[Mike Most]

Hmm. Sounds like they’re their adding their own color matrix in addition to the gamma transform. I’m assuming that Technicolor’s is a 3D LUT – it would have to be if they’re implementing a matrix.

[Mike Most]

I take it what you mean is a LUT to put the log type Cinestyle material into a proper video gamma space. You can do that yourself by making an S-shaped custom curve. Without having dealt with Cinestyle material, my guess is that the curve is somewhat akin to Cineon, so if you want a LUT, you could probably make a LogC to Video LUT using Arri’s online LUT builder that would be at least somewhat representative.

[Mike Most]

>> I really do not feel like spending time looking for your post on the RedUser. But the fact remains, that >>you were dead set against color wheels on a Resolve and you had used Baselight ( the system you used >>on daily basis) as an example of another grading platform being used successfully with sliding controls.

It’s not a “fact” because I never said anything of the sort. And you know as well as I do that Baselight does not use “sliding controls,” in fact, it has color wheels that can be switched to sliders, although frankly, I don’t really use either except for occasional feedback. So if you want to keep claiming I said such things, you’re going to need to find that because as far as I’m concerned I never did. Frankly, it’s just not something I feel all that strongly about.

>>It is not my intent to change your mind, as you often come across as a person very much set in you >>ways.

We have never met, but I’ve rarely run across someone who has such an inaccurate view of who I am and how I think. However, you’re entitled to your opinion.

>>I feel, that Resolve and it’s users could greatly benefit from rethinking of the interface paradigm. >>Resolve quickly running out of a real estate with tabs and bringing new tools, like log grading, >>doesn’t bode well for the future. How many more tabs could we have?

There is a lot less interaction with tabs if you have the DaVinci panels, which the interface was basically designed to be used with, even prior to Blackmagic’s purchase of the company. While it is true that Blackmagic through their pricing policies has now repositioned Resolve to also appeal to a much more price sensitive market, and thus a lot more users who are going to be interacting with the program through the screen display rather than a dedicated panel, the design philosophy is based on what it’s based on. If they want to change that, fine. But you seem to be implying that it’s simply bad design, and I would say that it’s a legacy design that was never meant to be used the way it’s now being used by many of their newer customers. Perhaps it should be re-thought a bit based on the new user base. Perhaps they will. Perhaps not.

>>Nevertheless, Introduction of color wheels is a clear indication, that BM is intent on improving the >>interface and a vindication of my questioning of present state of the interface.

You seem to want to take some kind of personal credit for this. I would guess that it was done because of a number of customer requests, probably from some customers with a number of systems, because that’s usually how features get added to programs. Personal “vindication”? Cmon, Jake, get over yourself at least a little bit.

>>There is no shame in admitting shortcomings, but all I see, so far, are users, that are enamored with >>every aspect of Resolve. Well, I’m not…

Neither am I. I like a lot of things about it, but I find fault with a lot of things as well. No log based controls (probably the single biggest one). A multitrack timeline that doesn’t allow combining multiple timelines or tracks from other timelines, as well as not allowing conforming into a specific targeted track. No simple way to copy or paste only one node. No ability to display multiple windows for conforming or comparing on the video output. No way to play the conformed timeline against the offline on the output video (stills only). No ability to automatically replicate transforms (i.e., blowups and repositions, or even flips and flops) from either Final Cut XML’s or Avid AAFs. Additional node necessary to do an inside and outside correction at the same time. Some of these things will likely be addressed, some are inherent in the program’s philosophy and design. All are annoying. The users you mention who are “enamored” with it are likely those who have never used anything else other than perhaps Apple Color and editing programs. They are not Baselight, Lustre, Film Master, or Pablo guys, and are as a group probably a lot less experienced than you, me, or a lot of people both of us know. From their perspective, Resolve is something that is far beyond anything they thought they would ever have, especially at what is considered by professionals to be a ridiculous price point.

[Mike Most]

Sorry, but I have to ask the question: why are you applying an Arri LUT as an input LUT? You’re much better off using it as either an output LUT or in a downstream node and thus having access to all of the information in the logC original. By using the LUT on the input, you’re basically defeating the entire purpose of using the LogC format.

