Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: Morgan_Moore on March 05, 2013, 09:13:05 am
-
After twonking with various colour editors Im feeling this is the one... and it is free!
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve
Some basics
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/backlot/davinci-resolve-for-newbs-and-photoshop-ers
An image
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/backlot/resolve-interview-shot
(http://www.sammorganmoore.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/result.jpg)
-
Heard great things about it. Will try it soon myself. What monitor are you using?
-
I use a 27 imac.
My choice of monitor is clear..
my work is not for broadcast (which is specced for 1997 CRT monitors that no end user has) it is for people who view online, mainly my client base who I assume are the mac-eratti
..so I use a similar monitor to them to grade
S
-
Lovely example Sam. It made me envious enough that I am downloading the free version.
The DaVinci Resolve manual (http://software.blackmagicdesign.com/DaVinciResolve/Manual/Resolve_9_Manual_2012-08-31.pdf) is a great place to start - quite comprehensive
-
Apart from being a good Colour Correction tool Resolve is really useful for creating "dailies" from RAW camera files such as RED and Alexa. It can create
Avid DNxHD mxf's and other file formats useful for offlining.
-
Lovely example Sam. It made me envious enough that I am downloading the free version.
The DaVinci Resolve manual (http://software.blackmagicdesign.com/DaVinciResolve/Manual/Resolve_9_Manual_2012-08-31.pdf) is a great place to start - quite comprehensive
I hope you enjoy it.
It can be a bit of a tangle to start - seems like you can only work on files within its 'root' directory etc
As for the manual - its OK but quite heavy - Ive tried to outline the basic stuff I would do with a still image!
-
I use a 27 imac.
My choice of monitor is clear..
my work is not for broadcast (which is specced for 1997 CRT monitors that no end user has) it is for people who view online, mainly my client base who I assume are the mac-eratti
..so I use a similar monitor to them to grade
S
Makes perfect sense to me!
-
+1 for resolve. Excellent point to start:
http://www.rippletraining.com/categories/avid-adobe-davinci-courses/davinci-resolve-products/davinci-resolve-9.html
Cheers, Ulf
-
Morgan,
One of the great things about Resolve is how you can work shadows, midtones and hilights separately. If you work with scopes, particularly the RGB Parade you can see which channels clip or crush first. My typical process is to neutralize the shadows using the RGB offset, then neutralize the hi-lights via the 3-way color wheels, this will get rid of color cast in the hilights without the need for any qualifiers or power windows. I think this workflow is so valuable, I might make a little video for you guys.
CB
-
I think this workflow is so valuable, I might make a little video for you guys.
CB
Yeah! That would be great! ;D
-
Hi Fred, welcome back! I knew you'd return.
First complain: It's good, but still requires a roundtrip. No matter if easy, still is a roundtrip like AE is with PP. And IMO, this is a type of workflow that really needs to disppear, and will disppear.
Now that Smoke 2013 is at less than 4.000 bucks (yes they cutted 11.000), it's to date the only high-end software in the industry that really is a game changer in the sense that it's the only all-in-one
app capable to operate at the highest demanding levels as well as suitable for some indy and small prod-houses.
Actually After Effects does all that and more, with perfect integration with Prelude (On set), Premiere, Audition, Photoshop, and most of the web-based apps. In this regard it has no equal, for any work on this planet. You can even edit with it if you want!
Second complain: The interface is toyish and the nodes are badly implemented IMO.
Color grading apps are built to interface with hardware systems, similar to audio DAWs. It is a fast way of working proven by the rigors from the days of tape in broadcast.
The algorithms are pretty basic - there's only so much you can do with color.
Third complain: it's a computer performance eater software. I results to me amazing that I can put an all Nuke 6 app into a old laptop and one of the most advanced compositing application this planet has ever seen works perfectly fine without a crash while Resolves sucks so much power just for a color correction tool. Something's not good the way the engineers have designed the program. It's over complex, sucks too much power for what it really does.
The developers at Nuke are geniuses beyond compare. I don't use Nuke any more, but I find its color grading interface better than any grading app. The only thing better than Nuke is AE.
I'm very curious to have informations about the Speedgrade integration in Adobe suite. If the tendency is really towards an all-in-one super app like Smoke, I think it's worth to consider. If some of you have info on speedgrade, I'd read it with interest.
