FORUMS: list search recent posts

anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10

COW Forums : DaVinci Resolve

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Andy Winter
anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 16, 2013 at 8:06:31 am

just curious. did anybody try it out yet? if so, does it work well?


Return to posts index

Dmitry Kitsov
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 16, 2013 at 9:30:22 pm

Tried, does not work, at least yet: no UI for the plugin, returns an error.


Return to posts index

jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 16, 2013 at 11:42:01 pm

Why?
Native Temporal NR in V10 is based on the same principal as Neat Video and you should get very similar results.


Return to posts index


Robert Ruffo
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 16, 2013 at 11:58:36 pm

Jake, Neat Video is different in that it allows you to define an area of what is solid/uniform (or what would be, if not for noise) using a square that you drag out. If find results from Neat Video are a bit better, maybe for that reason.


Return to posts index

jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 17, 2013 at 1:09:22 am

You can also define area for the native temporal NR by HSL qualifiers or by the windows.


Return to posts index

Dmitry Kitsov
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 17, 2013 at 1:48:32 am

@jake blackstone:
1. Native temporal is actually not at all similar to the neatvideo. It is instead similar to Re:vision Effects De:noise, and just as the latter suffers from optical flow artifacts. Neat Video does not have too many visible motion artifacts and also allows for different treatment of different noise frequencies. Additionally you may have it analyze 10 frames other than the current frame, while native temporal will do 4 frames it seems.
2. Robert was not talking about qualification of filter effect, he was talking about the ability to analyze noise level in different frequency bands.


Return to posts index


jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 17, 2013 at 3:53:03 am

The temporal NR reduction principal is the same in every piece of software. It's just the way to identify what is noise and what is not. Obviously, being able to analyze 4 frames spread vs 10 frames is a quality disadvantage. Said that, BMD had to make a determination between speed and quality. If they did allow 10 frames analysis, Resolve would be unable to do it in real time. Neat Video doesn't work in real time without the render and for color grading is a no go. Until BMD fixes Resolve's cache, Neat Video or not, you're stuck with just the native temporal NR for real time playback.


Return to posts index

Andy Winter
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 17, 2013 at 8:35:12 am

thanks for the info :(

i didn't try the new resolve nr, but neat is the best
nr i ever worked with. with a little tweaking, i get
stunning results with it!

i didn't hope to work in RT with it, but to judge the
result in resolve and then use render cache or simply
do a first pass NR on all the material in a seperate
directory and relink it afterwards. all within resolve, which
would be a huge timesaver!

dmitry, did you write neat about it? are they working on the
issue?


Return to posts index

Dmitry Kitsov
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 17, 2013 at 8:55:52 am

Yeah. The developers are aware.


Return to posts index


Bill Ravens
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 17, 2013 at 2:48:10 pm

NeatVideo is the defacto standard for noise reduction software. I've spoken with the developers at NV. The issue appears to be bugs in the beta version of Resolve 10. As soon as these are resolved(no pun intended) NV will be up and running in Davinci.



Return to posts index

jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 17, 2013 at 6:26:07 pm

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the idea of using OFX in Resolve right now in it's present iteration is half baked and not ready for prime time. Throwing a single plugin like Bleach bypass brings Resolve to a crawl. With three GPUs I'm getting only 18 fps. And that plug in is not really that resource hungry, like Neat Video. So, if you're OK with VERY SLOW playback, when you want to use Neat Video, then fine. But, I repeat, until BMD decides to implement persistent background caching correctly, OFX is just a gimmick and nothing more.


Return to posts index

Robert Ruffo
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 20, 2013 at 8:08:40 pm

Jake, that's not the same. Neat video applies to the whole image (of course you can always qualify it later) , but uses selection for "learning" what is noise vs what is image data. Let's say you have a grey panel and it's supposed to be solid, but it's full of blu-ish noise because of the sensor used. Resolve has no way of you telling it that panel within the image is supposed to be solid, so it has less information to go on to learn what the noise patterns are, and differentiate them from image texture.

