That's an interesting response. I think there's a point where you have to hire experienced people who know what they're doing, rather than trying to shoulder all the work yourself in a desperate effort to save money. I don't doubt (for example) that one person could serve as gaffer, electrician, grip, camera operator, DIT, and cinematographer... but wouldn't it be faster and artistically more effective to hire six people? God knows, the job of a director or DP is hard enough without expecting them to do everything else.
My take is that Fusion is a very complex program on its own, and I hope it won't be absorbed into Resolve. As Jake has noted elsewhere, Resolve on its own still has a wealth of bugs and issues that have yet to be solved. It's a fantastic program for color, but it needs a lot of work and there are some additional features and refinements that I think will suit average users more than compositing and VFX.
And for the most part, they're going to get no distribution and will make no money. That is the sad reality of the indie feature business. Even $100K is a bottom-of-the-barrel level, pretty much at the SAG Ultra-Low level. You can make movies without SAG actors, but the reality is that distributors tend to only want to buy movies with actors who have some reasonable credits. And trust me, I know of actors who've done hundreds of films who would gladly work for a couple of grand a day. Some of them are really, really good, too.
That is sadly true. I like the ones who claim that major A-list features were done with LUTs "like these," when in truth those were custom LUTs built by the facility and by the colorist specifically for that project. I have no problem with those, but you can't buy them.
Yes, that did happen and then, as i just told you in the private exchange, under a guise of wanting to learn, you had asked me to explain how I had done a certain image and then you immediately turned around and used it for another one of your blogs, along with one of my images as an illustration for that idea only to present it as your own idea without ever mentioning my contribution or giving me any attribution.
Yes, for a price…
If I may chime in here since this has all of a sudden became a discussion about LUTs and apparently my reputation. Let me first of all say that I admire and respect Jake Blackstone as a colorist. This couldn't further be demonstrated than by the fact that I highlighted his talent 5 years ago on one of my blogs: http://www.digitalcinemafoundry.com/2010/04/22/somebody-to-love-colorist-feature/
Furthermore I appreciated his insight on ACES and the challenge with LUTs as an end to end workflow.
We do have the ability to enable CTL (Color Transformation Language) in our app that is at the very core of Aces
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/color-transformation-language
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/aces
I have no need to defend myself as a 'working' colorist with a steady but growing clientele but what I don't appreciate is this attitude of elitism. I have always sought to share what I could and perhaps improve the experience for someone else but it is degrading and insulting to say one isn't talented because they "used a LUT", "blew out the highlights", "crushed the blacks", no wait, "milky blacks" and perhaps the biggest insult, "I like the Before better than the After." These are not always trolling comments I have seen over the years but people can be real *ssholes over subjective material.
I'd be happy to participate in this thread and reconnect with you Jake