I would avoid Speedgrade for now, even though it is as capable as Resolve. The future belongs to Speedgrade, as soon as Adobe integrates it with Bridge, the playback engine and so on. At $50 a month, how can one compete?
In the end, most editing and grading systems are already better than the average person using them. The basic tools are all there, and the only thing they can do is make it faster with wider codec support. Adobe has a huge lead in three areas: After Effects, Photoshop and Flash (which is making a comeback). On the other hand, Autodesk has Flame, but for how long?
An interesting experiment - until last year, I was still using CS3 on an old Core 2 Duo laptop to edit DSLR video in 1080p, with no lags whatsoever. In that respect, CS3 runs much faster than CS6!
There's a reason Adobe made CS2 free and not CS3.
-
Drag. I do love Resolve, it's just the roundtrip that's mildly annoying. It does actually maintain a RAW workflow better than the SpeedGrade route, I believe. As I understand it, when you send a project from Premier to SG, it renders DPX's first. Lame. I talked to the guys at Assimilate about Scratch, which is also all in one. They admitted though, that their package is not as strong an NLE as Premier nor as good at grading as Resolve.
Hmm..
-
Good to see everyone chime in.
CB - Id like a little vid!
BTW I use scopes all of the time.
One thing is a lack of 'click WB'
If you think this would be a useful feature (I DO) I would suggest people personally contact the design team and pressure for same as an upgrade!
S
-
It's Dale Grahn's tool for training (color timer). Search who is Dale Grahn and you'll see that we are talking about one of the superartist with nothing less than impressive curriculum in the cine industry. The very interesting thing is that it's about matching what he did from the raw footage but with just one limited CC tool. No mask, no curves, no wheels, no 3D track, no scopes, no blending modes but extremely limited tools. And, oh yeah, very important: no sliders.
No marketing brand nor magic property softwares. No excuses.
The app costs 4 bucks for the ipad and there are included 20 video tutos from the Master. Greatly done Mister Grahn !
I find this exercice extremely valuable for people who are digging into CC as well as a kick in the ass for the "need" high-end apps; and in fact for all of us because it reminds that we can do a lot with very little.
link: http://www.dalegrahncolor.com/
Enjoy.
-
Just to say after some months - Resolve is becoming my absolute tool for grading.
Im not roundtripping just doing it once the edit is 'locked'
The more tools I understand the better and faster it gets.
For example a 'red face' man in interview, so simple to track his face with a colour correction.
Here is my latest job in Portugal - not a heavy grade but just some tickling - the shot I like is the strawberries - my feeling is if you can get it to look right getting a wrong/artistic look on top is simple
FS700 camera.. http://www.sammorganmoore.com/latest/portugal-sizzle-reel
S
-
Lovely work, Sam.
I agree - the strawberries are luscious!
-
I've been learning Resolve for the past few weeks. Chris and I have ordered two 4K Blackmagic Production cameras and two BM Pocket Cinema camera, and so CinemaDNG importing and grading are in our future.
I've developed a workflow that uses Lightroom, Camera Raw or Capture One 7.1.3 for importing, dematrixing and grading CinemaDNG footage, but it'll be worth learning Resolve because when V10 comes out later this you it will also contain a comprehensive editing capability.
Michael
-
I've been learning Resolve for the past few weeks. Chris and I have ordered two 4K Blackmagic Production cameras and two BM Pocket Cinema camera, and so CinemaDNG importing and grading are in our future.
I've developed a workflow that uses Lightroom, Camera Raw or Capture One 7.1.3 for importing, dematrixing and grading CinemaDNG footage, but it'll be worth learning Resolve because when V10 comes out later this you it will also contain a comprehensive editing capability.
Michael
We sometimes use resolve as it works with the RED Rocket card. I find it good, of course it's industry standard, but it's also has it's quirks and even with the Rocket, it uses a lot of computer power.
We have a lot of workflows as we mix footage with the REDs and the GH3's, might add a small blackmagic later, if it works as advertised, (I usually give this stuff a while for the makers to work the bugs out).
But Michael, since you and Chris are working in fcpx, I'd look at baselight.
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/baselight/overview_bl.php
The full stand alone system is expensive (coolest board I've ever seen though), but they have a plug in for fcp7 and fcpX. It works a lot like any color corrector so the learning curve is the same, but the ability to work within the edit is to me a big plus.
Regardless of our workflow, I've found I've never done CC either before hand, or round trip where I haven't at the final lock of the edit had to gone into Apple's (fcp7) 3 way color corrector and do some final fine tunes.