I would also add that real time is an easy fix. Grading with a client is one thing, but noise reduction is often done "off session", on a noted "to do list", just like 3D animations and other CPU-hungry or operator-time-hungry effects. In some cases, if your entire DI is restricted only to what can render in real time you are selling your client short on (WAY short) on the full rainbow of possibilities of computer image enhancement.


Return to posts index


jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 20, 2013 at 9:50:16 pm

I seriously disagree with just about each point you're making Robert.
The principal of temporal NR is the same, regardless of the software. Implementation can differ, but the main principal remains the same- motion analysis of pixel trajectory is used to decide what is noise and what is not. If you feel, that you must qualify the area where the NR is used no one stops you from doing it. If anything, the notion of spending an inordinate amount of time on something, that should be done pretty much automatically flies in the face of modern color grading. Modern color grading is all about the control and speed. That is why I feel, that Resolve has a long way to go in accommodating the colorist's need for better panel mapping and concentrating on creative grading and not on the incessant button pushing. Some companies, like FilmLight or Nucoda managed to balance the power of it's tools with the simplicity of the interface by allowing users to modify it to their own preferences. Take for example the NR in FilmMaster. It's an exact opposite of Neat Video. There is NO interaction required. it's one button push and the software magically "knows" the difference between film grain and noise. And the result is simply unrivaled by anyone in the business.
No, real time is not easy, if everything has to be done on the fly. That is why the same before mentioned manufacturers have very powerful caching capabilities, where you can apply NR and those systems will seamlessly perform that operation in the background while you grade, as well as R3D debayer.
I would volunteer, that DI is the last place, where you'd want to do many types of VFX work. It should be done by the qualified artist and by using a proper software- AE, Smoke, Nuke etc, where client will get much better results, much faster and at the lower cost, rather that trying to cram it into DI session. Sometimes more is not better...


Return to posts index

Robert Ruffo
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 21, 2013 at 7:56:58 pm

Jake, the results is different, so whether there is a chunk of shared code under the hood or not, the added controls and "noise learning tools (box around what should be solid in color)" of neat video give a better result - so who cares if they get there using the same underlying code. Me-thinks the result is what matters. I'm sure there are other plugins that get better results than Neat Video while requiring much less user input but Resolve's new noise reduction is not one of them, at least not on number of shot types.

My real-time comment was mis-worded and/or a typo. I simply meant "more convenient" "more expedient".

I don't see where I said eternal VFX artists should be kept out of the loop. I was suggesting the contrary, that some things, like good noise reduction, should be done "off session", by the colorist or someone better qualified to do whatever needs doing, depending on what that thing is . Who is doing it is not the issue, trying to ram too many things into what can be done in real time, when much higher quality non-real time solutions exists is the issue - it is letting the client down.

WIth the budgets and fees most of deal with here, many of the options you suggest would never be amortized, so we must choose between affordable possibilities, Neat Video being one of them. The cost of buying or renting extremely expensive solutions is not a wise investment compared to cost of spending a few off-client or off-sire minutes fiddling with Neat Video when particular shots require it.

That said we see more and more people like me who have training and experience on a variety of sectors of post. "Modern post/D.I." is often post where there is very limited budgets, and no time or money to hire a large group of specialists. What one guy can't do just won't get done.


Return to posts index

jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 21, 2013 at 8:16:53 pm

Robert.
We're keep talking past each other.
I'm not advocating less choice. I'm rather for more creative choices. I use OFX Genarts plugins with Nucoda FilmMaster and I love it. Thee reason I enjoy using then with Nucoda, I don't have to worry about real time performance hit. It's always real time no matter how many plugins or layers or "nodes" I use.
As far as offloading NR to other systems, on the contrary, I strongly believe, that noise reduction SHOULD be done during the grading session. it had always been done that way, even going back to telecine times using real time noise reduction courtesy of the same Nucoda company- DVNR. The problem, that I'm talking about is that now with V10 colorist faces this choice:
1. Do I do NR, that although it may provide better quality, the resulting playback will not be anywhere near real time playback.
2. Do I use built in NR and while getting a decent quality, I could maintain real time playback.
I propose, that there should be no need for such choice. All BMD needs to do is to implement a true persistent background cache. That's it. In the absence of such, all this OFX business is useless in a true client supervised post production environment. Well, at least to me...
Final note. As we all know there is no free lunch. One of the most important traits of Resolve is it's pretty much bulletproof. It hardly ever crashes. Plug ins are written by a third parties. Therefore one would hope, that their plugins conform to the vigorous testing of BMD. So far, for me, I found, that many Genarts plugins consistently crash Resolve. Said that, this is still just a beta version, so I will reserve the final judgement on the system stability till the final product ships.


