[Hector Berrebi]

Power Grades is where you store stills you want to use in other projects than current.

[Hector Berrebi]

I totally agree with Glenn.. this look is strongly helped by art/props/casting.
Using white/beige/brown props and brown haired actors helps it a lot.

That said, notice that it seems there are no blacks (darkest spot isn’t at all 0) and that darkest shadows aren’t neutralized but rather orange-ish.

Use an RGB picker to measure values in different areas of the frame and of your reference still.
use RGB parade and vectorscope to evaluate and match.
First node should match the contrast. (lifted shadows, lowered mids, highlights treatment is shot dependent)
Second node reduces color boost (how much is shot dependent).
Third pushes a tiny bit of red-orange to shadows and mids. Highlights are shot dependent but may require similar treatment.

[Hector Berrebi]

I purchased from MacVidCards in the past, and recommended him to countless students and colleagues.
I think his work is wonderful, in I believe he is the only one in the world making/selling fleshed video cards for Mac .

I did notice a few days ago (when setting to buy a flashed Titan 12 GB) that most of his store seems sold out.
Should maybe check again after holiday chaos is over in coming weeks

Working with a non flashed card is apparently possible (I’d only pick models that the guys at MacVidCards offer, or at least check in apple/macrumors/reddit forums before buying) but it will not run an apple boot screen.
it a 4-5 step process to install driver then card.

I read a good tip somewhere, to keep an EFI card (GT120… or such) at hand in case some upgrade messes with Nvidia driver and Mac doesn’t boot.

[Hector Berrebi]

H264 at its highest variants can support 4:4:4 and 12 bits (and even 14 bits though I don’t know of any application/device using it), on the other hand, many cameras (DSLR included) shoot 4K, 8 bit 4:2:0 video, from iPhones to much more expensive cameras.

and considering HD h264 in long GOP is processor demanding… you can imagine how “fun” it is to work with 4K material of the same kind. So transcoding to some 4:4:4 I-frame codec not only ensures no color data is lost (4:4:4) but also goes a bit easier on your system.

again… it will not make anything look better. that extra data is forever lost by some cheap chip-set/camera brain’s internal process.

[Hector Berrebi]

hi

simplest way would be to create 2 versions at the timeline level (not clip) you can change that with drop menu at top of nodes window.

only thing is it seems there is a bug moving between versions using the Cmd-N shortcut and you’ll have to do it manually right clicking on any clip (will change whole timeline). Checked on 12.5

other way would be by grouping, but I find it a bit more cumbersome.

[Hector Berrebi]

Hi Paul

The full answer would be too long for me to write here..

even the short answer is kind of long..
you’ll excuse me for terribly simplifying and omitting details. ☺

yes, its probably the best you’d ever get out of that camera and its codec.
However, I did see all types of flat, Log-ish settings used on Canon cameras (https://vimeo.com/7256322 video that sort of started that wave) that increased dynamic range and detail levels when well exposed. that in turn would give you more to work with later when grading and will improve visual quality.
Others use firmware hacks like Magic Lantern, forcing the camera to write RAW image sequences far grater in quality than what it was engineered for. Not sure it works on your model, but even if it does, I wouldn’t trust this workflow on any payed production or shots longer than a minute or so. I also do believe it kills your camera faster by pushing its limited hardware beyond its abilities..

My point was about the choice to shoot on a specific format.

video formats can be roughly divided into 3 groups the 4:4:4 the 4:2:2 and the 4:2:0 (based on something called Chroma Sub Sampling)
*of course there are other factors like color depth (8,10,12 bits), type of compression, and RAW-ability but these are roughly parallel to the Chroma Sub Sampling groups in a way that a 4:2:0 camera will usually be also 8 bit, more compressed and no RAW recording, while a 4:4:4 capable camera will generally be 10-12 bits, with better compression and in many cases a RAW option.

traditionally they are used by different industries, for many different purposes
4:2:0 dominates consumer/procumer cameras and even sips in to some pro models. it is also how all web video from smartphones to youtube and everything in between is (and quite a few other delivery formats)
4:2:2 is the TV and Broadcast choice as well as many post workflows related to that industry (PR and DNX for example)
4:4:4 is the highest group meant for high-end workflows, digital cinema, acquisition of commercials, series and such.

the past 5-7 years mixed everything up a little and made it much easier to use cameras capable of 4:4:4 acquisition.
From external recorders to the Black Magic cameras or the abundance of RED/ALEXA cameras for (cheap-ish) rent, it would seem completely normal for me that productions, even small/medium ones would choose this option, ensuring maximum data quality at acquisition, and allowing better, more robust post workflows (including color work).
Yet, 4:2:0 cameras with their inferior codecs and limited color depths seem to thrive, and so does their usage by many talented shooters and directors who are very often unaware of video chemistry and its tolls.

Just 10 years ago, it was so expensive and difficult to work in a full 10 bit 4:4:4 workflow that only big capable productions could afford it. today it seems no production is too small (excluding family type private events) to at least consider it.

And since as color people, we meet these productions at the end of the pipeline… We’re also the ones hearing them whine about the final result’s look in comparison to expectations or to the last GoT episode they saw ????

hector

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Hector Berrebi]

Adding to what Joseph said.. and in response to your question about the usage of the word ‘decompressing’

Decompressing is what the h264 codec does. a video compression, or codec is a math function eliminating redundant data – compressing ( the co part of codec) and then when played back the codec’s math decompresses that data frame by frame (the dec part of codec). This is in part why high compression codecs are so hardware intensive (lots of calculations)

so.. to answer your question, no. by transcoding to PR or DNX you’re rather re-compressing than decompressing.

However, since you are taking a highly compressed Long GOP chain of “bi-directional or predictive ‘difference’ entities” and turning them into actual “whole frames“, one could see this as a sort of figurative decompression.. even more so if you transcode the long GOP h264 to some uncompressed format. figurative, not literal ☺

and there are fairly many h264 variants that are not long GOP but I-frame where re-compressing would maybe serve a different purpose that ‘filling in’ whole frames

recorded video quality would stay the same in any case…

It became so simple and abundant these days to shoot using a good video compression, that the real issue in my opinion, is why shooters and directors of small/medium projects keep using bad codecs, and how little they know about these things and the (lost forever) data sacrifice they take from their oh-so-important footage.

hector

[Hector Berrebi]

Hey Mike

I sort of tend to agree that it would be a nice tool to have. ☺

I tend to think that in color work for video, we need softer types of masks, however, since hard edge masks can be softened, a tool that would further help generate them can’t be a bad thing.

here are 2 optional solutions for you till Black Magic adds one in.

1. After Effect Roto Brush – this must be one of the simplest auto roto tools I ran into and if you’re comfortable using AE (which is a fairly straightforward software) then exporting high res cuts from Resolve that need that special care to AE shouldn’t be a hard task. In AE, once you master the Roto Brush tool, create and export a B&W matte, which you can then import as matte into resolve and feed into the node you need to adjust. not amazing… but quite simple workflow (especially since cuts tend to be short and cuts that problematic are rather rare)

2. Fusion Roto Assist – Which is as of recently a Black Magic tool has very strong roto tool set with edge detection technology. I believe you’ll need payed versions to round trip (not sure if you need both, but simple to check) with Resolve timelines. you could probably use the matte export workflow for free… but I think its bit easier with AE.

I wonder.. since BM owns the tech, if someone there considers migrating this (or other) tool from Fusion to Resolve.

Or.. you could write a good OFX plugin ☺ I’m sure it can be quite popular if fairly priced. I’d buy it.

hector.

[Hector Berrebi]

I think you can’t do this..
Are you referring to a sort of “interpret footage” function such as in Premiere? where you can dial in a new frame rate to the clip’s setting?

Only place in Resolve I can think of where you can set playback arbitrarily is in settings – timeline format. not a clip based function.

Though a useful feature… I don’t remember ever having that freedom in Resolve.
(I’d be happy to find out i’m wrong about this one..)

Maybe its worth rendering out the clip with the frame-rate settings baked in then manually bring it to Resolve (you could even consider baking in the sped changes as well). as long as you use a good 4:4:4 codec you should be fine.

hector.

[Hector Berrebi]

in the power window tab, on the top right corner there is a 3 dot icon, these are tab menus. click on it with the node selected, and pick Reset…

you can also simply click the power window highlight (orange square) to shut it off and add a new one, + icon and the window of your choice.

I would do the first method. unless for some reason you need to keep the old window somewhere.