DaVinci Resolve, how good?

[Scott Crawley]

That's a sticky argument and one that shouldn't be made lightly.

There needs to be strong emphasis on the SMART part of that statement because a smart person knows the 10% that is lacking calls every adjustment into question. A smart person knows that at 90% you can not trust what you see and you need to work completely by scopes. With the scopes you can be certain about both ends of the spectrum but the middle not so much. The smart person knows they can not make any mid tone adjustments with confidence that they will be correct or reproduce with any kind of accuracy whatsoever.

What I'm saying is if it isn't completely calibrated then it isn't calibrated at all so there is really very little point in doing it. The only real benefits are that it won't look like complete shit for the person who has to look at it all of the time and it will be close enough to fool those who don't know any better.

I mean you no offense but with these things in mind I'm not certain the 90% calibrated is such a smart argument.

yup, but thanks for the heads for anyone who may not now

however, w/ a loupe probe tool, they can be calibrated better then 90% there

Thus great for smart indie, but definitely a no go for BIG MONEY productions

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Sounds good enough. But the $30k monitors Marc uses maybe 100% of a smart Indie budget, but what you described would probably suite 100% the level they want to achieve.

Grading is now done to obsene lengths compared to top releases in the 70's. Does it matter on a X grade film if it's not "AAA+" grade? The testing on rec 2020 shows that it is difficult to discern the difference past 98% (or maybe it was around 97%). I think what Daniel is trying to Achieve is credible, as the average person watching a feature is an audience member that does not know the difference for a few hours.

I personally cringe at virtually every Red film grade I have ever seen, maybe not underworld, but I forget. Yeah, that bad, personal choice, be stuffed. I go out of my way to see them and see what the results look like. I like the grade on your BMPCC test videos more than most of them Scott.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Why would a single project have to budget an entire finishing suite?

We're not talking about producing an A quality vs. AAA quality product. It either looks to the audience the way you intend or it doesn't. It either it has a chance of looking correct, or it has nearly no chance at all.

Thank you for the kind word. What is the BMPCC test grade you speak of?

Sounds good enough. But the $30k monitors Marc uses maybe 100% of a smart Indie budget, but what you described would probably suite 100% the level they want to achieve.

Grading is now done to obsene lengths compared to top releases in the 70's. Does it matter on a X grade film if it's not "AAA+" grade? The testing on rec 2020 shows that it is difficult to discern the difference past 98% (or maybe it was around 97%). I think what Daniel is trying to Achieve is credible, as the average person watching a feature is an audience member that does not know the difference for a few hours.

I personally cringe at virtually every Red film grade I have ever seen, maybe not underworld, but I forget. Yeah, that bad, personal choice, be stuffed. I go out of my way to see them and see what the results look like. I like the grade on your BMPCC test videos more than most of them Scott.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

A few from memory, even the one down the markets. Not perfect, like most Red grades, but appreciated the look.

Anyway, in any aesthetical industry, eventually things go too far and they split too many hairs, loose the fun so speak. But Marc was right elsewhere, Clerks, after the heavy work, still looks C grade for today. I feel we are at that stage of post maturity, when you have passed hitting the mark and set ever higher marks and standards of looks. So yes, we pay people extra for a AAA+ look when a small production would be happy with just a B grade result (I regard a lot of stuff I've seen people do with their pictures C grade or less. But this is a boy I have a cheap cinema camera, I am going throw together a film section of the industry). Anything past A grade is not so needed, unless it is artistic. Maybe A+. After we got the industry to take pictures color seriously again, even pocket cameras started producing an acceptable image (in excess of many grades I mentioned before, more like dragon, but without the snr, sensitivity latitude and resolution. Another reason I'm happy with Dragon, it raises the flaw of where poor grades start). Anyway, even those B grade pocket images look good enough for me. Sure, an A grade is going to look fancier to the audience, but not entirely needed. I know Mark might have some wisdom to contribute here on the low quality grades I mentioned before, but it is really a matter of how much it makes a difference to the normal eye rather than an expert eye, and B grade is below that, A grade is that, + a bit more, AA AAA+, really in the territory of massaging expert eyes. The stuff about relighting the scene etc to look naturally better is more the way to look at in the future. Simply because it will get easier and easier to do, and worth doing when required on lower cost productions as well.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Sorry Scott, lost track of your first statement. I'm simply saying that something microbudget might have the money of an good $30k grading monitor, so it is smart to calibrate a monitor instead.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Sounds good enough. But the $30k monitors Marc uses maybe 100% of a smart Indie budget, but what you described would probably suite 100% the level they want to achieve.