Actually, (yes I know it's a dead end system) I still think Apple color is the best I've ever used in regards to functionality, ease of learning and since it was free, it was a good deal. The only issue is with some machines it's buggy.
A little off topic but I just bought a new 3.2 ghx Imac. Thought I'd only use it for stills but dropped fcp7 in it and the speed upgrade from our 8 and 12 core desktops was amazing. 10 to twice the speed depending on functions.
Anyway, I'd look at baselight, that goes into the nle. For fcp x it might save you a lot of time.
IMO
BC
Hey nice work Sam. Did you use a housing for the fs700 for the above to underwater image?
-
Baselight looks very cool, but expensive.
Resolve + FCPX looks like my future with the BM cameras.
Too much software. Too little time.
Michael
-
Hey nice work Sam. Did you use a housing for the fs700 for the above to underwater image?
That is the GoPro3 on a little rig - the 3 is different to the two because there is an airgap in front of the lens which makes it stay in focus under water
S
-
Baselight looks very cool, but expensive.
Resolve + FCPX looks like my future with the BM cameras.
Too much software. Too little time.
Michael
I think Resolve is been given away for very sensible reasons - like I was given Photoshop 2 with my Nikon Coolscan in '95 - it will IMO establish it as a defacto program as all the kids will learn it
S
-
I think Resolve is been given away for very sensible reasons - like I was given Photoshop 2 with my Nikon Coolscan in '95 - it will IMO establish it as a defacto program as all the kids will learn it
S
Not to paint with a broad brush, but . . .
I really think all the kids will be learning how to do video effects and looks on an Ipad, or even a phone.
They don't have a huge interest in the higher end aspects of perfect video technical reproduction as 99.9999999999999% of what they produce will be on something that looks like an instigram feed or tumblr.
To them it's ALL social media.
The thing about social media is, most metrics I've seen is the viewers don't view social media like we viewed traditional media in advertising.
In other words it's more important that a friend likes a Ford rather than seeing a Ford advertisement.
IMO
BC
-
Kids - I mean Sub 30s working in the industry.
BTW everyone I know uses FCP7!
S
-
Kids - I mean Sub 30s working in the industry.
BTW everyone I know uses FCP7!
S
Once again, I can't paint every generation with a broad brush, it isn't fair, though the 25 somethings that work with us, work in Apps, not applications and there favorite medium of choice is tumblr or looks like tumblr.
Their process for making imagery has changed and with it our industry.
We get specific projects, but not always specific media runs, i.e. traditional commercial, or traditional print ad or even web display. If the project is a hit i's all of the above and more, if it's not well who knows.
Speed is the issue today, not just perfect broadcast quality.
Even today with a Savvy client explain why a motion and still projects takes 6 steps in post production, (minimum) and doesn't happen in 6 hours and their eyes just glass over, because they've been told they need it now and yes with social media and web, they do need it now.
I would love to see a dedicated machine, portable like a laptop with an attached I pad that ran apps, had fast processing, ingested of standard media (wouldn't standard media bee great?) and could be colored and effected in the edit, rather than separate suites.
It's not that the 25 year olds are calling the shots (they're not) but they are use to a process that is minimal and fast. Though the thing is it must be fast and good.
They got iPad fast down...but good is the next step.
Yes FCP 7 is still the choice for most short form. I know lately with our work load I've spoken to at least half a dozen post houses form LA, to London and that's still the system.
IMO
BC
BTW: I mentioned before but with the new I-macs I've gotten editing speed down to real time. Setting in 8 bit rgb for edit (not output) last night did 6 40 minutes rough edits with a time code generator and color correction in the edl and the viewing rendering was under 3 seconds.
Now the issue is output in 2k pro rezz was 15 minutes an edit, but when working fcp 7 can still be fast.
-
Everybody talks and wants faster and intuitive
Workflows and everybody's spends more
Time than ever looking for oscurs turnarrounds
That's the reality.
Mentalities, needs, practises are changing
But the engineering is still an evolution
Of the past except for the pricing.
What costed 10000 yesterday costs 1000
Or is gifted today. That's all.
In terms of standardization we are at the same
Point as 10 years ago: the wild west.
In terms of cameras: nothinh works out of factory
Without the addition of a myriad of accessories
And peripherical costs.
In terms of softwares: not just one all-in-one
Solution that is well priced and intuitive that
Covers the basic tasks of the production but a big puzzle.
