FORUMS: list search recent posts

Re: Do you conform inside Resolve?

COW Forums : DaVinci Resolve

VIEW ALL   •   ADD A NEW POST   •   PRINT
Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread


MichaelMaier
Re: Do you conform inside Resolve?
on Mar 9, 2013 at 10:28:38 am

Hey Chris. This is a great reply! It's exactly the type of reply I was expecting to get when I started this thread. Extremely useful and insightful. Thanks for that!

Please see my replies bellow.

[Chris Kenny] "The budget DIY solution is to export ProRes 4444 and take it into FCP 7, FCP X (which actually has some pretty cool abilities with respect to routing multichannel audio and batch-generating multiple deliverables formats) or perhaps Premiere Pro."

I'm totally PC based now. So FCP is a no go. I don't use Premiere either.

[Chris Kenny] "Technically, yes, you are losing something with ProRes 4444 vs. DPX. As a practical matter, you will likely never be able to tell the difference. ProRes 4444 is widely used as a mastering codec in the indie film world. It's similar in quality to HDCAM SR, which has generally been considered an acceptable master format."

But in my experience when using Prores files in Resolve, at list in Windows, it seems to clip the highlights. The same for example doesn't happen to DNxHD. After importing it to the media pool, if you right click on the file> clip attributes> and choose data levels instead of auto, the clipped highlights in a DNxHD clip shows the full range and are brought back, showing highlight detail that seemed lost. The same doesn't happen to Prores clips. I'm talking about clips captured by a camera in either DNxHD or Prores. Not clips converted to Prores from another codec.
From talking to several other people who also experience the same problem, it seems to be a Prores problem. On top of that, Prores on windows can have gamma shift problems etc. I think it's a great codec, but only if you are on a Mac. Just my personal opinion. For that reason my whole workflow is DNxHD based, at least till it hits Resolve.

[Chris Kenny] "In fact, the last time we delivered a product to have a DCP made, we had prepped a DPX sequence, and our contact at the other facility basically told us that yeah, they can handle DPX, but the vast majority of projects are delivering ProRes these days."

Maybe their motivation would be that Prores is probably much easier for them to handle than a DPX sequence.

[Chris Kenny] "As for generational quality loss from compressing twice, that's not really a big deal. First, ProRes is specifically designed to minimize generational quality loss, for just these sorts of scenarios. Secondly, while I'm not sure how Premiere handles things, in FCP 7 and X, if you export a sequence containing ProRes footage to a ProRes file, re-compression only occurs where necessary — for instance, if you've layered titles on top of the video. If a segment of video is untouched, the ProRes data is simply copied from the input file to the output file, rather than being decoded and then re-encoded."

I don't know. I'm really paranoid with the compression thing. I guess it's trauma from the old DV/DVCAM/DVCPRO days. :)
To be safe I would rather go DPX or at least TIFF.

[Chris Kenny] "If you do want to master to DPX, though, Premiere Pro does support it, although I haven't tested this workflow. The next step up in terms of price would probably be Smoke."

But what about After Effects for example? I have heard of people finishing on it and if we can even start thinking of doing it on Resolve, After Effects could also do it, maybe even better since it has a better timeline and you can do any graphics and titling there. I would still grade in Resolve though. But instead of going back to the NLE, After Effects would maybe make more sense?

There's also Blender 3D, which is the closest thing we have to Smoke and even closer than AE since it has a proper timeline and video editing function, along with 3D CGI, powerful node based compositing, matchmoving, tracking, rotoscoping, color grading etc.


[Chris Kenny] "Depending on the types of projects you work on, however, mastering in Resolve may indeed be viable. Note that Resolve supports alpha channels in ProRes 4444 files, which gives you a pretty easy way to get title over image, etc. You can bring in audio, sync it up, and embed it in your outputs."

That's interesting.

About audio, would it really be enough, enough channels etc?


[Chris Kenny] "The main limitations with this approach are a) you're going to be rendering out a bunch of elements in other apps and bringing them into Resolve, where in a fully-fledged finishing tool you could do everything in one app,"

Yes, but if finishing on a NLE you would still need to be rendering out a bunch of elements in other apps. At least in Resolve you eliminate one more step and also one less compression.
I think that there's no discussion that using a fully-fledged finishing tool is much better than doing it on Resolve. But the point here is if one doesn't have such a tool as Smoke. What do after Resolve or in Resolve? I think this workflow you are talking may be very viable. The question is if it would be viable for long form, such as a feature film. But sounds interesting nonetheless. Good idea.

[Chris Kenny] "b) if you need fancy audio channel configurations, etc. in QuickTime outputs there's no way to set that up,"

Could you elaborate a bit on that? I'm not sure I get it.

[Chris Kenny] "c) if your program is long enough to have been broken up into reels, you might need to splice them together in an external app."

Does anybody break shows into reels anymore these days? I thought that was only important if you were going to transfer it to 35mm.

[Chris Kenny] "Although the last limitation goes away if you're rendering to an image sequence format; then if you setup your timecode correctly you can just render all your reels to one folder and get a continuous sequence. (Though note that for e.g. mastering a DCP the facility you deliver to may prefer reels.)"

Really? I wonder why since at the time of projection there's no need to change reels and it will be a straight through shot.

Chris, thanks again for taking the time to type that great reply. It already helped loads and is changing the way I was thinking of approaching my workflow. The thing is this is for a feature film for the festival circuit that I may get in, in a month or so. Since I have never done this before I need to re-access all my workflow, specially finishing.



Posts IndexRead Thread 


Current Message Thread:





© 2019 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]