Naw, I use the same $3500 monitor in my freelance office that I did for several years at Technicolor: a Panasonic BT-300 plasma. It's fine for what it is. It's not a $40,000 Dolby monitor or a $35,000 Sony 4K OLED, but for 1/10th of the money, it's fine. And it is calibrated and I trust it. I know of at least 10 rooms in LA using them right now.

...A grade is that, + a bit more, AA AAA+, really in the territory of massaging expert eyes. The stuff about relighting the scene etc to look naturally better is more the way to look at in the future. Simply because it will get easier and easier to do, and worth doing when required on lower cost productions as well.

I think you mis-characterize and mis-understand what's involved with actual relighting of a show. For one thing, it would take thousands of hours to get that right (which is what they typically spend on lighting, say, a Pixar or Dreamworks animated show). An indie film is very lucky to have maybe 80-100 hours for the entire color-correction budget.

I think you also don't get that it's far better to light the scene organically on the set and expose the camera as it was designed to do. True, in some cases we can take away from the lighting on the set and knock the exposure down and add digital flags, but adding light do a face in darkness is completely impractical in the real world. All you wind up with is noise and an unnatural look. Just shoot it right to begin with. I have no problem with taking good exposures and trying to make them better, as well as trying to make a series of shots match. That's all part of the job. But lighting the set and the actors? That's the province of the cinematographer. The show's gonna look awful if the DP doesn't do his or her job, and you can't make up for that in post.

You can take good work and make it better in post, but you can't take bad work and make it look good. There's no magic knob for that in Resolve, or Baselight, or Pablo, or Nucoda, or Mistika, or Lustre. If I ever get around to it, I may write a short piece introducing color correction concepts to DPs. Three things I'd put high on the list:

1) we can't add eye light in post -- you need that on the set.

2) we can't add a back light in post -- ditto.

3) we can't add fill light very effectively in post... but we can take the fill light that's there and shape it.

and 4) once the signal is clipped and overexposed, we can't get the detail back. Don't overexpose in digital.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Sorry Scott, lost track of your first statement. I'm simply saying that something microbudget might have the money of an good $30k grading monitor, so it is smart to calibrate a monitor instead.

Again, why would you expense gear on a per project basis, particularly for a microbudget? I understand why you might do that with some things but to say that a microbudget project can not afford a proper grade because the monitor is too much for the budget or I can't afford a proper grading monitor because my micro mini won't pay for it is a straw man.

Don't get me wrong I'm not unsympathetic, but there comes a time in the life of every jack of all trades when we must prioritize and focus. If you are independently wealthy that time may never come but that is a different story.

Focus and limits are good for creativity. ;-)

Rent, even if you end up renting from yourself.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I'll stick up for them. The piont is that is the monitor and not even the rest of it. Now, if they want to diy on a monitor with resolve, a calibration tool, a cheap Sony camera (cough cough) and somebodies descent PC, good fortune to them I say. There are plenty of things that such people can't afford, that have to give way to reality. A lot of local regional productions are going to be like this. We have a film group in town now, and I imagine a lot of not well funded stuff us going to go on, and good on them, it will create stepping stones.

How much did Mystery Road cost to do. I met the director, but forget.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Naw, I use the same $3500 monitor in my freelance office that I did for several years at Technicolor: a Panasonic BT-300 plasma. It's fine for what it is. It's not a $40,000 Dolby monitor or a $35,000 Sony 4K OLED, but for 1/10th of the money, it's fine. And it is calibrated and I trust it. I know of at least 10 rooms in LA using them right now.


I think you mis-characterize and mis-understand what's involved with actual relighting of a show. For one thing, it would take thousands of hours to get that right (which is what they typically spend on lighting, say, a Pixar or Dreamworks animated show). An indie film is very lucky to have maybe 80-100 hours for the entire color-correction budget.