Go in the Cow, open the day's boards of your
Favorite brands and look at the title threads.
I mean: issues, issues and more issues.
This stuff is NOT working as it should but a huge mess.
The tragedy is that zillion of hours are
Currently spent in the internet ww to fix
Things that shouldn't have to be fixed.
The mess is such that a new and lucrative
Profession has became the key point: the
Dits educators. People in charge to answer
To the professional's endless issues and
Provide solutions on line or in conferences.
It's a bit like you buy a Car, but you need the
Mechanic with you all the time.
A car by the way, that comes without the weels,
Without the gear, with one seat, with half of
The engine...normal no? As there are the
Third-party manufacturers in charge of the
Missing parts...
And beleive it or not, but I noticed that those
Technic issues are actually addictive. People
Ask for more because in a way it keeps the
Buzz alive and gives the sensation that it's
Cutting edge.
Keeping people on bondage in internet because
They have no other choice is a very very clever
Strategy...
-
Everybody talks and wants faster and intuitive
Workflows and everybody's spends more
Time than ever looking for oscurs turnarrounds
That's the reality.
Mentalities, needs, practises are changing
But the engineering is still an evolution
snip.
What we need more than anything, other than a simplified colour suite, is the ability to make the image on the lcd match the image in a computer.
It just fractures me to see a beautiful lcd image, put it into a calibrated, or non calibrated monitor and see it 2/3s of a stop under.
IMO
BC
P.S. by simplified, I don't mean less options, just a more intuitive system.
-
What we need more than anything, other than a simplified colour suite, is the ability to make the image on the lcd match the image in a computer.
It just fractures me to see a beautiful lcd image, put it into a calibrated, or non calibrated monitor and see it 2/3s of a stop under.
IMO
BC
P.S. by simplified, I don't mean less options, just a more intuitive system.
And equipment that are not obsolete the day we buy them... ]
In fact, the wish and need list that aren't fullfilled
Is like dark energy: it bloody grows with time,
And the cameras and post tools we would all like
To see is like dark mater: invisible.
Look at those nodes in Resolve. Not only they look
As nice as a Birkinstock pair of shoes on a Botero
Statue, but if I understand the
Why in Nuke, I don't get the point in an app like Resolve.
Take the GH line. They will improve AF accuracy for sure
Year after year. That's the good news. But then, how will
They build the system will define if one's lenses invertion
Will have to end on the studio's garbage or not.
So not only the cameras are obsolete but the lenses too.
They are not even able to make a standart battery within
The same line...each new version comes with it's brand
New battery model. Look at what happened to the
Excellent Olympus pro lenses of the recent past. Nobody
Wants those any more and they are really top. But they
Don't AF well.
It sort of break my heart to put 3000 on the table knowing
That it's already for the garbage in a few months.
Red and Arri are more rock solid invertions and made
To last more than a year or 2. But where the really
Inovations take place are in the hand of the big companies
And unlike Red or Arri, they produce massively and
Have other goal in mind than a stable equipment
For the pro but consummer products that eventually
Will be used in professional productions but obsolete
The day they are available in the market.
7It's funny to see how Pana implemented the codec in the
GH3, just as good to tempt the hackers crowd, but just
As bad to not tempt the P users...
I bet anything to anybody that Cinema DNG will not
Become a standart in practise when Raw video will be
The norm but each brand will provide it's own system
That of course no NLE will be able to read and we will
End with a myriad of RCX kind of softwares just to
Bloody handle the footage. It's gona be really fun,
And of course...faster than ever.
Have you seen the prices of broadcast monitors?
You won't tell me that inside the box there is such
A cutting edge tech that can justify it but only because
Broadcast have unlimited budgets. For the independant
And tiny houses it's all DIY.
-
Moaning!
You can buy gear in another way.
I have an investment in peripherals- 20+ nikon lenses (some have been in use since my first employment in 1993, many since 1996), $3k of Vlock batteries, DP6 monitor, tripod and the like.
I buy cameras that fit this lot and skip them if they don't - I hold the keys to my own wallet.
(this took some time to learn!)
Sure something like my NEX5n or GoPro may become junk but something more expensive - if if doesnt match my other investment I wont buy it. One reason I did not buy Scarlet was the need for a Red monitor, bloody annoying if you have 3 SmallHD and a Transvideo.
It happens that the F5 works with Vlock, SmallHd, Nikon and all my Rails/Rods - thats why its more on my radar than Red or BMC which take more fixes, special leads etc to fit my current investment.
As for Raw and Post..
Resolve works with Red, Arri, BMC, ProRes (so all DSLR/FS100/700 C300 etc), F5, F55, F65 Raw(I think?)
I think you will not see one rawconverter per camera - it will become like LR or C1 where a new cam gets integrated in a few months..
S
-
Morgan,
Do you think it's normal that there's no DCP creation in Avid when this is the standart in cine prod? DCP by the way that a bunch of programmers
have created under open software...and examples like that abunds in post engineering.
Or what about resolution dependance? Or what about external softwares like Squeeze to read-writte (and have to be constantly upgraded of course)
because the core, the editing softwares don't handle natively most of the gazillion of unstandardized codecs.
Not having ND integrated filters, needing Resolve for a yes or a no because nothing reads nothing except this, nothing does secondaries CC well
in editor etc etc...
I mean the lack of ND in most cameras is simply amazing.
The need of Resolve for dailies is amazing.
And talking about rigging: do you think it's normal to have a plate that is in fact a peice of metal with a bunch of holes that cost 200 bucks just to be able
to fix the myriad of accessories required? A decent magic arm with a decent clamp is incredibly expensive considering the materials and engineering involved.
This is a very very lucrative market. Zacuto knows this well.
Do you think it's normal that we still get quite a lot of middle priced cameras that shoots in 8 bits !!! When it's not compression artifacts orgy, it's the need of matteboxes,
follow focus (good ones are really expensive...what's involved in it? nothing). Needs
of external recorders, of V-lock that are great but they are big and they weight. Cablery, clamps, rods, in the end all that looks like a bad WW2 german experimental design.
How many long hours did it take you to get it right with the conflictive color balance of the Sony? You had to run a lot of testings didn't you?
How many differents hacks I had to test before I falled on one that handles quite well the GH2 downsides and minimize best the bleeding? a lot !
Get prores? fantastic, it does not write on peecees !!!
Cinema DNG? Brilliant, just resolve reads the "standart" or some still softwares that aren't made for motion requierements.
I don't get the point why some people developp things like Scratch or Baselight, if in the end we'll all be on bondage with Resolve.
Of course it's possible to get in the end a system that fits one's needs. Lot's of trys and errors, lots of money, lots of internet researches, lots of hours
and lots of fragmentated equipment and workflows.
But something small and powerfull that works right out of factory without crazy aditional costs does not exists. And same in softwares.
-
Of course you are right too.
Its saturday and Im trying to isolate a high frequency hum on my audio - leads leads leads
This is interesting(ish) https://vimeo.com/72344423
A decent camera is missing (or not being the F5/55)
As for workflow Im doing OK with FCP7/R9 but it could not handle a lot of client input
On the topic - I actually like working in Resolve almost better than Photoshop/C1 now
S
-
Of course you are right too.
Its saturday and Im trying to isolate a high frequency hum on my audio - leads leads leads
This is interesting(ish) https://vimeo.com/72344423
A decent camera is missing (or not being the F5/55)
As for workflow Im doing OK with FCP7/R9 but it could not handle a lot of client input
On the topic - I actually like working in Resolve almost better than Photoshop/C1 now
S
Motion is frightening compared to stills. It's not just the image quality, then it's the movement, shakiness, a bump, a hum in sound or a dropped frame.
I agree with Fred2 but there is not much we can do about the movement of cameras in the electronic world.
The upside is few of us could every afford anything that looked cinematic in the film world, unless we found old Maxwell's or Arri's and went shot film ends.
I mean most digital cameras on the lower end look like digital video, but some look good, IMO the GH3, some look bloody great IMO the RED 1, but none of them come without a price, or without a new learning curve.
In the past a cinematographer could go from a beaulieu to a arri and not blink. Today it's truly a week of learning a menu and what not to touch.
But let's face it guys we're doing more than ever. In the past no editor would color, no camera operator would direct, no director would edit, except for a few exceptions.
And in the past few cinematographers owned any real cameras. Today few own an Epic or a Arri or even an F5, but they can probably afford one of those.
What I would like to know is why the equation changed in cameras, still and motion.
In the film days they built a film camera to last 10 years minimum and obviously most camera companies did well enough to stay in business, without having to obsolete your camera every 18 months.