Return to posts index


Robert Ruffo
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 22, 2013 at 2:26:10 am

[jake blackstone] "Robert.
We're keep talking past each other.
I'm not advocating less choice. I'm rather for more creative choices. I use OFX Genarts plugins with Nucoda FilmMaster and I love it. Thee reason I enjoy using then with Nucoda, I don't have to worry about real time performance hit. It's always real time no matter how many plugins or layers or "nodes" I use.
As far as offloading NR to other systems, on the contrary, I strongly believe, that noise reduction SHOULD be done during the grading session. it had always been done that way, even going back to telecine times using real time noise reduction courtesy of the same Nucoda company- DVNR. The problem, that I'm talking about is that now with V10 colorist faces this choice:
1. Do I do NR, that although it may provide better quality, the resulting playback will not be anywhere near real time playback.
2. Do I use built in NR and while getting a decent quality, I could maintain real time playback.
I propose, that there should be no need for such choice. All BMD needs to do is to implement a true persistent background cache. That's it. In the absence of such, all this OFX business is useless in a true client supervised post production environment. Well, at least to me...
Final note. As we all know there is no free lunch. One of the most important traits of Resolve is it's pretty much bulletproof. It hardly ever crashes. Plug ins are written by a third parties. Therefore one would hope, that their plugins conform to the vigorous testing of BMD. So far, for me, I found, that many Genarts plugins consistently crash Resolve. Said that, this is still just a beta version, so I will reserve the final judgement on the system stability till the final product ships."


Jake, I don't mena to "talk past you". I have tremendous respect for the extremely beautiful work you do, particularly in fashion related pieces. I'm sure (kinda sure...) that stability will improve, but that's another matter.

I think real-time has lost some of it's prominence in many workflows. One main reason is there is no tape to dump to any more, much of the time. Another is that "stop and work" is now much more common than "grade as tape flies by" . We have to stop anyway, to do things like set-up power windows and so on, so taking a second to set-up a pre-render of a proxy and coming back to it later is no biggle - the client is used to waiting for things to happen, and from their perspective waiting on the operator or on the machine is not that different.

i would add that dense east-coast style cities where clients live within a mile or two of the studio are much more conducive to coming back and checking in many times In L.A. it's hours of horrible traffic, so things may end up working differently.

Expectations are also much higher these days - and much of what clients ask for from a colorist does border on VFX and could never be real-time. And... Quiet frankly I have never seen any noise reduction that was as good as Neat Video and could work in real time in 1080p, let alone 4K, even at Big Iron shops.

The system you speak of uses extremely expensive dedicated hardware. Budgets being what they are, it would loose value faster than billings could come in for most people in most market in 2013. So, sadly, sounds great, but I could never pay that off and neither could many people here.