I think you also don't get that it's far better to light the scene organically on the set and expose the camera as it was designed to do. True, in some cases we can take away from the lighting on the set and knock the exposure down and add digital flags, but adding light do a face in darkness is completely impractical in the real world. All you wind up with is noise and an unnatural look. Just shoot it right to begin with. I have no problem with taking good exposures and trying to make them better, as well as trying to make a series of shots match. That's all part of the job. But lighting the set and the actors? That's the province of the cinematographer. The show's gonna look awful if the DP doesn't do his or her job, and you can't make up for that in post.

You can take good work and make it better in post, but you can't take bad work and make it look good. There's no magic knob for that in Resolve, or Baselight, or Pablo, or Nucoda, or Mistika, or Lustre. If I ever get around to it, I may write a short piece introducing color correction concepts to DPs. Three things I'd put high on the list:

1) we can't add eye light in post -- you need that on the set.

2) we can't add a back light in post -- ditto.

3) we can't add fill light very effectively in post... but we can take the fill light that's there and shape it.

and 4) once the signal is clipped and overexposed, we can't get the detail back. Don't overexpose in digital.

I think you are agreeing with me Marc. I think that the lighting thing now is too awkward, and agree with lighting organically on set for camera. I referred to the future when it is easier and may stakes can be fixed, eventually the while lighting thing. Again, in.the future the face in darkness won't be in darkness but in the lower 16 bits of 32 bits with very high quality and very little to no noticeable niose. This computational photography technology is very real, I didn't cone up with it unfortunately, but new faster ways to achieve it. The sensor tech is improving, and extremely low niose color video with very little ligjt have been archieved years ago. They can register single photons already with low niose. I used to wstch this stuff as part of camera development. I'm saying that might be a better use in the future of such time, when it will take seconds from a well recorded scene (well lit enough).. So yes, I think they should spend less time on it as a small indie.

$3500, I thought you were a $20k+ man. Yes I hesr you, that is what I mean. I would have lityle issue using that 4K 30 inch (was it) 10 bit LG IPS monitor if I had too. But the reality is, it won't grade for rec2020 very well, but a lot of time you don't see that extra gsmut in nature outside the greens (and our iron.oxide deserts). But I'm not happy with rec 2020 either, I want close to full vision for animation, but I'm happy to use rec 2020 anyway.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'll stick up for them. The piont is that is the monitor and not even the rest of it. Now, if they want to diy on a monitor with resolve, a calibration tool, a cheap Sony camera (cough cough) and somebodies descent PC, good fortune to them I say. There are plenty of things that such people can't afford, that have to give way to reality. A lot of local regional productions are going to be like this. We have a film group in town now, and I imagine a lot of not well funded stuff us going to go on, and good on them, it will create stepping stones.

How much did Mystery Road cost to do. I met the director, but forget.

I don't know who you are defending or why.

We all do the best we can with what we have at our disposal. I get that. If your original question was; is Resolve adequate for indie production the obvious answer is hell yes. It has a long record of success with big budget pictures. The program is far more capable than your average bootstrap indie suite and the "Colorist" in that chair.

I don't put Colorist in quotes there to be critical or rude. For the record I am that guy myself when I am not shooting. I am learning and my toolbox is not complete so I can not claim to be a Colorist. I don't have all of the requisite knowledge or tools. I am an independent student who most frequently works with grad students. It is a good fit.

From where I sit the folks who most consistently produce fairly high production value work all have one thing in common. They are able to identify and recruit talented folks who specialize to a fair degree and each of these recruits is investing in their own tools. A kind of co-op is growing here and the quality of the work is increasing as the individuals in the team and their respective toolboxes grow. In the meantime the one man band types continue to flounder and struggle.

Therein lies a lesson methinks.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I agree with you on the picking of specialized talent and co-op. Something I would like to also see here. But I was merely addressing the side topic. I think we should think in terms of multi functional groups as well in this space, not just specialists. The equipment budgets will be small until they get good and build or afford it. Marcs calibrated plasma is a good example, a d there are a number of sub $2k monitors they could use, I'm not talking about your $300 benq monitor here, or other 6-8 bit monitors.

