[Mike Most]

Changing the clip name of a master clip in an Avid bin has no bearing on conforming or relinking. Avid doesn’t use this information at all, and it doesn’t use file names either. You can change the names of the MXF files themselves and everything will still relink and work. That’s the beauty of having a well designed media management system. Everything is based on metadata, which is encoded in the MXF headers. So you shouldn’t worry about any of that. As for things like GoPro files, you should change the file names prior to doing anything in either Resolve or Avid. That way the issue you’re talking about wont exist, provided you supply whomever is doing the conform with your renamed files.

When you’re processing in Resolve for material being cut on Avid, you need to make sure the Tape co.umn has the source file name with no extension. Then you track everything by Tape (or, in Resolve, reel) name. You need to use the conform options to force this on both original import and when you conform. You can either use the source file name option, or explicitly use the parsing string to extract that. You need to check the Reel column in the media pool prior to rendering anything, and you need to make sure it contains the proper information. If its empty, you haven’t done that, and you should expect to have exactly the issues you seem to be having.

[Mike Most]

>DCP itself actually has a concept of reels. That is to say, within the DCP package there are usually >multiple reels. The media server strings them together seamlessly during playback. I don’t believe this is >actually a technical requirement of DCP (that is, I think you could deliver a single reel feature if you >wanted to), but it’s a widespread practice.

It’s the standard way of doing things for the reasons you mention and others. In theatrical features, there are changes going on right up until release time. There are also multiple versions, some of which have different material. The DCP operates with the concept of a composition play list, which specifies which frames to play from which files in which order. This allows for packages to be created that have the same “essence” files, but different files for things like audio, subtitles, etc.. Not only that, but you can create “supplemental” packages that allow you to insert sequences or shots from different essence files in the proper place during play out. Having the picture finished by reels allows this kind of flexibility to be much simpler to implement and program. You can create a DCP with one full length essence track, but no studio level theatrical features are done that way.

[Mike Most]

Well, I can see you completely missed my point, in part because you seem to be a bit unaware of what competing products offer, and also the notion that different artists choose different toolsets because they see things they like in them. I would point out that in many facilities and for many colorists a seat of Resolve isn’t $1000. It’s more like $40,000, because the DaVinci panels ($30K), more GPUs, scopes, and a professional monitoring setup are what they need to do their job with enough precision and efficiency to move more work through their facility and thus generate some profit, as well as meet the client’s expectations when they walk into the room.

My point was not to say one should buy Baselight, although in many cases, the combination of color management, flexible user configuration, availability of separate render nodes, scalability, colorist preference, and other things might make it the right choice. The same can easily be said for Nucoda Film Master, Lustre, and even Scratch and Mistika. If that weren’t the case, these products wouldn’t exist and nobody would use them. The entire point of my post is that price alone is not always the sole determining factor in these things. The comfort of the artists, the expectations and preferences of the clients, and some very specific capabilities are all part of the equation. And in the end, it’s about what can make a company money. The cost of the equipment is only relevant in relation to the revenues it can help generate. Thus the term “affordable” does not necessarily mean “ultra cheap.” THAT was my point.

[Mike Most]

Define “affordable.”

To do it yourselfers working on personal projects, these days it means “free.” To small companies without a proven customer base but wanting to start out offering services, it can mean anything from “free” to “under 5 grand.” To service companies that are already in business, have a customer base, a good reputation, and an ability to attract clients with “real”, substantial projects, it means something completely different because they’re more interested in performance and throughput to allow for more work to be put through the system. That changes the equation because the cost of anything in a business is always relative to the revenue it can generate. So if something that’s $1000 doesn’t pay for itself, it’s actually worth less than something that costs $10,000 that does. A copy of Resolve Lite might be great for someone doing their personal short in their living room, but in an actual working facility catering to studio clients, a Baselight at $90,000 might be a better choice.

So, once again, define “affordable.”

[Mike Most]

Sounds like you might have ACES processing enabled. The XAVC codec is an advanced version of H.264 and should come up looking “normal,” albeit probably in SLog2 gamma space.

[Mike Most]

If you have enabled “use RMD file” disable it. Using the RMD brings in any curve corrections that were applied in Redcine X but doesn’t allow you to adjust or delete them. Try using only camera metadata instead.

[Mike Most]

Here are some pretty nice emulation luts (actually from a RedUser post…):

https://juanmelara.com.au/downloads/log2hd_cube_luts.zip

…….**IF** that’s what you want…. ;-D

[Mike Most]

Well, yes, because Arri is not in the business of providing film targeted LUT’s, which really require specific negative and print stock emulations as well as assumptions about a lab process. A generic approach is not something Arri would support except as a general “look creation” tool, which is not the intent of the LUT builder. There are a number of print emulation LUTs floating around in various places for Cineon original if that’s what one wants. But nowhere in the original post do I recall anything being said about print emulation. All he wanted was a way to create 709 type material from film scans. That can be done any number of ways depending on the expected result, but I would point out that we have done telecine transfers from film to various video formats for many, many years and never had “print emulation LUTs.” Those only came into play when digital intermediate work began, and solely because the ultimate product of that process was a film print, thereby dictating that it be properly previewed. Film and electronic displays are different mediums, and you don’t need to emulate film to achieve pleasing electronic pictures. Just look at any television series shot on film either now (very few now, actually, but there are some: Breaking Bad, True Blood, Castle, Glee, Grey’s Anatomy, Boardwalk Empire – all of those are still on film) or in the past. That’s the product of original negative transferred to a video format, with no print emulation.

[Mike Most]

The matrix ***can*** be applied during recording, but that is optional and most often not done. In fact, many of us wish Arri did not offer that option because it causes a lot of confusion, just like it’s doing right now.

The reason for the film matrix’ existence is to provide better compatibility with traditional film DI pipelines and better results if you’re working with a film print emulation LUT. It is not intended for “general purpose” pipelines, and it is not intended for any color pipeline that does not include film print emulation as a specific target. The original poster specifically said he was intending this material for 709 type targets – HD, SD, and Web. I don’t see anything in there about a 3D film print emulation LUT, or film DI target. Color science doesn’t exist in pieces, it exists as a color pipeline. If you’re not using the back half of that pipeline, there’s no reason to use the front half except to confuse things and cause incorrect color combinations.

I’m not going to post any more on this, though. You seem convinced of things that I know not to be the case, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

[Mike Most]

>>Think of it like this, if you want to have an Alexa log image similar to a film scan, you would record with film matrix on…

That would be the case if you were starting with an Alexa generated image. The original poster specified that he is starting with a film image. You don’t use a matrix designed for a specific Bayer pattern camera if your original material is not generated by that camera.

It is also absolutely true that LogC, while similar to Cineon, is NOT identical to it. Not everything you read on the Internet is true, including Wikipedia.

I stand by my original post.