Maybe they made it off lenses, or an extra body or a prism. Today so many of the traditional cameras are gone and digital equipment at almost any level get's semi replaced every 2 years.
Why the change . . . and don't say the iphone or ipad because digital cameras went on the 18 month to 2 year cycle long before everybody had a smart phone in their pants.
____________________________
Morgan,
I guess this flies in the face of what I just said and Fred won't like it, but if you want to speed FCP 7 up to the point that clients don't leave the room, look at a new Imac. For 3k you can fly and yes its thunderbolt and yes you might need to add a Sonnet pci expasion box, but you can grade and cut in close to real time.
Yesterday we were running two stations. One 8 core maxed out desktop with a RED rocket card grading and transcoding out 4k to 2k footage. It was running in real time.
On the second station the new Imac with h264. My process is to put the H264 into FCP 7, drop in apples 3 way color corrector do a few base primary adjustments and burn it out in prorezz 422. Other than doing it in fcp 7 which is on a per clip basis (if you want to hold onto file naming integrity, the actual process of the corrected h264 to prorezz was faster than the rocket.
Since I just got the imac I haven't tried it with Apple color, but I'm betting it's as fast if not faster than a dedicated machine with dedicated render cards.
Anyway in editing fcp7 on the imac, if you have prorezz and your working a complex edit, if you put your sequence settings to rgb for editing, regardless of transitions, filters, etc. you can almost work in real time.
A 4 minutes edit will render for viewing in about 2 seconds to under a minute. It doesn't handle the same as 64 bit edls but it's fast and since you know fcp 7 well, it's faster than the new learning curve.
Downside is . . . well we all know fcp 7 is toast and how long Apple "allows" it to work in their operating system is up to them. Second downside is for some reason FCP 7 will go on a crash spree.
When it happens the only solution is to turn the machine off, then on and with the combined solid state and spinnng drive apps start up in moments. I think my crashing is coming from Ram as max ram was ordered but not delivered . . . yet.
IMO
BC
-
The pace of change of camera - dont you feel you have been there before..stills - in fact being on the bleeding edge (MFDB 2005) was what brought me to this board.
I had
FM2n/F4/Mamiya ProTL - used for many years then went into a costly digital hell..
Nikon D1 - crop sensor files too small for glossy
Kodak Digiback - crop sensor no wides, crap AF
Skipped Nikon D2 - files too small for glossy
Kodak SLRn - fullframe + moiree + too slow flash synch + crap high ISO
Hassy H1 - crap AF, too low ISO - poor support from Sinar/Hassy - tiny companies, constant firmwares and fixes options to upgrade to a new sensor (sound familiar?)
.. and then I got a Nikon D3 - which basically had no problems and shot a pretty file out of the box - I still use after five years (although I just got a D600 as the 24mp is a bit better for interiors with corrected verticals)
Canon reflected the nikon curve but were a bit ahead.
So I went through a bunch of digital stills crap and then got to a good place with my stills cams.
The same is ladder is true with video but we are still one step from that good place (or may be there with the F5/55 - subject to tests - Sony now have not given me a demo for more than a month)
---
iMac? - I have a 2012 27inch (is that modern?), seems good to me but I dont do 4k, and it is 'portable'. Solid with FCP and resolve.
S
-
Motion is frightening compared to stills. It's not just the image quality, then it's the movement, shakiness, a bump, a hum in sound or a dropped frame.
I agree with Fred2 but there is not much we can do about the movement of cameras in the electronic world.
The upside is few of us could every afford anything that looked cinematic in the film world, unless we found old Maxwell's or Arri's and went shot film ends.
I mean most digital cameras on the lower end look like digital video, but some look good, IMO the GH3, some look bloody great IMO the RED 1, but none of them come without a price, or without a new learning curve.
In the past a cinematographer could go from a beaulieu to a arri and not blink. Today it's truly a week of learning a menu and what not to touch.
But let's face it guys we're doing more than ever. In the past no editor would color, no camera operator would direct, no director would edit, except for a few exceptions.
And in the past few cinematographers owned any real cameras. Today few own an Epic or a Arri or even an F5, but they can probably afford one of those.
What I would like to know is why the equation changed in cameras, still and motion.
In the film days they built a film camera to last 10 years minimum and obviously most camera companies did well enough to stay in business, without having to obsolete your camera every 18 months.
Maybe they made it off lenses, or an extra body or a prism. Today so many of the traditional cameras are gone and digital equipment at almost any level get's semi replaced every 2 years.