I'm supposed to be writing up my technological methods for a 16 bit+ monitor panel technology. Out of my arsenal of design studies I realized I had something for this, though I suspect somebody must be doing it by now. I'm looking at inviting Jeff along, he would know (and marc too). The mechanics of it should be cheap enough, even for application to TN display (where it would be practically worthless except in replacing all dithering etc techniques) unless you can conform the light coming out of it to get rid of shifts and viewing angle issues.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Mark Ulano talks about being a musician in Tarrantino's orchestra and how each of the crew is dedicated to their tools in that they are the instrument. He also mentions creating "flow" on the day.

It's a good interview:

http://youtu.be/5FOmDtJDa2Q

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Yes, becoming an instrument in the orchester, but more than an instrument, supplementing to the greater cause.

 

[Darko Gavrilovic]

You need a fairly fast computer to run it, other editing solutions are more responsive with slower machines.

^^^ exactly this!

You need a lot of horse power to use it decently. I used it for fairly small web based jobs and my laptop with i7 w/Nvidia CUDA and 8GB ram barely manages to handle it. My guess is that, you need a system with fast SSDs and at least 16GB RAM to be able to use it properly. I can't imagine how much power you need to actually do a full length 1080p feature. Probably you are looking at dual video cards and 32GB of RAM at least. My guess.

 

[Peter Chamberlain]

Hey guys, you could always start by reviewing the published Resolve configuration guides. Links at the top of the DaVinci section on BMD forum.

Peter

 

[Dan Kanes]

Honestyly Wayne, Download it and try it.

If you need some guides there are 100s on youtube (some of which I have done for older versions when it used to be WAY harder to use).

You won't regret it.

Amazing piece of free software, and really the best thing BlackMagic does.

You can likely do exactly what you are seeking to do 100% with the free version.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I know, I said a while back I was aiming to do it. It's cool. Waiting to see what happens with the HP Z all in one. I've got to hit a few different capabilities with it, not just video. Otherwise I might try this touch overlay I found on a QD/OLED screen. Just stalled again at the moment and trying to catch-up on other more urgent things in the meantime. I've got many tens of hours of personal footage to chuck on it plus a big land rights hand over event. It's on the A list.

 

[jake blackstone]

I know, I said a while back I was aiming to do it. It's cool. Waiting to see what happens with the HP Z all in one. I've got to hit a few different capabilities with it, not just video. Otherwise I might try this touch overlay I found on a QD/OLED screen. Just stalled again at the moment and trying to catch-up on other more urgent things in the meantime. I've got many tens of hours of personal footage to chuck on it plus a big land rights hand over event. It's on the A list.

If you'd spent a tenth of the time to just trying Resolve, instead of writing endless posts here about it, you'd be much more along toward your goal of... what was that goal again?

 

[jussi rovanpera]

^^^ exactly this!

You need a lot of horse power to use it decently. I used it for fairly small web based jobs and my laptop with i7 w/Nvidia CUDA and 8GB ram barely manages to handle it. My guess is that, you need a system with fast SSDs and at least 16GB RAM to be able to use it properly. I can't imagine how much power you need to actually do a full length 1080p feature. Probably you are looking at dual video cards and 32GB of RAM at least. My guess.

Something I've noticed with Resolve is that one needs quite a fast computer for it to be responsive, if your computer is too slow , using proxy files or lower resolution timeline doesn't necessarily increase the responsiveness. Many other editors and grading solutions can be effectively used with older computers and proxy footage... Of course this doesn't mean that you need a supercomputer to run Resolve.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

If you'd spent a tenth of the time to just trying Resolve, instead of writing endless posts here about it, you'd be much more along toward your goal of... what was that goal again?

Time to stop posting guys. As you noticed, I've been reading "endless" posts here rather than writing them, and stopped writing much a long time ago, right the same time I said I that I had agreed it was worth trying. Most of the remaining posts had been replies out of courtesy. The thread has a life of its own, don't blame me. I've got more important things going on, like arranging a system cheap enough and powerful enough to run it properly. I don't know exactly why BMD has not got resolve up to speed as its competitors, but I'm likely going to have to spend as much extra on the computer to run the free edition of resolve as I would buying a competitor's product, that extra computing power just happens to be useful anyway.

Thanks again for everything guys.

:closed2ur0: