Mike Most
Forum Replies Created
-
Except that 1920×1080 is 16:9, and what you’re now using is 2.39:1.
What sizing option do you have selected for fitting the material into the frame? If you’re using “scale entire image to fit” and you have a source that’s taller than 2.39:1, it’s going to pillarbox. If you have a source that’s wider than 2.39:1 (unlikely, but possible) it’s going to letterbox. That’s how it’s supposed to work. If you want to matte everything to 2.39:1 and fill that frame, you’ll have to adjust sizing on shots that do not fit using the standard methods.
One thing you might want to try as a test is to set the timeline to 3840×2160. That’s exactly twice the size of an HD frame and should give you the same relative sizing.
-
Why don’t you just make the bin for them? This is done on “high end” shows all the time. What’s sent to editorial is a folder with all of the MXF files and a matching bin. The assistant editor copies the folder of MXFs to a numbered folder in the Avid MediaFiles/MXF tree and opens the bin. That’s about as simple as it gets, even for assistants who don’t want to do their job. And AAF’s are not necessary for any of this.
-
Well, if you really want to get down to it, “traditional” log grading was done with four rotary knobs, one each for red, green, and blue, and one master. That was the way the Hazeltine color timing device was designed. In the digital world, you’ve got both exposure/contrast and shadows, midtone, and highlight control sets on both Baselight and Lustre, so that gives you at least 3 controls as well as the “alternate” exposure and contrast controls.
The DaVinci panels have had four trackballs for years, with the fourth one mapped to multiple functions, such as moving windows around, resizing and reshaping them (in the case of a LPW), picking colors for qualification, and doubling as a mouse cursor controller on the GUI. Personally, I don’t have any problem with using the fact that the fourth trackball was already in the design to allow for more functionality. I guess you do. Or is your real problem with it that they have chosen to not map it to 3rd party panels, at least so far?
-
Do the clips have proper time code? If they are MXF clips produced via an Avid mixdown, they won’t. You’ll have to change the time code for Resolve to cue them properly.
-
We experienced kernel panics when we tried to render DNx175X from Resolve with the Blackmagic card in the Cubix chassis. The problem disappeared when we moved the Decklink back into slot 3 on the Mac (the recommended place for it).
There is a reason that Blackmagic publishes specific recommended slot configurations for Resolve systems, and it’s always best to start with one of them and stick to it if at all possible.
-
Never put a Decklink card in a Cubix expansion chassis. It will likely lead to hardware conflicts and kernel panics. The Decklink card belongs in the Mac, regardless of where anything else is.
-
Actually it can work if you have two different boot drives, one of which is set up to support the Blackmagic and the other of which is set up for the Kona. But that does require rebooting to go from one to the other, and most likely a re-install of any programs that use either one if they’re not on the appropriate drive already.
-
You don’t cut down Arri Raw files. They are frame sequences, not wrapped movie files. You copy only the files for the frames that you need, just like you would DPX sequences. Sony’s RAW files are, of course, MXF files, and they also involve compression. So they would need to expose a function to do that. Right now I don’t know of any.
-
You need to specify what’s being shot, with what camera, and in what colorspace. You can’t create LUTs without knowing what the input is and what the output needs to be.
-
I think you’re inadvertently explaining why software such as Colorfront and Assimilate Scratch are somewhat dominant in dedicated dailies applications.