DaVinci

[mikeburton]

Praying to god? Painful to think? That's a bit dramatic mate, dont you think? I may have exaggerated a bit, my price INCLUDES critical monitoring. (Scopes, Monitor, etc)

Our Pablo is a cash machine in our market. It is NOT just a color grader, we do compositing and killer FX and finishing, S3D toolsets and DELIVERABLES... because it is ALL ABOUT THE OPERATOR... who with 21 years experience, blows peoples minds every time they walk into the suite.

Heavy Iron will always have its place. Quantel is definitely not scrambling to lower prices, We use light iron as well, on a TON of indies, depends on the budget... but even our APPLE Color Suite cost over $25,000
with MAC TOWER (Memory) and RAID and PLASMA, Silverado COLLOR-RIG and ,... LEGAL SOFTWARE and PLUG INS. CONTROL SURFACES, Not including furniture.

My point is that its not a $1000 solution... and it has yet to work... but I hope to heck it DOES come out. It will NOT threaten our Pablo suite... it WILL replace our COLOR suite.

Trust me, legions of aspiring colorists are far more delusional than high end post houses who have invested in Heavy Iron... because we have also invested in top artists to justify the expense.

peace and love

Agree Tim!

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

I feel that Apple Color in many ways *saved* the industry. Lots of people on the manufacturer side wailed and moaned about Color and how it was going to destroy the industry. Bull. What Color did was incredible... it validated "Color Correction" as a distinct and separate part of the process, worthy of its own application and its own attention. Prior to Color, the process of Color Grading as a distinct and individual task in Post Production was almost exclusively the realm of the major markets and the perceived "high-end." Apple, in one fell swoop, validated Color Grading and drastically expanded the potential market for other vendors. Blackmagic is doing the same, but in a slightly different way.

I like the way you framed this point, because I think it rings very true. Add to Color raw image workflow that really requires color grading, put in the hands of many and not only is the process validated it's expanded into many more micro-markets.

 

[Alex Hastings]

I think its a great deal, Im speaking to the legions of aspiring colorists who think if they spend $1000 on software and buy a graphics card that they can compete with the above.

I don't think you have to worry about the "aspiring colorists." It's always the operators going rogue that do the most damage.

 

[OlaHaldor]

What is there to be afraid of? I read page after page about you guys kicking and screaming that "this is not good enough, it can't compete with more expensive solutions" and something that's starting to look like "this side of the world isn't big enough for the both of us".

I think those who are DEDICATED and purely INTERESTED in this kind of work is very interested about this. I myself will take a leap and build a suite with DaVinci for Mac. Yup, you read that right. I'm building a suite around DaVinci for Mac!

Reason? I'm tired of Color. Expensive? Yeah, but boy do I want to have better performance while I work - and clients will for sure appreciate the fact of realtime playback.


So why can't an aspiring and relatively newbie get a chance of diving into systems like DaVinci? I feel.. not offended, but I'm for sure not happy about the way you talk about "those low-end freaks" as if we don't know the ins and outs of an entrance and exit.

I've been using Color ever since it hit the market under the Apple logo. I've always been interested in such kind of work, I read up on Final Touch but wasn't happy about the price tag.. And when it finally arrived, I haven't done much else than trying to develop an understanding both technically and as an artist.

DaVinci is a natural upgrade for me, and probably a bunch of others. Not because it's "the coolest thing since.." but because we have a genuine interest.


I'm sure you guys that have more hours and days in this life didn't just jump into the seat of a colorist, and nor have I. I think the profession as a colorist is something you gain interest in after a while of doing photography, editing, compositing and what not.. We all start somewhere, and as we learn and feel we need to move on - some goes down the colored road, others take the other.

 

[Alex Hastings]

What is there to be afraid of? I read page after page about you guys kicking and screaming that "this is not good enough, it can't compete with more expensive solutions" and something that's starting to look like "this side of the world isn't big enough for the both of us"

I think bashing DaVinci is normal for people who have large amounts of money invested in hardware that will depreciate fast, be outdated faster and not be able to get a return. Doing the math on high end systems, you have to have it Paid off in 1 year, and making Profit by 2 and then you can coast through year 3, hopefully making a profit. That usually doesn't work. So you try to do it by 5, etc.

I used to hear, "Only Flame can fix that," a lot. I hear it Less and Less, and the last time I heard it, it was from a pretty outdated producer who didn't seem particularly HIP to anything anyway.

The most common thing I hear now is "Tell me where to look" Thats the single most common thing I hear anymore. They could be looking at a 30k DaVinci or a 600k system, the client doesn't know the difference. Make a pretty picture, that's the priority.

