Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

DaVinci Resolve 10

Luis Otero said:
Frederic,

My point is that the capability can be built into Resolve to let us, the users, to select which software we want to use to generate the DCP, not to limit the authoring system to a specific one. Look at new FinalDCP (just as one example). Is a software that is getting there if you are following its development, which is significantly cheeper.

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...
Yes, all nessesary tools for DCP creation, including JPG2K encoding are already in Resolve.. BM explained, that the reason they using EasyDCP at this point is they have too many irons in the fire with V10. So, instead of not offering DCP creation at all, they decided on a third party route. That doesn't exclude their own DCP creation at some future point, which with the history of BM doesn't sound that far off.
 
I think DCP creation built into all the Grading apps won't be too far off. Resolve, Scratch etc all have direct to jcp codec and XYZ color conversion built in. Maybe next year. As of right now you could take those jcp files in XYZ and drop them into openDCP which is free.
 
Jake,

I agree with your assertion of future Resolve development. It is just a matter of principal (at least mine), that we should not be forced to use a "combo", but just to have the ability to select which supplemental software to use based on our "comfort zone". It is like the new function that V10 will have to use "OFX Plug-ins". They are letting it open for us to decide which company/plug-in to use.

Now, I just noticed (and already enrolled on the notification) that easyDCP will be selling a "Resolve Plug-in", so let's see which will be the price point. Maybe it will be financially competitive since, as you pointed out, Resolve will have already most of the DCP authoring capabilities, such as exporting JPEG2Ks. Hence, easyDCP should not be charging for such capabilities as part of the plug-in since already Resolve will have them available FOR FREE...!

Let's see how this evolves...
 
mikeburton said:
I think DCP creation built into all the Grading apps won't be too far off. Resolve, Scratch etc all have direct to jcp codec and XYZ color conversion built in. Maybe next year. As of right now you could take those jcp files in XYZ and drop them into openDCP which is free.
Click to expand...


That was my original point, Mike.
 
mikeburton said:
I think DCP creation built into all the Grading apps won't be too far off. Resolve, Scratch etc all have direct to jcp codec and XYZ color conversion built in. Maybe next year. As of right now you could take those jcp files in XYZ and drop them into openDCP which is free.
Click to expand...

Going forward, what might prove more important is IMF (Interoperable Master Format) creation, as theatrical distribution is only applicable to a relatively small percentage of entertainment projects, whereas digital distribution in multiple forms, languages, and versions is applicable to almost everything. It's been supported in DVS Clipster for a while, but a number of vendors are now beginning to support that in software.
 
We neeed to also take into consideration that FinalDCP is developing a hefty player. It is their goal to have one that can be used in cinemas as THE DCP player using a moderate Windows PC, hence avoiding the need to have "specialized" servers. One more "for the masses"...
 
A few people seem to be missing the point. Any of the DCP makers could offer a plugin here, that is the point of the plugin software. Quite why only one has so far who knows, it may well be they were courted by BMD to do one as a selling point for resolve.
 
Peter Proniewicz-Brooks said:
A few people seem to be missing the point. Any of the DCP makers could offer a plugin here, that is the point of the plugin software. Quite why only one has so far who knows, it may well be they were courted by BMD to do one as a selling point for resolve.
Click to expand...


Peter,

The integration is a partnership between BMD and easyDCP (see their joined press release). So, I do not think that any one can develop a DCP plug-in and will automatically work with Resolve. That open architecture is only for OFX.
 
Well, to add to the wish list: Color Management integration, please.
 
It would be nice to render your XYZ jpg2k files and import them back into Resolve, right click on the full flatened jpg2K movie and have the option to preview the XYZ as RGB and vise versa so you could do a direct comparison to your grade versus the DCP playing right out of the Resolve timeline for rec709 monitor comparison or through your DCI compliant Projector. Almost like you can currently with selecting a transfer mode on a clip in the conform room timeline there would be a DCP XYZ-RGB etc like easyDCP player + has. Then you could do a direct split screen comparison out of the SDI to verify your DCP is accurate next to your conformed/colored sequence.
Like Lustre, you could have the render easily accessible via a software aware render preview directly in Resolve so you wouldn't even need to re-import your rendered files and you could compare them easily. That's what I'd like to see implemented while we are awaiting full DCP authoring integration, something I think is a much more realistic implementation in the short term.
 
mikeburton said:
Like Lustre, you could have the render easily accessible via a software aware render preview directly in Resolve so you wouldn't even need to re-import your rendered files and you could compare them easily. That's what I'd like to see implemented while we are awaiting full DCP authoring integration, something I think is a much more realistic implementation in the short term.
Click to expand...

What you're referring to is the persistent cache, where while using Lustre you can render/cache your whole timeline to a codec of your choice and then play it from there without the need to re-import. Rendered cache is saved with your project until you tell your system to erase it. Hence the term persistent cache. Well, in Version 10 that is exactly what happens, except you can't choose codec. i believe it's always DPX. So far, that is...
 
jake blackstone said:
What you're referring to is the persistent cache, where while using Lustre you can render/cache your whole timeline to a codec of your choice and then play it from there without the need to re-import. Rendered cache is saved with your project until you tell your system to erase it. Hence the term persistent cache. Well, in Version 10 that is exactly what happens, except you can't choose codec. i believe it's always DPX. So far, that is...
Click to expand...

