[Joseph Owens]

[Dave Williams] ” I personally don’t see how they are making any money.”

Even in the glory days, daVinci went bust several times and changed hands on something like 4 or 5 occasions, before its present incarnation. To be perfectly honest, some of the earlier versions of the system were arguably over-engineered, but… its how you get to dictate to the rest of the industry if you are completely bulletproof on fundamentals. But the company had no diversity, and then bet the farm on a somewhat-disappearing technology — film. No question, the 2K+ was a world-beating telecine app/installation that could also do tape-to-tape. Resolve was my first choice (back when I stood on the cliff) to use as a hang-glider, but development was back-burnered. And then, of course, everything changed. I’m giddy to get back into the tribe — but maybe I’m just airsick with COLOR.

Personally I’ve got an expensive set of Tangent-200 panels ($18K new) that, while people bring me FCP projects and I largely work unsupervised, I’m going to ride those ponies until their legs fall off, or somebody offers me money for them. The first, and most important part of the interface is the actual color control, and until someone comes up with a better idea than balls and rings… one controller seems to be much the same as any other — for a Primaries job, the Wave is much more than adequate. The real deal is the customization — the Wave would be all that anyone ever needed if you could map the functions you really use on a repetitive basis, and of course — the three concepts of computer efficiency — macros, macros, and macros.

My most-used daVinci macro: [static] [-1][preview][dissolve], since auto-dynamic scene ripple failed so often, but favourite was [-2][preview] for ‘he-said/she-said’ scenes.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

[Ingo Schulten] ” “Normally scaled legal video”?”

My bet is that that option simply defines an operating regime, and likely isn’t a “legalizer” per se.

FCP’s “legalizer” is a bit of a bad joke, since it only looks at overshoots, and completely ignores what is going on at “black levels” — and the same goes for the first and last lines of active video…. untouched.

Also, if there are “ringing” and high frequency modulation cross talk in the Y+C encoder, that is something that all the internal software scopes don’t even see. There are also going to be RGB/Y’CbCr transcoding issues (math problems) that will alter the actual values migrating between applications.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

DCP doesn’t support 25 fps?

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

“Legal” broadcast chrominance is generally calculated in a Baseband “composite” mode, which in today’s Y’CbCr slash RGB world means it is being simulated. Composite in this sense means luminance+chrominance with the presence of subcarrier. At least in NTSC, we are allowed Y+C= between -20 and +120 IRE. In fact as you can see, there are legal Baseband levels that cannot be generated in RGB, and do not even translate, since there are no negative values. (Sort of heads in the direction of explaining 64-940) If you are looking at the 2% color bar targets as an outside envelope, that is incorrect as a guide, as those only correspond to a 75% standard saturation. Color bar yellow is a good example of “over” 100 IRE, and color bar blue and red both have negative IRE excursions in BASEBAND composite.

The only way to truly estimate legal boundaries is with an external scope with either an “IRIS” or “DIAMOND”-type display. Everything else is “best guess”.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

DNxHD licensing for Resolve is for the MXF AVID world, and does not support DNxHD Quicktime, which is a very different thing. DNxHD Quicktime is more or less free for other applications that support a Quicktime workflow, you can use it in FCP, but the MXF wrapper is not widely supported for exchange in collaborative efforts.

Almost impossible to open in Final Cut operations.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

Stepping back into the original conversation…

yes, MXF is the trick, and no, Automatic Duck is a non-starter here. Been down that road, and Quicktime is a non-starter as well. I have an AVID-MXF AVC project (series) and I am massively disheartened by the lack of insight into this workflow which seems to be confined to “speculation” and workarounds.

So, am I correct in assessing that there is, in fact, no return trip out of Resolve to AVID? Why… if this is the case, is there literature taking about it, or is this a classic Microsoft bait-and-switch that states, yes, you can do it, but how, we don’t know? Its “their” (the other manufacturer’s) fault it doesn’t work.

My client is not interested in re-cutting the show, for whatever reason (imagine)… I’m not that excited by the prospect, either. “Send To… Final Cut” its not.

The other issue is that I cannot seem to be able to see the actual cut of the show in any of the master/source/color/conform windows and so on and so forth sort-modes no matter how many Record/Target/Source modes I toggle — its always the whole shot flash-to-flash in all timelines. I would dearly love to be able to just see the show as cut — like the project looked when we exported the AAF from the AVID. I really really don’t care about the handles. This is not even tape-to-tape mode, its rushes. I thought I would be correcting a finished episode, not the entire source clip bin. I would really prefer to be able to grade in-context as-edited.

I’m probably missing something rather basic, but reading the manual 4 times with the application in front of me, pressing all the buttons is obviously not enough.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

You might get a sense of why from this thread from about 15 or so years ago…

https://www.colorist.org/pipermail/oldtig-mhonarc/1996/msg01702.html

Some techniques are protected by manufacturers… anyway, lots of sliders? You’d have loved the Dubner.

Ever wonder why the area isolation in COLOR was called “vignettes” when “power window” is a perfectly good term? How about “Kilovectors”?

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

[Gustavo Bermudas] “I know it has to be Linux formatted”

That’s the DCI format, true, but I have had some testing success with NTFS-formatted drives, as well.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

I’d do a media manage with handles if that’s appropriate and export a master xml of that project — you’ll have to revert back a couple of versions of XML — I don’t know which would be compatible with FCP5 — maybe XMLVs4?

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Joseph Owens]

Yes, I agree with Shane it will never happen. Apple shot their bolt betting on X and invested the time and money creating a new piece of software, optimizing it for their own perceived needs, ignoring the current environment and the relationships that exist within it. They will not be rolling back, rolling over, or any other pet tricks — but as far as Final Cut moving forward — not a stretch to play dead.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?