Mike Most
Forum Replies Created
-
One can justify Apple’s renaming of common constructs any way they want. But the fact remains that they came up with a product with the same name as an existing one, marketed to a specific audience that includes some very experienced professionals, and then invented new terminology that is confusing, annoying, and unnecessary to many, if not most, of that audience. Just because you’re doing things in new ways doesn’t mean you change all of the terminology that has been established over a long period of time. You don’t see car manufacturers suddenly calling their products “transportation devices” simply because they now have sophisticated electronics and hybrid engine systems. And you don’t even see Apple calling something a “digital communications center” when it’s really a more sophisticated version of a cell phone. Hell, we still call entering a number on a phone “dialing” even though we haven’t had dials on phones for over 40 years.
When you’ve got something new it helps to make it as familiar as possible so that your users know what it is and what it’s doing. What Apple did was a bit heavy handed, a bit presumptuous, and to my mind, quite a bit arrogant. It’s done, so there’s no point in talking about it any further, but to justify it as something necessary and useful is, at least to me, a bit presumptuous as well.
-
Ask editorial for an EDL and bring in the DPX sequence as a preconform using that EDL. There is no reason to use either scene detection or manually cut it up if an EDL is available.
-
As with Avid, relinking in Resolve relies on two things, the clip ID (usually reel or tape name) and time code. If you match these to what the list is calling for, clips will relink. So I would look at the clips that aren’t relinking in the Media Pool, then look at the EDL (make one if you don’t already have one) and force the reel name to agree with what the EDL is calling for using whatever means you need to do that. If you select and right click the clip(s) in question, you have the choice of a control string, the embedded name in the header, or the file name. Or you can enter it manually. Once you have those agreeing, the clips should relink and any remote grades you did should reappear.
-
Michael Phillips is a better source on this, but as I recall, Avid has never read reel metadata from Quicktime files, regardless of the codec. It didn’t read timecode either for a long time.
-
>I agree it would be a better beta-feedback path with direct contact involving problems that users are >encountering on a day-to-day basis,
Without breaking any NDA’s, I would point out that Creative Cow is not the only way that the Resolve developers get feedback. Public beta programs are only the last step after rather lengthy private beta programs that involve very direct feedback from the beta testers to the developers. This is true of essentially every software publisher’s products. Resolve is no different.
-
I think you’re asking the wrong question. Filmlight doesn’t have to justify its price point because it not an unfair price point. The price point of Resolve is artificially and ridiculously low because Blackmagic is primarily a hardware company and limits Resolve to using exclusively Blackmagic hardware for video output. So for most copies of Resolve that it either gives away or sells for $1000, it sells at least one video card, and hopefully a few miniconverters as well.
When one product is essentially given away for other business considerations, it doesn’t mean that other competing products that are being sold for more reasonable price points (reasonable in this case meaning higher) are overpriced. It means that the one product is severely underpriced.
-
ProTools sessions are a required deliverable on many, if not most, studio level television productions. Color sessions are not, primarily because there are multiple systems being used and therefore no one “standard” project format.
Personally, I really don’t see a problem with giving a client a copy of the session. For one thing, they would need to have another system with the original footage available, and an operator savvy enough on the program to link that footage properly. They would also need to have any and all LUT’s that you might have used. If you believe in your own abilities, and they believed in you enough to have you do the job in the first place, you’re in a good position for working with them again in the future. Perhaps they want the session just to have a copy themselves in case you don’t happen to archive yours and they need to return. Perhaps it’s more sinister, as some people here seem to want to speculate on. But either way, a session file is just a session file. The work was done by a human being. If they want similar work done, they need to employ the human being again. And if they don’t, they don’t. There’s no sense in being antagonistic about it.
-
I don’t have any real disagreement with your overall post, but I don’t know of anyone who is actually a working colorist who would prefer a Tangent Element set over the DaVinci panels under any circumstances.
-
Operating systems are only peripherally about user interfaces. OS upgrades are much more about things like better and wider memory management, improved multitasking schemes, improved networking, new application services, and, well, everything that you DON’T see. Those things are almost always much more significant and important than the things you do see. The things you notice are usually things they had to put in so that, well, you would notice. Things that you might care about, but developers can’t use and really don’t care about.
-
If you’re outputting a Final Cut Pro X XML from Resolve, then no, it won’t work in Final Cut 7. I’m not near a machine at the moment, but I believe that the FCPX file is the default.