Yup, that's it, I knew it was a cache thing but couldn't remember what it was called. It's been a while since I've worked on a Lustre but I remember really liking it. Glad to hear its one of the new features in Resolve 10.
 
mikeburton said:
Yup, that's it, I knew it was a cache thing but couldn't remember what it was called. It's been a while since I've worked on a Lustre but I remember really liking it. Glad to hear its one of the new features in Resolve 10.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in Lustre it is actually a render and that's why in Lustre you can choose the codec. But it does pretty much the same thing, as caching in Resolve. I wish Resolve cache would be much more, than just simple render. I wish there would be debayer and NR cache, like Baselight and FilmMaster both do. This way there would be no need to use RR for short projects. But enabling persistent cache in Resolve is a start and I'll take that.
 
Luis Otero said:
Frederic,

My point is that the capability can be built into Resolve to let us, the users, to select which software we want to use to generate the DCP, not to limit the authoring system to a specific one. Look at new FinalDCP (just as one example). Is a software that is getting there if you are following its development, which is significantly cheeper.

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer... But There is no encryption with FinalDCP if I've well read the specs. It's not the same deal...
 
M Most said:
Going forward, what might prove more important is IMF (Interoperable Master Format) creation, as theatrical distribution is only applicable to a relatively small percentage of entertainment projects, whereas digital distribution in multiple forms, languages, and versions is applicable to almost everything. It's been supported in DVS Clipster for a while, but a number of vendors are now beginning to support that in software.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. Excuse my ignorance on how the IMF works once delivered to the studio but are iTunes, Netflix, on-demand, etc etc using the IMF package directly yet or are the distribution companies just getting their required spec delivered from the package extraction via the Disney, Warner Bros etc? IMF seems like a great way to deliver multiple deliverables from a post-production perspective in one neat package with all your languages, subtitles etc but I'm just curious if the distributors are reading the IMF's directly or just getting sent the pieces needed for their purposes from the IMF via the studio?
Seems like it would be more manageable to be able to set some kind of permissions within the IMF package for each vendor so they could only read what is relevant to their distro platform and then send them the package. Perhaps I'm missing the point or the theory about how this is working currently but I would like to think the easiest / fastest/ cheapest method to the IMF is getting the distribution companies on board to accept the IMF's and play them directly?
 
mikeburton said:
Yes, agreed. Excuse my ignorance on how the IMF works once delivered to the studio but are iTunes, Netflix, on-demand, etc etc using the IMF package directly yet or are the distribution companies just getting their required spec delivered from the package extraction via the Disney, Warner Bros etc? IMF seems like a great way to deliver multiple deliverables from a post-production perspective in one neat package with all your languages, subtitles etc but I'm just curious if the distributors are reading the IMF's directly or just getting sent the pieces needed for their purposes from the IMF via the studio?
Seems like it would be more manageable to be able to set some kind of permissions within the IMF package for each vendor so they could only read what is relevant to their distro platform and then send them the package. Perhaps I'm missing the point or the theory about how this is working currently but I would like to think the easiest / fastest/ cheapest method to the IMF is getting the distribution companies on board to accept the IMF's and play them directly?
Click to expand...

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but here's a quick answer. What is now known as IMF began back in around 2006 or 2007 as a proposal for a "digital video package," based on the DCP format that had proven to be very flexible, robust, useful, and secure. One of the primary original intents was to use it as a standard deliverable for television series, much as the DCP is used for theatrical distribution. Disney was solidly behind it but it never got much traction until more recently, when it was taken on by SMPTE, renamed IMF, and reworked a bit to emphasize the ability to have one master from which almost any file based deliverable could be generated, and allowing for on the fly replacement of languages, subtitles, titles, graphics, and even editorial changes as the new deliverables are created. In general, IMF's are created by the studio and delivered to vendors that generate the various deliverables from them, primarily large trusted vendors such as Deluxe and Technicolor. What the IMF does for the studio is eliminate the need to archive many, many different full length deliverable versions in their entirety, instead allowing on the fly generation of these things as required. Having said that, there is still considerable interest in using IMF as a delivery format going forward, replacing the still standard HDCam SR videotape deliverable for that purpose.

Does that help answer your question?
 
M Most said:
I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but here's a quick answer. What is now known as IMF began back in around 2006 or 2007 as a proposal for a "digital video package," based on the DCP format that had proven to be very flexible, robust, useful, and secure. One of the primary original intents was to use it as a standard deliverable for television series, much as the DCP is used for theatrical distribution. Disney was solidly behind it but it never got much traction until more recently, when it was taken on by SMPTE, renamed IMF, and reworked a bit to emphasize the ability to have one master from which almost any file based deliverable could be generated, and allowing for on the fly replacement of languages, subtitles, titles, graphics, and even editorial changes as the new deliverables are created. In general, IMF's are created by the studio and delivered to vendors that generate the various deliverables from them, primarily large trusted vendors such as Deluxe and Technicolor. What the IMF does for the studio is eliminate the need to archive many, many different full length deliverable versions in their entirety, instead allowing on the fly generation of these things as required. Having said that, there is still considerable interest in using IMF as a delivery format going forward, replacing the still standard HDCam SR videotape deliverable for that purpose.

Does that help answer your question?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I don't want to sidetrack the thread either but would like to discuss in greater detail. Ill open a new thread on this soon and would love your participation. Thanks Mike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top