 

[Rick Turners]

My grading tools are important to me. I need to be able to do, what client's asking me to do and not to give excuses why it can't be done. No matter how talented you are as a DP, if you need 14mm lens, 100mm just will not do. You need the tools and Resolve is giving it to you at an incredibly low price. If you still feel, that only Pablo can do the job, then there is something wrong...

Isn't every grading system essentially doing the same thing using the same primary tools?

lift, gamma, gain adjustments.
curves
secondaries (16 to infinity)
tracking

one thing I see that daVinci could do for me that color couldn't is 3D tracking..

 

[OlaHaldor]

Well, is a hammer a hammer? There's different hammers for different tasks. And even though two hammers are made for the same kind of work, they feel different. Get my drift?

 

[Kim Frank]

The Main reason I'm planning to go this Route is compatibility.
I'm able to work with the mac version on set or after cutting. For most Reasons I would leave it that way but for the big screen (that I'm planning forward to) the colorist can at the end fully adapt my work. I'm thinking it even must be possible to design something like a custom LUT that transfers my viewing envirement to his. This way I could make a usabale first light to give him a better sense of my vision or even prepare or let prepare the time consuming stuff like Masks, tracking, etc. on the small system. Or I could make a close to final grade.
The colorist would have to fine tune and master it and transfer my vision to the final output...

 

[David Birdy]

Is anyone using the new software?

I would love to know how it's working with RD3's...The current dream machine may be a Mac pro with Media Composer 5, Resolve and the Rocket...

Dave

 

[OlaHaldor]

David, Resolve for Mac haven't been released yet. Last thing I heard mid July was that it was delayed, and will be released in August.

 

[M Most]

I think bashing DaVinci is normal for people who have large amounts of money invested in hardware that will depreciate fast, be outdated faster and not be able to get a return.

The vast majority of high end systems currently being used ARE DaVincis (DaVinci 2K's, for the most part). They have been the industry standard, particularly for video work, for almost 25 years.

They could be looking at a 30k DaVinci or a 600k system, the client doesn't know the difference. Make a pretty picture, that's the priority.

If you think of a DaVinci as a piece of $30K software, then you probably have no understanding of why some people are upset. In their eyes, Blackmagic has taken a respected brand name and turned it into a consumer level, commodity software product. Understand that and you'll begin to understand the reaction in the professional community.

 

[M Most]

one thing I see that daVinci could do for me that color couldn't is 3D tracking..

Ahh, the misuse of terminology strikes again.

I really wish people would stop calling it a 3D tracker. It is not. It is an area tracker, and the way it works is by autoselecting all possible tracking features it finds within a drawn shape, tracking all of them as best it can, and averaging the result to come up with the equivalent of a 2 point track, yielding position, size, and rotation. Thats very useful and somewhat innovative, but it is NOT a 3D tracker. DaVinci Resolve does not have anything like a 3D compositing environment and it does not have a 3D tracker, unless one is going to redefine a 2 point track as a "3D" track. Then again, redefining terminology whenever its convenient seems to be a way of life these days.

 

[Frank Cueto]

It's as if Toyota purchased Porsche/Ferrari, created a dumbed down version of the cars, and kept the name, even if the cheap version was nowhere near as fast as the originals.

How would you feel if you had just bought one? ;-) (please don't take it 100% serious!)

 

[Jonas Rejman]

Any new rumors on when Resolve should be released?
Mine vary from "any minute now" to "hopefully August"...

 

[M Most]

Any new rumors on when Resolve should be released?
Mine vary from "any minute now" to "hopefully August"...

Resolve has been in release and used for at least 3 years. I assume what you're talking about is the Mac version.

 

[Alex Hastings]

The vast majority of high end systems currently being used ARE DaVincis (DaVinci 2K's, for the most part). They have been the industry standard, particularly for video work, for almost 25 years.



If you think of a DaVinci as a piece of $30K software, then you probably have no understanding of why some people are upset. In their eyes, Blackmagic has taken a respected brand name and turned it into a consumer level, commodity software product. Understand that and you'll begin to understand the reaction in the professional community.

I am the professional community?

The film industry and the commercial industry has been in a mass flux for many many years, this is nothing new. We can't all sit behind million dollar machines that do great work, then complain when a kid on After Effects makes something just as good on a 5k workstation. The industry has polarized. It's getting as much good out of pennies in hardware on one side and on the other side is Avatar and Inception, the middle is leaving. Everything below Avatar and Inception level is being squizzed and squizzed. I am not the one being doing the squizing, I am the one being squizzed. This is true for commercial, film etc..