Why the change . . . and don't say the iphone or ipad because digital cameras went on the 18 month to 2 year cycle long before everybody had a smart phone in their pants.
Completly agree !!
and Fred won't like it, ...
Mac does great stuff. No doubt.
What I really don't get is their oscurantism on their coming products.
What I really don't like is their protective mentality on Prores and the way they implemented QT.
and the way they can just burn the land behind them and leave thousands of users and fans in a very embarrassing situation.
Then, Peecees aren't the garbage they used to be any more and really now a more than serious competitors for the ones
who need real power and flexibility.
But...I think that the New Macs are far from being a bad option. On the opposite, I do think that they could indeed be
a very hassle-free solution for a specific kind of users, and even (not kidding) with FCPX as the core.
I haven't decided yet if I upgrade my studio with heavy PC artillery or if I choose to go the Mac route. Both have their strengh and wicknesses.
-
What I really don't get is their oscurantism on their coming products.
What I really don't like is their protective mentality on Prores and the way they implemented QT.
I have decided in the digital motion world, from cable, broadcast and web, there is no real standard and everyone is holding on to their own territory.
Try to send a FCP edit to Avid, or an Avid edit to fcp. Try to round trip from any color suite, except adobe's cloud system and even then it's multiple parts.
Nobody is talking, nobody is sharing and honestly nobody is winning and Apple is the worst culprit.
Call 3 houses, effects, editorial, grading, and ask how they want a file prepped? You'll get 6 answers.
Then try working with multiple cameras, 4k, 2k raw and h264 and find a solution and a standard from pc to mac.
It won't happen and it's crazy. It's like a PC runs a .TIF and a Mac runs a .tif and neither one will match.
Or in the print world if you send a file out for printing, it would need it's own complete naming structure different than your system provides.
Or better yet, if you wanted to process and retouch a file you'd have to round trip back and forth from lightroom to photoshop to get close.
Somehow, the makers have either outfoxed themselves or just can't get together for a single standard in delivery.
With stills changing a few dozen files isn't hard, but not pleasant, but with motion changing 200 clips and getting them prepped for web view and for editorial for first look is virtually impossible without a team.
Teams are fine, but client's don't want to pay for teams anymore. They expect the editor to color, the colorists to effect.
IMO
BC
-
I have decided in the digital motion world, from cable, broadcast and web, there is no real standard and everyone is holding on to their own territory.
Try to send a FCP edit to Avid, or an Avid edit to fcp. Try to round trip from any color suite, except adobe's cloud system and even then it's multiple parts.
Nobody is talking, nobody is sharing and honestly nobody is winning and Apple is the worst culprit.
Call 3 houses, effects, editorial, grading, and ask how they want a file prepped? You'll get 6 answers.
Then try working with multiple cameras, 4k, 2k raw and h264 and find a solution and a standard from pc to mac.
It won't happen and it's crazy. It's like a PC runs a .TIF and a Mac runs a .tif and neither one will match.
Or in the print world if you send a file out for printing, it would need it's own complete naming structure different than your system provides.
Or better yet, if you wanted to process and retouch a file you'd have to round trip back and forth from lightroom to photoshop to get close.
Somehow, the makers have either outfoxed themselves or just can't get together for a single standard in delivery.
With stills changing a few dozen files isn't hard, but not pleasant, but with motion changing 200 clips and getting them prepped for web view and for editorial for first look is virtually impossible without a team.
Teams are fine, but client's don't want to pay for teams anymore. They expect the editor to color, the colorists to effect.
IMO
BC
James, you read my mind.
In the end, despite this holy mess, it works
Because we make it works, at high costs
But it could be so much simple.
-
James, you read my mind.
In the end, despite this holy mess, it works
Because we make it works, at high costs
But it could be so much simple.
The thing is, technique is getting in the way of inspiration.
Today I shot almost entirely on the RED's with very little Gh3 footage. Why? Because RED has a system for first light dailies that works reliably and fast, the h264 to pro rez to some form of color, to output then knock down to h264 galleries, back to edit, takes four softwares and a huge volume of handwork.
Today I bid a edit and in the bid the prep work is higher than the edit, because .............drum roll please.............it takes 4 times the effort and time.
Now that's not what the tapeless era was suppose to be about. It was touted as shoot, lightly organize, edit, color, approve, output and if your staring down hundreds of clips from 4 camera makes, your looking at a monster in organization, matching and prep.
