Forum Replies Created
-
Jake Blackstone
March 11, 2013 at 11:22 pm in reply to: The reason we are NOT buying a full DaVinci control surface is…No need to defend yourself Juan. I’m just calling spade a spade, when all I see Juan, that any time I have a temerity to criticize any Resolve operation, inevitably I see you spring up into action, defending Resolve, no matter what. Apparently, there never was a feature on Resolve, that you didn’t like. Let’s just stick with the status quo, stop innovation and just celebrate mediocrity, right? Why bother? What do you expect from free software, right?
Said that, i don’t expect anyone to agree with me all the time or most of the time. But how about you disagreeing with me ALL the time? How about a little balance for a change?
Where you see a feature as “nifty” I see it as helpful. When you dismiss a feature as not really helpful, I see what is necessary to increase my productivity and quality of my product. Try to use BL, FM or Luste for a week and then let’s discuss it… -
Jake Blackstone
March 11, 2013 at 11:05 pm in reply to: The reason we are NOT buying a full DaVinci control surface is…“The control surface is not one of them” What???? You are happy with mapping on your Element?
-
Jake Blackstone
March 11, 2013 at 9:26 pm in reply to: The reason we are NOT buying a full DaVinci control surface is…Got it. I may overreacted as well:-)
-
Jake Blackstone
March 11, 2013 at 9:23 pm in reply to: The reason we are NOT buying a full DaVinci control surface is…Yes Juan, we can all learn new tricks and use some help from time to time. Why do you think I’m here? But saying “your not doing your job as colorist very well” is not helping.
Actually Juan, I noticed, that you not open to any type of criticism of Resolve. Why is that? I can say it with certainty, that those satisfied with the status quo are “bound to fail eventually”, as DaVinci had proved repeatedly in the past. -
Jake Blackstone
March 11, 2013 at 8:12 pm in reply to: The reason we are NOT buying a full DaVinci control surface is…Whatever gave you an idea, that I need help grading? A bit pretentious, I’d say…
-
Jake Blackstone
March 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm in reply to: The reason we are NOT buying a full DaVinci control surface is…Let’s compare apples to apples, shall we? As Joseph correctly pointed out, the shirt’s color can be a combination of number of colors. HSL keyer often may have difficulties dealing with it, because of the way it is designed. Now, let’s look at competing offerings from FilmLight, Digital Vision and Autodesk, even if their product is EOL. All of their grading packages in addition to standard HSL and RGB keyers offer a third keyer, which is specifically designed to work with non contiguous colors. In Baselight it is called D-Keyer, Lustre’s is called Dimond keyer and FilmMaster’s is called an i-keyer. So, personally, I wholeheartedly agree, that HSL keyer in Resolve is outdated, underpowered, slow and in need of some serious update.
And as far as client preferring the offline look as a starting point, seriously? It’s AN age old problem. By the time piece finished EDITING, client gets so used to the look of the offline, they often would like to stay close. What is so wrong about that argument?
The name of the thread could be misleading though. I personally would not buy a $30K panel to go with my $1K software, that does only one thing, but that is just me. Also, I hear the $5K version of the panel is coming, so…. -
No, I think you’re confused between XML, ACES and metadata. FilmLight approach doesn’t exclude the use of ACES. It works in CONJUNCTION with ACES. Their workflow allows pre-grade of the plate without rendering the material and maintaining metadata rich environment, while using ACES. Then composited EXR shots from NUKE can be open and graded in context with layers, previous grades and metadata still intact.
-
Why? Is FCP XML proprietary? Of coarse not. Premiere writes it as well. FilmLight utilizes the same mechanism by handing off all grades and metadata by using XML between various plugins and standalone Baselight. The same way Premiere utilizes FCP XML other manufacturers can do the same with Baselight XML. There is nothing proprietary in FilmLight’s approach.
On the other hand, Resolve is completely closed off to any third party plug in developers. And the support of the third party panel manufacturers is abysmal. It sounds pretty bad this way, if I say it, doesn’t it? -
I actually prefer the FilmLight’s approach with the Baselight Editions plugins, including one for Nuke and upcoming Flame.
-
“If you grade it before, it would need to be graded in the compositing software to make the added stuff match.”
That’s weird statement. Are you saying, that VFX guys, when they composite, they don’t match the new material to the plate?:-)
And, yes, it is much better to pre grade the material properly and not leave this step to VFX guys, if you don’t want to get back horribly graded material with weird color metadata choices and baked-in color. Any VFX artist worth his salt knows how to properly linearize supplied LOG material and then return composited shot back with a proper Cineon curve applied. In Nuke it’s super simple. Using supplied mattes is great, unless you have hundreds of them and then you have to manually match them with the material. Once Resolve starts supporting material with alpha channel mattes, then it’s different story. Right now I’d hope, that VFX artists would match composted material with pre-graded plates and then just grade it all together.