Return to posts index

jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 22, 2013 at 6:09:05 am

Robert.
I'd like to clear our a few things. First, Nucoda's Clarity noise reduction is a new type of noise reduction in addition to the traditional noise reduction, that still can be used, if needed. Clarity is in a league by itself. It is fully automatic with no input from user needed. Neat Video in comparison looks very crude, with an inferior quality of the resultant video and it requires a LOT of user adjustments.
Just to clarify, FilmMaster runs on any standard PC. My computer has just a single quad processor, but with very fast fiber drives for cache rendering. As a result FilmMaster runs circles around Resolve, despite Resolve having much more capable hardware, including 3 GPUs. FilmMaster just much more elegant and it manages to always get out of the way of my creativity. I never have to worry about FilmMaster's real time performance, because despite it's puny hardware, it's always real time.
As I said before, I believe, colorists are hired to grade and VFX artists are there for a reason. All of my jobs are supervised by directors, DPs and or agency people. I can't imagine the situation, where they all would just sit around and wait for me to perform any kind of substantial VFX work. Color grading requires fluidity and speed. I'm sure many do-it-yourselfers will get to use whole bunch of plugins, but in it's present iteration I can't see VFX happening at the high level commercial or feature work. Why do I know this?Because FilmMaster has all new Resolve's capabilities and much more for a few years now and just because I can do all this stuff, it doesn't mean, that I should. Nor am I asked to do it by my clients, once they realize, that it can be very costly. They do pay by the hour:-)
All I'm saying, once BMD implements proper disk caching, that is fully user interaction-free, persistent and is in the background, like, say, FCPX, then I see no reason, why people couldn't use Neat Video, if they want to. The whole OFX right now is not ready for the primetime. Right now using just a single OFX plugin causes my system to stop being real time. And I have 3 GPUs! So, right now I'm planning to use only the built in temporal NR.


Return to posts index

Robert Ruffo
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 22, 2013 at 7:54:09 am

Jake, not all my jobs are supervised like that. Most are a situation where they come in for a talk, and come back later to see, make notes, and come back again. I think this is more of an East Coast thing, because distances are very small, and there are cafes on every corner, and its' just part of the lifestyle.

Its' only the final finesse pass that's 100% supervised, IF I am only the colorist

Much of my work (like many people here) even involves me being my own client for grading on music videos and feature DP work. In Music Videos, even for major labels, the client only comments when we hand the thing in, and usually simply is happy with the color grade.

I take color grading seriously and have apprenticed several times with senior colorists, and taken post graduate courses in color theory, but it's just one thing I do here in a boutique service house that has many configurations. My situation is not altogether atypical. I think a dedicated full time colorist is becoming less common as the typical user of DaVinci, for better or worse.

Filmmaster sounds amazing. I am by no means a Davinci fanboy, even less a fan of BM and their business practices. How much is a Filmmaster license? Their website stated no prices. Do they have a good tracker/power windows system?

My hourly rate might be lower than yours, but is still quite high, but I pass off the tedious pixel pushing to off-site vendors. Again, it's notes, then a to do list, then an FTP transfer of the shots to guys who fix them. Often 2 hours later the fixed shots are on the timeline.

If I were quickly adding a genarts glow or something it might take less time to drop it in, and just set-up a proxy render - than to try and emulate the same look fo teh same quality in Davinci native tools.

The Gnearts glow interface is very simple and fast. Rendering a proxy takes maybe 20 seconds for most clip lengths - then we are flying in real time again.


I stand by the notion that certain very desirable results (we'll let specifically noise reduction aside for now) related to grading are best done in systems that do not operate in real time, and that having a real time only philosophy limits possibilities.

Even without OFX present, Resolve 10 crashes often and hard, and I would say it really is just a Beta, maybe even an Alpha at this time. I;m sure it will improve in stability.


Return to posts index

Mike Most
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 22, 2013 at 4:00:44 pm

> It should be done by the qualified artist and by using a proper software- AE, Smoke, Nuke etc, where >client will get much better results, much faster and at the lower cost, rather that trying to cram it into DI >session. Sometimes more is not better...

But sometimes it actually is. As an example, my friend Leo Marini (he owns Local Hero in Santa Monica) has made his reputation on being able to incorporate basic VFX creation into his DI sessions (he uses Scratch, which is arguably a bit better suited for that kind of thing) and has attracted a very nice following of directors and DP's who really appreciate his approach. His policy is that if he feels it will take more than 5 or 10 minutes in the DI room, he sends it off to a VFX artist, but a lot of "clean up" things don't really take any longer than that, and his clients can see the results instantly, at full resolution, in a theater environment. So it's a give and take. Of course, Leo is a very experienced VFX compositor and graphics designer as well as a very talented colorist, and not many people sitting in DI chairs fall into that category. But for the few that do, it's a very valid and successful approach, if a bit unorthodox. I would also note that Steve Scott, who does nearly all of the Marvel shows at Technicolor, has really pushed Autodesk for more complete integration of Lustre and Flame, for similar reasons (it helps that Steve started as a Flame artist, of course.....). For artists like Steve, Flame Premium is preferable to standalone Lustre, just as Scratch is preferable to Resolve for Leo.