[Mike Most]

If you have a SAN you can just put the MCColor on the public network and give it a unique subnet mask. Or you could just set it up for DHCP and any computer on the network running EuControl will find it. Being able to share the panel across multiple computers is one of the biggest advantages of Ethernet connectivity. It doesn’t matter which port it’s connected to as long as it’s on a network that port can see.

I too like the feel of the Euphonix controls, but I find that the responsiveness in Resolve leaves a lot to be desired. If I use Assimilate Scratch with the panel on the same computer, it almost feels like an analog control, things change as my fingers move and it’s all very interactive. In Resolve, there is both a bit of latency and a built in acceleration, so really fine changes are a bit frustrating in that I wind up having to overshoot where I want to be and pull back. I find exactly the same thing happening if I use a mouse to manipulate the on-screen widgets, so it’s the program itself that’s doing this. Having not used the DaVinci panels on a Mac based Resolve (I have on Linux Resolves and these problems basically don’t exist) I don’t know if it’s any better. Don’t get me wrong, I like the MCColor and I like Resolve, but I’m used to systems that don’t have latency and don’t have “sticky” controls, and the existence of those things is a real hindrance to geting things done efficiently.

[Mike Most]

>>Until of course there will be a button in FCP X “Send to Resolve”

That’s going to be a bit difficult since FCPX doesn’t actually have tracks.

[Mike Most]

Elan’s two shows are both cut on Avid, as are nearly all network and cable level dramas. And, as he mentioned, he’s trying to avoid the full reconform, as would be the case bringing in a new list for the entire show.

[Mike Most]

If you didn’t set any of the settings in Timeline Conform Options for “Assist Using Reel Numbers From….”, then the MXF’s are being made without a tape name, which Avid will not like. DaVinci doesn’t make this particularly obvious, but the Timeline Conform Options actually control what tape name gets assigned when you drop a clip into the Media Pool. If you don’t select one, it won’t create one. Depending on your sources, you might want to use either Source Clip File Name coupled with an appropriate format string (the default one often works, and the format string options are explained in the User Manual) or Embedding in Source Clip File. Using the embedded reel name will give a full filename (without any extension) in the case of R3D files, and an abbreviated string for Alexa files. But each one should allow a proper conform as they’re both self contained. For any other file, I would probably use the source clip file name, as that should be unique and unambiguous.

Note that you must select these settings prior to dropping the clips in the Media Pool. After populating the Media Pool, you should see your selection reflected in the “Reel” column. If you don’t, start over, do some drugs, drink heavily, and ask again.

[Mike Most]

>I’d like to remind you, that you were one of the most strident opponents of the idea of having color >wheels on the Resolve on the RedUser, going as far as using Baselight’s interface as an example of having >sliders.

Huh???? I don’t remember ever saying such a thing. You might be confusing me with someone else, but I honestly don’t recall ever having such a discussion.

I did read your post quite carefully, and although you were understandably voicing an opinion, it doesn’t always come across that way when you say things like “Blackmagic needs to rethink the whole Resolve interface paradigm,” and go on about how bad nodes are for color correction. Whether you realize it or not, you do come on pretty strong and rather unbending on these things, and that doesn’t lend a reader to understand that it’s just a simple opinion. Take it from someone who’s often been accused of doing the same thing.

[Mike Most]

Hi Elan,

Unfortunately the Resolve conforming module is basically in its infancy. What you’re suggesting is sensible, logical, useful, and…….. can’t currently be done. You cannot combine timelines, and you cannot copy from a track in one timeline to a track in another timeline. You also can’t conform into a specific track.

You might want to look at some other options, such as using subfolders in the media pool. If you put the original VFX shots in a subfolder, it becomes reasonably simple to update them by creating a new subfolder each time you have revisions. You’ll need to be careful to maintain the same file names, tape names (if used), and timecodes (you can change that within Resolve if necessary), but by using “reconform from folders” you can uncheck the original subfolder and check the new one, which will essentially replace the older shots with the revisions. Color tracing won’t be necessary because the colors are still valid in the Master Session, as well as still existing in the conform. Of course, all of this only works on shots that are being replaced, not new shots that weren’t in the original conform.

Hope that helps, and hope things are going well on both shows. But if they aren’t, I think you have my number……