[Marc Wielage]

[Joseph Owens] “The feature as demonstrated is deeper than that, and will allow a user to imbed a complex node arrangement into a “nested” node which will appear as a single entity — which you can still re-open to modify. Combining-nodes (serial/parallel) will also have a different shape.”
This is going to be a fantastic feature in helping to simplify node structure in the months ahead. I also have been told there’s a new feature to “lock” an individual nested node, so that nobody will be able to open it back up without a password. I wouldn’t be surprised if this could potentially create a market for people to sell Powergrades, since this would allow the “secret sauce” to be hidden behind a locked door.

Hey, don’t laugh. There are people buying $29.95 LUTs out there, too…

[Marc Wielage]

[Sascha Haber] “Lustre is so incredibly outdated, it’s almost funny :)”

I’m not so quick to call a piece of software “outdated” if the companies using it are still making money, keeping clients happy, and getting the work done.

I can think of several dozen major films that were done with Lustre in Hollywood over the last few years. All the Marvel films (several of which made billions of dollars), along with “Gravity” and “”Birdman” were done with Lustre, and there are entire companies out there whose workflow revolves around Lustre. And many people I know using it are doing so with just keyboard and mice — no control surfaces at all.

I think it’s more a question of using the right tool for the right job. If you have the time to do a project in Lustre, it can work very well, particularly if the staff is used to it and knows what to expect.

I think there are ways to make many different kinds of color-correction software productive, provided each has the toolset you need to get the job done. Resolve would be my pick most of the time, but I think it boils down to personal choices and preferences — it’s just one of several options available in the tool chest.

[Marc Wielage]

I agree with what Joakim says above. Read the entire “Image Scaling” section of the manual, which covers this stuff fairly well. Also useful is Brad Allen’s “Aspect Ratio Cheat Sheet,” which does provide the correct settings for various resolutions including theatrical 2K:

https://unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf

[Marc Wielage]

It’s not just the computer. It’s also the drives, the connection, the monitors, the control surface, and everything else. I find the computer is not even 1/4 of the total expense when you factor it all together. 4K is fine, but it’s harder to do in real time than many suspect, particularly when you add in the time and complexity of backups and deliverables.

[Marc Wielage]

Not a great place to ask for advice on rival software. I have taken the class offered by Autodesk in Santa Monica, and they’re very good out there.

[Marc Wielage]

[Jeff Schaap] “Blackmagic needs to fix this. I almost dropped even looking at it because I couldn’t figure this out.”
Nothing to fix. This is the way the program works, and it’s covered in the manual. Pro Tools has a very similar issue, and you just have to follow the instructions and refresh drives when needed.

[Marc Wielage]

The best way to achieve that look is great cinematography, lots of skill, and lots of time.

My observation is that hue vs. sat curves can be very powerful. Look at it this way: consider emphasizing what you want, and deemphasizing what you don’t want.

[Marc Wielage]

It’s for reasons like this that you’re much better off editing, mixing, and processing sound in a dedicated sound application like Pro Tools. There are inexpensive versions of Pro Tools out there that work pretty much the same way as the versions used by major studios. I wouldn’t trust sound editing or mixing in any editing application (including Avid, Final Cut, Premiere, or anything else), so I’m not singling out Resolve here. It’s very important to use the right tool for the right job, and there are affordable ways to do this much better.

[Marc Wielage]

I think worrying about the 444 part is kind of nebulous, since this is still only an 8-bit camera. There are way too many cases like this where people grab a camera with a high pixel count and don’t consider the sacrifices made in color accuracy.

You could always send the shot before and after the scene in question to the VFX artist, so they would know how it was supposed to look in context. You could also allow the colorist to color-correct both the foreground and background plates separately, then have the VFX artist combine the two images together.

If you’re going to use After Effects, be sure to use it in 16-bit mode. The alternative, 8-bit, stomps on the images pretty hard. Even with 8-bit sources, the keying starts getting pretty dodgy.

But overall, I think it would be reasonable to do the entire project in ProRes 444 Log HD, and then just use a simple viewing LUT (which the colorist can create) to allow the VFX artist to see one version of the expected result. I would also have the VFX people shoot out some “wedges” (test composites) in advance so that the colorist can say whether or not it’ll work with the entire project.

[Marc Wielage]

Which operating system? Which version of Resolve? How are the monitors connected? What specific hardware are you using? What standard is the timeline in, and what standard are you monitoring in? Are you using an external color-managed output?

Has this ever worked before, or did it just now suddenly break?