If RED can build a graphic card, decoder, software suite and ......a series of cameras, someone like Apple, Adobe, Sony....heck someone should be able to make a universal format that shoots, a software suite that batch colors and a hardware aid that converts into multiple codecs for distribution.
The only reason I can guess is everybody has their own proprietary file, system and requirements.
Heck if you worked if we all worked in a completely closed loop, we'd all probably shoot a Sony, build a big honkin' PC and work in Vegas.
But let's be honest. Most coloring suites don't have an eye dropper?
Now really.
IMO
BC
-
The thing is, technique is getting in the way of inspiration.
Today I shot almost entirely on the RED's with very little Gh3 footage. Why? Because RED has a system for first light dailies that works reliably and fast, the h264 to pro rez to some form of color, to output then knock down to h264 galleries, back to edit, takes four softwares and a huge volume of handwork.
Today I bid a edit and in the bid the prep work is higher than the edit, because .............drum roll please.............it takes 4 times the effort and time.
Now that's not what the tapeless era was suppose to be about. It was touted as shoot, lightly organize, edit, color, approve, output and if your staring down hundreds of clips from 4 camera makes, your looking at a monster in organization, matching and prep.
If RED can build a graphic card, decoder, software suite and ......a series of cameras, someone like Apple, Adobe, Sony....heck someone should be able to make a universal format that shoots, a software suite that batch colors and a hardware aid that converts into multiple codecs for distribution.
The only reason I can guess is everybody has their own proprietary file, system and requirements.
Heck if you worked if we all worked in a completely closed loop, we'd all probably shoot a Sony, build a big honkin' PC and work in Vegas.
But let's be honest. Most coloring suites don't have an eye dropper?
Now really.
IMO
BC
To ilustrate the holy mess we are talking about,
Yesterday I was in Nuke
Doing a reformat from hd to 2k.
Put my write node to export a 16bits tiff i.s
Error message...
I knew that it came probably from an
inproper file name but it looked ok.
It took me 20 minutes to realise (and
Remember) that a dot was missing!
I was doing: ####.tiff
And Nuke wants: .####.tiff
How can such a sophisticated software
Can come with BS like this?
Result: 20 mn spent in just remembering
The correct filename procedure for tiff export!
Holly crap !
See? Those are exactly the kind of little hassles
That is plaged the post-prod. In the end we are
Loosing time not into the creativity itself but
In those irritating tech stuff.
Amazing !
-
It took me 20 minutes to realise (and
Remember) that a dot was missing!
I was doing: ####.tiff
And Nuke wants: .####.tiff
How can such a sophisticated software
Can come with BS like this?
I think it's perfect. It helps you number the sequence in the correct way rather than the 'established' way. The reason is that it is easier for the code to parse (Nuke is highly customizable with Python). It's like driving - you can either follow all the rules to a T, or the exact opposite.
It's been ages since I worked with Nuke, but you can alter the file name structure, I believe - or am I mistaken?
-
I think it's perfect. It helps you number the sequence in the correct way rather than the 'established' way. The reason is that it is easier for the code to parse (Nuke is highly customizable with Python). It's like driving - you can either follow all the rules to a T, or the exact opposite.
It's been ages since I worked with Nuke, but you can alter the file name structure, I believe - or am I mistaken?
You're absolutly right, the reason of all this is the Python, but then who bloody does that at an independant level? Only the biggest houses have the luxury to be able to customize a software
and affect its behaviour, create scripts in Python is not the task of a FX artist. So it's team thinking, highly trained team thinking.
It's not a bad thing in itself, but it's just old school IMO.
-
anyone got some good video tutorial links for getting started with resolve? not about to buy a ripple training package but want something to give me the basics so i can start to experiment.
-
Really just Google it, there's lots of stuff on You Tube, most of it decent. The Resolve Manual, available on the BM website is absolutely the clearest and most lucid set of instructions I've ever read; brilliantly written. It took me about two days to work through using my own footage but there are files on the site for download to use with the manual. Honestly, that's your best bet.
-
The Denver Riddle vids on YouTube are a good, basic starting point.
I'm finding Resolve a massive learning curve, and I have bought a Ripple Training guide.
-
There seem so many out there, will check out the Denver riddle ones.
-
Just RTFM !!!
-
I have a few blog posts, maybe start oldest first..
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/sorted-by-tech-keyword/davinci-resolve