[Mike Most]

It sounds like you really don’t understand how reel numbers are assigned in Resolve. First, you must select “assist using reel names from….” under Conform Options on the Master Project Settings page. Then, you select the choice that applies to the majority of clips. This is usually “Source Clip Filename,” but it could be information in the header if you have a lot of footage from the Arri Alexa AND the dailies were prepared that way. Once you do that, the reel names will appear. For the ones that require a different choice – say, they need to be manually renamed or the need part of the file name extracted from the full pathname – you can select those clips in the media pool and right click and select “Clip Attributes.” That will pop up a dialog that has a “Reel Name” section that contains exactly the same options as the Conform Options section. You can then change the criteria for those shots only.

All of this is in the manual…………

[Mike Most]

>>Master Project Settings > Conform Options > check “Assist using reel names from the: > select >>”Embedding in source clip file”

That will use the Alexa reel naming scheme. Many post facilities prefer the file name so that each shot has a unique tape name for positive identification and simpler searching. You should ask whoever is finishing the show which one they want (that’s also what Michael was referring to…).

[Mike Most]

Rec709 gamma may not be explicitly defined, but it is well known and common across platforms. Any software that is offering a Rec709 to X’Y’Z’ for a DCP needs to take that into account and do a gamma conversion to 2.6 (which IS defined for P3) as part of the overall conversion. That is the default in programs like Qube, even though it can be overridden by the user, and the reason I mentioned earlier that any such conversion should yield a proper result. I was unaware that there was no gamma conversion being performed in the software that was specifically being referred to, so I apologize for my ignorance in that regard……

[Mike Most]

The results are identical only if you don’t render on both platforms and compare them side by side. If you do that, you will see that there is a slight color shift in the open source version when compared to the Apple version. Quality wise, they’re essentially the same. But don’t try to cut one directly with the other.

[Mike Most]

That will likely not work. You cannot change tape names because they’re baked into the MXF headers. If you’re using MC6.5, however, what you can do is change the relink parameters to look at another column that has common information, perhaps the tape name on the new source linked against the camera roll on the existing footage. Then you can do the explicit relink that you describe. If you’re using a previous version of MC, you’re probably going to have to eye match action (you could use time code if it’s the same) and do a replace edit.

[Mike Most]

Well, if you get very good accuracy, then your setup and specs are fine. If you don’t, they aren’t. I know that sounds a bit snarky, but reality is the only real guide here. It really doesn’t matter what others experience is. Either your setup works or it doesn’t. As for the specifics, if the transform in your DCP software didn’t work, they wouldn’t offer it. Same with Calman and the probe. I know you’re looking for some affirmation here, but the fact is that you’re asking questions about things you haven’t tried yet. Try them and ask questions if it doesn’t work.

[Mike Most]

There isn’t any “best” solution that isn’t a projector. The only one I’ve seen that comes even remotely close to being “acceptable” is the Dolby monitor that is over $30,000. Everything else is equally bad. Any colorist working under the conditions you’re describing is doing themselves and their clients a disservice whether they realize it or not. And while that is admittedly only my opinion, it’s based on reality.

[Mike Most]

It sounds like your “client” is demanding things based on buzzwords and not on reality. It also sounds like they’ve gotten some questionable advice.

Accuracy in film recording is based on accurate 3D transforms, regardless of whether those transforms are based on Rec709 or P3 input values. An accurate transform from Rec709 is much more preferable than an inaccurate transform from P3 space. There are out of gamut values in both of those spaces compared to that of film, and colors that will not be perfectly reproduced. What your client doesn’t seem to understand is that P3 is a colorspace that was designed for display in a dark environment on a reasonably large screen with a specified brightness. It was, in fact, developed based on the characteristics of the TI DLP Cinema projection devices. Your perception of the image is significantly altered when you display those colors, that brightness, and that white point on a direct display 24 inch monitor. Displays don’t exist in a vacuum, they exist in environments appropriate to the display type and the colorspace being used. You can turn off all the lights in the room and black out the windows, but if you do, the blacks won’t be accurately perceived and the saturation won’t be correctly perceived because it’s not designed for that type of display or environment. In many ways, I’m really sorry that the LCD manufacturers have seen fit to include the ability to display P3 colorspace on their devices, because the notion that your perception of the result is the same as watching the image in a projection environment is very misleading, and creates the type of situation that you’re experiencing right now. Doing various tests won’t really prove anything, but it might make your client understand that they’re not “losing” anything by allowing you to work in the proper colorspace for the equipment and environment you happen to have.

If you do need to convert P3 to Rec709 (although, obviously, I don’t recommend that unless your working environment changes) you can probably obtain one from either Light Illusion (https://www.lightillusion.com) or Cinespace (now owned by THX, https://www.thx.com). Or, if you’re a masochist, you could use the color management included in After Effects, which does this pretty effectively provided you understand how to use it.

[Mike Most]

The easy answer is work in Rec709 colorspace, since you say it’s what you know how to do, and it’s clearly what you’re set up for since you don’t have a projection environment. Any other approach is going to add complication and a lot of room for error, and not really bring a lot to the table.

In talking about any approach, it is important to identify which deliverable is the primary one, and which are the secondary ones. You have to target one and convert for the others. You should talk to the lab (whatever lab you’re using) and ask them if they are set up to use Rec709 as their input format for both the DCP and the film print. Most reputable labs can do that pretty effectively. There is no real point to targeting P3 unless you are fully set up to do so (and that really means a projection environment, even if the monitor is technically capable of displaying P3), understand the implications, have a proper conversion LUT to get you to Rec709 for the video deliverable, and really understand what you’re doing. The color results yielded from working in Rec709 and P3 are not night and day on either the DCP or the film print if the proper conversions are used, which in your case would be the lab’s responsibility. Don’t try to do things you aren’t really qualified to do with the experience and equipment you have if there is another path that is just as appropriate.

[Mike Most]

The layer mixer uses the qualification on each input node as its key for that node. Unlike the parallel node, the order of inputs determines the priority.