If your protege one day goes and builds a 400 sq foot DI room, with pro-plasma and other lower priced items, and he understands LUTS and films outs and multiple DI/HD/WEB deliverable, and he uses DaVinci and is undercutting your hourly. That's just capitalism.

If you don't think he can COLOR as good as you or doesn't understand the industry like you do, then why would you care at all? He obviously is of no threat since you hold all the cards, right?

If its a magic wand thing, where you don't think general consumers understand the power of COLOR/DI and will use it inappropriately or incorrectly, then that's just silly.

If its a quality control thing? Well that always works itself out. Their has been junk of TV and on the screen through every media transition.

If your motivation is job security? Then I'm sorry, but its a kill or be killed market, and the film industry has never been nice.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

I don't think you have to worry about the "aspiring colorists." It's always the operators going rogue that do the most damage.

Name one of each.

A Rogue colorist who has left heavy Iron to go out on his own with an inferior solution.

B.A post house that was damaged from said Rogue leaving.

 

[Rick Turners]

I can name a few.. all former CO3.

One runs a iQ suite from his basement.
One runs Apple Color out of a suite on a studio lot in Hollywood.
One started his own company which has a daVinci 2k and is planning to purchase Resolve.

I know some of the clients they worked with prior stayed with them. After all, it's all about the artist, right?

not planning on giving out names

 

[M Most]

If your protege one day goes and builds a 400 sq foot DI room, with pro-plasma and other lower priced items, and he understands LUTS and films outs and multiple DI/HD/WEB deliverable, and he uses DaVinci and is undercutting your hourly. That's just capitalism.

Unless and until he learns that he can't charge his clients enough to make a good living because they feel that he should come as cheap as his equipment. Then it's a failed experiment in youthful enthusiasm. I'm not saying that always happens. I am saying that it's the likely outcome in an awful lot of cases.

If you don't think he can COLOR as good as you or doesn't understand the industry like you do, then why would you care at all? He obviously is of no threat since you hold all the cards, right?

None of what I've said has anything to do with threats, nor has it even touched on that subject, because quite frankly, that's not what I'm talking about. Nor does it have anything to do with me personally. You seem to be wanting to make my comments into a "me vs. them" type of scenario. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply commenting on the fact that businesses are built on certain financial structures, and part of that structure has to do with having abilities that go beyond the individual in ways that make a company more capable, efficient, and quality driven. All three are necessary at the higher end of the business. Once that is lost, the value of what's being offered drops, and it drops rather quickly in a troubled economic climate. Ultimately it drops below a point at which having the business allows the owner to make a living at it if the owner is an actual working adult who is possibly supporting a family. My concern is about the long term survival of an industry that doesn't allow its workers to make a living. It has nothing to do with "threats," and it has nothing to do with keeping young talent down. It has everything to do with people being able to afford to be in the business in the first place. For all of the cheers here about cheap stuff, there's very little notice of the simple fact that cheap stuff in many cases also means cheaper people operating that stuff. That's the way it works far more often than a lot of people here seem to be paying attention to.

 

[Frank Cueto]

Unless and until he learns that he can't charge his clients enough to make a good living because they feel that he should come as cheap as his equipment. Then it's a failed experiment in youthful enthusiasm. I'm not saying that always happens. I am saying that it's the likely outcome in an awful lot of cases.



None of what I've said has anything to do with threats, nor has it even touched on that subject, because quite frankly, that's not what I'm talking about. Nor does it have anything to do with me personally. You seem to be wanting to make my comments into a "me vs. them" type of scenario. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply commenting on the fact that businesses are built on certain financial structures, and part of that structure has to do with having abilities that go beyond the individual in ways that make a company more capable, efficient, and quality driven. All three are necessary at the higher end of the business. Once that is lost, the value of what's being offered drops, and it drops rather quickly in a troubled economic climate. Ultimately it drops below a point at which having the business allows the owner to make a living at it if the owner is an actual working adult who is possibly supporting a family. My concern is about the long term survival of an industry that doesn't allow its workers to make a living. It has nothing to do with "threats," and it has nothing to do with keeping young talent down. It has everything to do with people being able to afford to be in the business in the first place. For all of the cheers here about cheap stuff, there's very little notice of the simple fact that cheap stuff in many cases also means cheaper people operating that stuff. That's the way it works far more often than a lot of people here seem to be paying attention to.

Same way that the After FX guy, no matter how fast or good, ussualy gets paid less than the flame dude, even if he takes just as long...

Seen it plenty of times.