Jake Blackstone
Forum Replies Created
-
With cache enabled, resolve will render selected or all scenes to a selected hard drive as DPX files. So, next time you playback, instead of live GPU render, Resolve will just playback rendered files from that drive The advantage being, that you are not limited anymore to GPU power. For example, if you use just one GPU for render, then NR is impossible in real time. With cache ON it is not a problem anymore. resolve has number of different cache options, so only the ones, that exceed your GPU needs to be rendered to disk. But for all that cache goodness you need a 4 drive RAID.
-
You may also see, if you can playback you prores QT file by itself. You may have a drive that is too slow or it may be to fragmented.
-
Jack.
Of coarse you can do pretty much everything with Resolve, that you could do with Nucoda or Baselight. Heck you can make the same claim with Color, given enough time. It’s the speed and creative freedom, that is at stake. Having clients sitting beside you and being able to accommodate any of their wishes, immediately, is what will get them to come back again and again. I use FilmMaster because I love it, not because I have to. I can’t make the same statement about Resolve… -
Thinking different takes you so far. It still doesn’t answer this operational dilemma, among many, many other operational dilemmas:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/277/8531 -
Mattes? Sure, it’s easy. HDR? I know what is HDR, but not sure what is the context of your question. But Nucoda supports Open EXR, so it’s not a problem. So is HDRx…
As far as nodes go, I don’t care if it’s nodes or layers. I was pretty clear on that point already and I’m not going to do it again. If BM comes up with some way to name nodes and may be a pop up with the content of the node, then it’s a good start. I’d like to see more suggestions on the subject, instead of “I like nodes, leave them alone”. Peter and Rohit are seeing this and users need to use the opportunity to help improve Resolve’s interface. Criticism of certain aspects of Resolve doesn’t mean disloyalty:-) -
Mike.
No, I didn’t confuse you with anyone, as your post was directed at me, as is this one. I really do not feel like spending time looking for your post on the RedUser. But the fact remains, that you were dead set against color wheels on a Resolve and you had used Baselight ( the system you used on daily basis) as an example of another grading platform being used successfully with sliding controls. It is clear, that you find present Resolve perfectly usable, as many traditional users of Davinci do. It is not my intent to change your mind, as you often come across as a person very much set in you ways. Nevertheless, Introduction of color wheels is a clear indication, that BM is intent on improving the interface and a vindication of my questioning of present state of the interface. Said that, judging from the name of this tread, I suspect that there is great deal of happy Resolve users, which is totally understandable. I do not post here as a prank or as a troll. From my personal experience I see a great deal of inefficiency in a present Resolve interface. Having some experience on other grading platforms, I feel, that Resolve and it’s users could greatly benefit from rethinking of the interface paradigm. Resolve quickly running out of a real estate with tabs and bringing new tools, like log grading, doesn’t bode well for the future. How many more tabs could we have? While using Lustre, Baselight or Nucoda, I’m constantly mindful of different design philosophies of those platforms and change the way I operate them. I find every one of those have great deal to offer, as well as negatives, as no system is perfect. I can’t offer the same assessment on Resolve. I feel, that there is general lack of unifying design philosophy, that is conducive to the development of muscle memory. I realize, that MC Color or Wave is a part of a problem, but even with DV panel,” -,+ ripple value” don’t quite rises to the level of simplicity and sophistication of the three above mentioned systems.
I also post, because I’m hoping to engage users, like you, in genuine discussion on a relative use of different systems, as I suspect there are some aspects of Resolve, that I’d probably missed. There is no shame in admitting shortcomings, but all I see, so far, are users, that are enamored with every aspect of Resolve. Well, I’m not… -
On MC Color either Ethernet port works fine. There is no hassle in installing it as well. Just plug it in in either port, select DHCP and you’re good to go, simple. No issues with the length of the cable as well. You can use it with multiple computers, unlike Wave. Much better built. Mapping is a joke, but Wave is not much better:-)
-
OK, Mr. JB will bite. As usual, without any reasonable explanation you just give an opinion. Obviously, because it’s so easy, everyone can do that. In turn, I’m offering my reasoning behind questioning of wisdom of using present BM approach.
So, here is another example.
If I wanted to move any of the layers/nodes up or down on the grade chain, in Nucoda i just grab it and move it up or down. In Resolve I have to break connections and reconnect manually to achieve the same thing. BTW, if you do that, the node display usually becomes quite messy, so then you need to spend some time fixing that. You have to admit, that it takes much more effort with the Resolve method, than with Nucoda’s. So, now, that I gave you a practical example of advantage of the layers approach vs present time node structure of Resolve, can you give me a practical example of why node structure of Resolve is superior to all others color grading platforms? -
In so many words, I did ask the two engineers to leave:-)
-
As I said, right now the dynamic control timeline is a waste of a real state. You do not need to see other nodes dynamic settings, other than the one you’re working on. Selecting another node should switch to those marks as well. Something like dynamic marks in the tracker window is sufficient.
And while we’re at it, all HUE tabs should be reduced to just one window, with a switch for Hue vs Hue, Hue vs Sat and Hue vs Lum. That is how it’s done in all other apps, like Baselight, Lustre and Nucoda. And there is no need to have hue display on the bottom of the tab. It should be the part of the display itself, with control points for 6 vectors. This way, if you want to adjust hue of Red, you just grub that control point, no need to guess where it is, based on the display on the bottom.