Mike Most
Forum Replies Created
-
Eucon 3.3.2 is the El Capitan compatible release and works fine.
-
My guess is that you did not set the conform options in Resolve correctly, and as a result either you don’t have a tape name, or you have an incorrect one. Look on the media page and see what’s listed under Reel. If it’s either empty or has the same name for every shot, you need to set the conform options to extract the reel name from the file header (if you’re using MXF source from Avid). That should allow you to relink in Avid by “timecode” and “source file ID or tape name.”
There is no magic to Avid relinking. It only uses two criteria, and with MXF’s that means timecode and tape name. If they match, it will relink. If they don’t, it won’t. It’s that simple. File names are irrelevant.
-
>Generally nowadays, I think 24.00fps projects are rare… but they do exist. I personally think 23.976 is much more >straightforward and easier to deal with, since most sound and picture people expect this mode (for American->based TV or feature projects, anyway).
The large majority of feature projects we do in Europe and elsewhere (i.e., anywhere except North America) are 24fps. It is not rare, it is very common if you’re not fixated on the US and Canada (although we have done a number of 24fps shows in those areas as welll…..).
-
That’s why you now have multiple windows of the same type (or other types) on one node. If you set up and track another window around the object that’s crossing the first one, and set it as a mask, it does exactly what you seem to want.
-
There are antitrust laws? I had forgotten since they haven’t been enforced in the US for at least 60 years, unless you count the “breakup” of AT&T – oh, wait a minute, AT&T is back now and almost twice the size that it was when it was broken up…
Antitrust laws have been a joke in this country almost since they were enacted. When the politicians who are responsible for bringing suits under those laws are owned by the very companies the laws are supposed to constrain, you’re not going to see very many instances of using them.
-
>>but if you think you can be a top notch colorist and only know one tool, you’re wrong.
I would amend that by adding “unless your name is Stefan Sonnenfeld or Steve Scott.” Although I would also add that if Blackmagic discontinued Resolve tomorrow, Stef would settle on something else and move on. And so would Steve if Lustre disappeared….
As for “the best colorists use Lustre” I would also change that to “some of the best colorists use Lustre.” That’s a lot more accurate, as there are a lot of very good colorists all over the world, and a lot of very good toolsets. No one system has a monopoly on high quality results or usage on “A” titles.
-
At Technicolor Hollywood, the Resolves are used primarily for broadcast, so yes, there are a number of them. However, the vast majority of the DI work is done on Lustre, as it is the preferred platform for most of the current lead DI colorists at Tech Hollywood. As for getting equal results, that’s a bit debatable, because it depends at least in part on the individual colorist’s grading style. For those who came from a VFX background (like Steve Scott) Lustre is generally preferred because it contains most of Flame’s rotoscoping tools, a very heavily used feature for Steve and others. It may not offer the overall speed of Resolve, but it offers a degree of precision – particularly in terms of area isolations – that goes beyond what Resolve generally offers. So for colorists that prefer mattes to keys, it has some definite advantages, at least in terms of both programs’ current incarnations. It also offers an arguably better interface for those who prefer to use a mouse or a pen to drive the program (as opposed to a trackball centric panel). The interface is designed for direct manipulation and is geared to allow for very precise control. This may not be for everybody, but for anyone with Autodesk experience, there’s a lot of value to that approach.
-
>Lustre is so incredibly outdated, it’s almost funny 🙂
If Resolve hadn’t been made free, you might not be saying that. Lustre is hardly outdated, even though it isn’t even sold as a standalone product any longer. It still has a toolset that others haven’t yet caught up to, and continues to benefit significantly from its shared architecture with Flame. It might not have as many users as Resolve (once again, that wouldn’t be the case if Blackmagic hadn’t made it free….) but some of those users are responsible for DI work on some of the largest motion pictures made today. The only way in which it’s “outdated” might be in its sales/pricing model. In actual use, it’s still a very high end tool, really rivaled only by Baselight in terms of precision and capabilities.
-
I checked the system again because I wasn’t completely sure it was a 120 that we put back in and I was right. It was a Mac specific Quadro 4000. So we’re running with essentially the same setup that Sasha has, a Quadro 4000 Mac Edition in slot 1 inside the tower running the GUI, and 2 Titan Blacks in a Cubix expander. Both Titans are seen and used by Resolve, and when we need to put in a Red Rocket X (we have one on this show just in case) we remove one of the Titans.
Sorry for the confusion. What I recall now is that we originally went with a Titan Black as the GUI card, and then pulled that and put the ATI in to make sure we could see both Titans in the expander. We had some playback issues with the ATI in place, so we tried putting the Quadro 4000 in and that solved it. BTW, all of this started because we originally set up a system using a 12 core “trashcan” Mac Pro, but had rendering issues (widely reported by others as well) with Resolve. Those issues disappeared when we went back to the older tower.
-
>Anyways, I had a pleasant surprise this morning: changing the K5000 to the ATI made both of my Titan-X >now show up in the system profiler. And in Resolve I can see that it’s really doing it’s work. The realtime >playback speed on my RED reference clip with tons of nodes and mattes would increase from 7,5 to 15fps. >So it’s really there!
I’m not surprised. That’s why I suggested it. We’ve already gone through this. The reason I asked about a Red Rocket X is because the system considers that to be a GPU, so it will not work in a configuration like yours (ours was nearly identical) without removing one of the Titan Blacks. We ultimately were able to swap out the ATI card for a GT 120, which the system would allow while see seeing the Titan Blacks in the expander. So if you want to be “all Nvidia” and have access to that card you might want to try that.
Glad you got it working. Sorry you have the same problem many of us now have……