SIGN IN
::
SPONSORS
::
ADVERTISING
::
ABOUT US
::
CONTACT US
FORUMS
TUTORIALS
MAGAZINE
STOCKYARD
VIDEOS
PODCASTS
EVENTS
SERVICES
NEWSLETTER
NEWS
BLOGS
FORUMS:
list
list (w/ descriptions)
archive
tags
search
hall of fame
recent posts
Re: C300 = Fail
COW Forums
:
DaVinci Resolve
VIEW ALL
•
ADD A NEW POST
•
PRINT
Respond to this post
•
Return to posts index
•
Read entire thread
Re: C300 = Fail
by
Joseph Owens
on Dec 21, 2012 at 1:41:37 am
[Juan Salvo]
"8 bit also means c-log is a really bad idea"
Cannot stress this enough.
One word: HORRIBLE.
Way worse than underexposed 5298 when Eastman first brought it out. C-Log is not log, it is compressed linear. Was just asked the question last night about any anti-log curves that might be available, but no, there is none. Cinematographers shoot "off the chart" anyway, so there is no "put the contrast back in" filter. Dropping the lift is a one-way ticket to Noise City...
The 8-bit reveals itself very, very quickly if you need to stretch the pedestal at all. The vectorscope display shows a broken, stepping gamut grating that would not make an effective horse-fly swatter.
Of course the Long-GOP means the CPUs are working very, very hard to sustain frame rates, tracking is questionable, often the preview turns into a noise garble... and secondary qualifications? Might look okay parked on the frame, but hit "Play" and your qualifiers start flapping like flightless waterfowl. Edges are choppy, the noise makes it almost impossible to be exact with HSL qualifiers.
Actually, when I do hit "Play", my UPS power supplies start screaming in overload -- I checked the display once... the MacPro was drawing 850 watts.
Oh, and when you get the media back on the timeline you will find that most of it is a frame delayed within the edits. Sometimes more. But for some reason, even when handles are set to none, you get another 2-3 frames on the head and tail of every clip.
Borders on fraud, IMHO.
jPo
"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.
Posts Index
Read Thread
Reply
Like
Current Message Thread:
C300 = Fail
by Perry Trest on Dec 20, 2012 at 3:14:58 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Sascha Haber on Dec 20, 2012 at 3:22:03 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Perry Trest on Dec 20, 2012 at 3:29:59 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by James Sullivan on Dec 20, 2012 at 3:49:18 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Perry Trest on Dec 20, 2012 at 3:55:56 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Kevin Cannon on Dec 20, 2012 at 3:53:16 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Perry Trest on Dec 20, 2012 at 4:03:48 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Juan Salvo on Dec 20, 2012 at 9:58:05 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Sascha Haber on Dec 20, 2012 at 10:15:23 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Margus Voll on Dec 21, 2012 at 6:33:44 am
Re: C300 = Fail
by Robbie Carman on Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21:27 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Robert Houllahan on Dec 20, 2012 at 10:28:55 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Dmitry Kitsov on Dec 20, 2012 at 10:55:35 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Juan Salvo on Dec 20, 2012 at 11:47:23 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Joseph Owens on Dec 21, 2012 at 1:41:37 am
Re: C300 = Fail
by Eric Johnson on Dec 21, 2012 at 6:28:07 am
Re: C300 = Fail
by Dmitry Kitsov on Dec 21, 2012 at 9:09:52 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by John Tissavary on Dec 21, 2012 at 3:20:09 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Perry Trest on Dec 21, 2012 at 3:22:46 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Kevin Cannon on Dec 21, 2012 at 5:13:44 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Al Arnold on Dec 21, 2012 at 5:41:57 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by John Tissavary on Dec 21, 2012 at 9:43:45 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Kevin Cannon on Dec 21, 2012 at 10:16:42 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Joseph Mastantuono on Dec 22, 2012 at 2:38:13 am
Re: C300 = Fail
by Paul Provost on Dec 26, 2012 at 12:40:34 am
Re: C300 = Fail
by Robert Ruffo on Jan 5, 2013 at 8:35:13 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Kevin Cannon on Jan 10, 2013 at 11:39:54 pm
Re: C300 = Fail
by Eric Johnson on Jan 11, 2013 at 6:46:29 pm
LOGIN TO REPLY
FORUMS
•
TUTORIALS
•
MAGAZINE
•
STOCKYARD
•
VIDEOS
•
PODCASTS
•
EVENTS
•
SERVICES
•
NEWSLETTER
•
NEWS
•
BLOGS
© 2013
CreativeCOW.net
All rights are reserved. -
Privacy Policy
[
Top
]