Jake, I'm curious. What programs do you own, if any? Over the last few years, you and I have discussed Resolve, Baselight, Nucoda, Lustre, Pablo, etc. I've run the 2K, Resolve, and Baselight (and Pablo, very briefly..) in facilities I've worked in, but I've only owned Resolve, and only since it became a Blackmagic product. I know you have an appreciation for multiple systems just like I do, but you seem to favor one over others at any point in time, and the one you favor seems to change. At one time you were much more of a Baselight fan, and I seem to recall you favoring Lustre for a time as well, but now it seems you lean to the Nucoda camp. Just curious.....


Return to posts index

jake blackstone
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 22, 2013 at 5:57:37 pm

I use OFX plugins all the time and I do a bit of layering and simple compositing during grading, while using FimlMaster. All I'm saying, right now without the ability to do proper caching, Resolve can't really utilize OFX the way it's intended. We could revisit this subject once Resolve acquires this caching capability:-)
Over the years I had owned pretty much every grading systems, except Pablo. As a result, you tend to familiarize yourself with different design philosophies. There is a certain beauty to be able to be software agnostic. I'm still in awe of Colofront. They were true visionaries, when they completely re-imagined the whole process of color grading. After all these years Colofront designed interface hardly changed and in my opinion, it is still the most efficient and elegant interface in existence. FilmLight has the best group of engineers, dedicated to relentlessly advancing the of color grading and color management among other things. Today Baselight is at the pinnacle of color grading. It is the most flexible and powerful systems anywhere. Which brings me to Nucoda. Right now this is my weapon of choice. FilmMaster doesn't have the best interface, it's not that powerful, unless you set up the Turbine render farm and it runs on Windows. Nucoda utilizes many years of experience in noise reduction and as result it has the best noise reduction I had ever seen. Actually there are two. It has best sharpening, antialiasing filters, great keyers, deformation trackers a-la Mocha. I could go on and on. And did I mentioned the best caching?
Anyway, to answer your question, I really don't have a favorite grading software. In my head I have this amalgamation of all these tools, that I wish I could just call upon when needed. No software is perfect. It's just some software is more perfect, than other.
So, if somehow I could design my own system based on all these different design philosophies, I would choose Luster's interface, Baselight's panel, Nucoda's grading tools and Resolves's hardware and price:-)
Robert. Yes, there is no price on Nucoda's web site. It is the same, if you'd go on the FilmLight site. just to give you an idea on the price, it's in the same range as Baselight:-)


Return to posts index

Mike Most
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Sep 22, 2013 at 6:34:38 pm

We see a lot of this in much the same way. I agree with you about Baselight, and I'd go further and say that there's something kind of special about the way Baselight "feels." I find that it's "easier" - sometimes considerably easier - to get a really perfect result, especially when working with log material and the film grade strip, than it is with just about anything else (although I don't have a lot of Lustre experience). Just something about the way Baselight mixes color that's really effective. But I agree about the need to have at least some familiarity with all of them, and I try to do the same, even though I'm not a full time colorist anymore.


Return to posts index

fabien graniola
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Nov 15, 2013 at 12:24:18 pm

Hello,

is there someone who can explain to me how installing genarts sapphire ofx into resolve 10 ? I install the ofx plugin into the default folder (commmon/ofx...) but on resolve, the ofx button is greyed and says i should install openfx plugin to enable it.


Return to posts index

Anand Vyas
Re: anyone tried neat openfx with resolve 10
on Jan 12, 2014 at 9:38:13 pm

I just got it and works about 10 times as fast on my CinemaDNG raw files from my BMCC. It also seems to "look better" since its denoising prior to the bayer process.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]