually fluid heads, (not friction) and the small one with a decent set of sticks is amazing, as long as you guide the camera by holding the body rather than the head handle as the gh cameras are small and too difficult to get a smooth pan unless you hold the body for stability.
I'm not dissing the panasonic, hell it's a wonder for what it costs and with inboard 4k. The two constant 2.8 zooms will cover about everything you need and the lenses have great fall off and good sharpness.
For sound, there are a lot of good small preamps, some made for an iphone) that won't take up a lot of space and allow you to get sound into the camera that is more than usable.
Once again I like the wooden camera cages, because they have a lot of mounting points and allow an lcd and and onboard mic without large adapters and things that go bump everytime you turn.
Best Of Luck.
IMO
BC
J,
I think the catchlight/minifill idea is neat, a bit like using a turned-down flash with stills. Thank you.
Your pointer to the fluid heads is interesting - I need to get a head now. I bought a $50 Manfrotto light tripod used with a photo head, it looks about 20 years old and I thought it was junk, but in fact it seems to match the camera perfectly, the clips are stable, it's actually pretty light and I now think it deserves a head. There are amazing used deals for tripods, nobody wants to rescue those puppies from the shelter.
I won't make the mistake of trying to make the GH4 look cinematic; I'm going for the documentary look so even oversharpened is acceptable. In my tests, the GH4 in 4K mode is blindingly sharp with the 12-35.
I've started looking at FCPX -did you say iMovie Pro? - it looks learnable.
My biggest shooting worry is AF. I've moved to manual focus with the peaking, but I would prefer to find a way to lock AF so I can talk without worrying about the camera if the subject fidgets. AF-C works well but it does some slight hunting. I'm going to try face recognition AF next. I wish Panasonic did a firmware upgrade to slow the AF-S so the hunting is not obvious.
Have you looked at using an external recorder or tethering through to a laptop via an hdmi capture device? My biggest gripe with the GH4 is cards, internal recording limit and THE LACK OF A DECENT MONITOR/VIEWFINDER. It's impossible to tell on that screen whether the focus pull is acceptable or blurred. I'm strongly thinking of an Odyssey 7Q+, which solves all these issues, has a nice OLED monitor, but a $3K monitor/recorder on a 2.5K camera seems a bit absurd. The Shogun recorder looks nice but I think the screen is not as good.
An external recorder also means the camera unit is heavier, which means a better tripod, etc. I mean, at some point you get to the point where dolling up an SLR design to pretend being an ENG cam doesn't make sense. But then it wouldn't make sense anyway if they weren't price gouging the "pros".
Edmund