[Rob Davis]

…although I notice those benchmarks are for GPU rendering. Not sure how that translates to live image processing in Resolve.

[Rob Davis]

I had initially considered the i7-series chips but seems like I will lose pcie lanes.

Given that the price is now under $900, the 7900x is probably worth some consideration. I had thought the 44 pcie lanes would limit the number of GPUs but I just discovered this article that seems to suggest otherwise. Very interesting (and confusing).

[Rob Davis]

Thanks, I’m familiar with that article. My reasoning for leaning towards the 1950x is mainly the number of available pcie lanes for the cost, which may be necessary if I add more GPU’s down the road for Resolve.

The 10c i9 7900 seems to perform a bit better in Premiere and the 16c 1950x performs a bit better in Resolve so I figured it was a wash and went for the slightly cheaper option. Also, AMD support in both Premiere and Resolve seems to be improving with each update so that seems to bode well for the faster clock speed and higher core count in the 1950x. Is this sound logic or do you still think there’s a good argument for an i9 cpu?

[Rob Davis]

[Glenn Sakatch] “The correction is not clipping as you move down the chain, as you can still add a correction in node 1 and ease back on the highlights, removing the clipping, (assuming the original shot wasn’t totally over exposed)”

Good point. I guess I see the value in that workflow then, though I personally would still prefer to start from scratch and use the scopes and my monitor to grade for 709. As a DP who just does color grading on some of my own projects, I’m by no means an authority on the subject and would love to know more about pro colorists’ workflows. Wish there were more resources available. The Lift Gamma Gain forum is pretty good but I’ve found limited info about slog.

[Rob Davis]

[Marc Wielage] “It’s possible to do, but there’s no harm in using actual color science to put the file in a good starting point. The problem with an actual LUT is that they can be destructive and get in your way, particularly if the material is shot poorly. Bear in mind this is still an 8-bit camera, and that alone is a big hurdle to get past.”

I follow your logic here to an extent. I use LUTs all the time for a variety of things but usually when speed is a priority over more control of the image. It seems many people who have hopped on the A7S bandwagon are shooting sLog3 and then dropping a Rec709 LUT on their footage as the first step in grading and in that case, you’re not that gaining that much over shooting Rec709, no? Rather than a generic Rec709 LUT, why not start with a preset in your grading software (or a saved still in Resolve) so you can manipulate the settings from shot to shot rather than adding more adjustments after the LUT in the signal chain? I usually start with the look I created on set, which I had previously used to create the LUT I used for on-set monitoring but not the LUT itself because it cant be modified.

Someone earlier mentioned using a LUT works as long as you have “properly exposed footage” but again, what is properly exposed when you’re talking about LOG gamma curves? Properly exposed to me is a subjective choice made based on the dynamic range of the scene and what you want the final image to look like and as such, a generic LUT would look terrible on some shots where for instance, you exposed the skin tones a little lower than normal to keep a highlight from clipping.

Now, if you were planning on printing to film emulsion or something that’s another story and a good reason to apply a LUT right off the bat so you know how that specific emulsion will impact your image.

[Rob Davis]

Thanks for your reply. I assumed this was the case but wasn’t sure if converting to a less compressed codec (XAVC-L on the FS5 in particular has a good deal of compression) would give you any more wiggle room in color. For instance, I feel like h.264 footage from Canon DSLR’s grades a bit easier once converted to ProRes, however with the much better 4:2:2: 10-bit codec in the Sony’s (at 1080), the difference is probably negligible.

[Rob Davis]

In the case of the Sony FS7/FS5 (not shooting RAW), would you generally do the final color grading with the native XAVC codec or would you first convert to something like ProResHQ, ungraded, and then do the color correction?

My Slog workflow is usually something like this:
1) Create LUT(s) on set for monitoring/video village while shooting
2) Import XAVC into Resolve, make basic adjustments using the LUTs from set for reference
3) Add aspect ratio blanking, anamorphic desqueeze, dual system audio syncing, etc.
4) Export h.264 dailies and ProRes LT (or proxy) for editorial
5) Final edit is done in NLE like Premiere
6) Online XAVC using XML from NLE back in Resolve
7) Final color grading
8) Final export

[Rob Davis]

I finally figured out the problem. It was actually just one sequence and the “Editing Mode” in the sequence settings had somehow gotten switching from AVC-Intra to AVCHD. For some reason, it would stay in this mode when playing footage directly out of bins, which is why I didn’t realize sooner.

[Rob Davis]

I just noticed this is only happening with one project.

[Rob Davis]

I have the same problem (but with the BM Ultrastudio Mini). I have always been able to fix it by unchecking the Blackmagic box, rebooting and then re-checking it. Annoying yes, but a usable fix.

Now when I reboot, the checkbox is already checked and nothing I do will get an image on the monitor. Works fine with Resolve and Sony Catalyst Browse.