FranciscoB

I'm a resolve studio user and I don't get the new version every year. It has bugs everytime and needs fixes with firmware updates. How about delivering a solid product, on time? And how about a good solid version every two years or so? Editing rarely needs constant updates. The color page is already pretty amazing. Fairlight is my only advice to be better, with more incorporation in the edit page. Better eq's and native tools.

Yes. Andrew is right. Clog 2 is dangerous when you underexpose. Clog 3 is better for low light as it is a more contrasty curve. You need to give more light to your pictures in order to overcome the noise barrier.

I haven't checked the movie so I won't comment on that. I say kudos to that man. Investing 700k in his own project is huge. I would argue that investing 10k or 700k on him is the same but it's not. The principle is the same tough. Believing in yourself and finding ways to do your own thing in, with your own small fortune, is not easy. Even if I dislike the movie, that man has my respect. Because we all know that most of that budget is spent on crew, actors, food, expenses, renting and other needs. Thats not "glamorous". It's passion.

I'm finishing a documentary project with 3 episodes in resolve. It's heavy with over 2 years of footage and with a 2015 pc laptop. 4k Sony a7s II files. Always with playback on half resolution and color correction disabled until the final touches. It's been working for me even tough its not a flawless performance. But that's mainly due to my old pc and not resolve. Had to leave premiere in the middle of the project as it was too unreliable. Did some xmls and never looked back. My main issue was learning Fairlight audio tools. The rest is solid. Never bothered with the cut page. I hid most of it and just work with media, edit, color and deliver.

Don't want to sound like a dick but what's with the picture covers on youtube? Everybody does the same thing. Funny face and the product smashed in front of it. Is there an agreement on this or just an established trend?

I think it's a great feature. If that doesn't limit the DR.

Yeah, you're right.

Shit. Almost there. Give a guy an hdmi out and we're good to go. While you see trough the evf, someone else can see on an monitor with the hdmi out. The more expensive model previously released has a fan and is noisy... Hope they dont do that mistake again.

What a shitshow of a promotion for this camera. What happened to specs, good footage and NON 6 HOURS videos?

Yes, it is. But it isn't necessary for him to leave. Just for both of them to respect each others opinion.

Off course, you're right. When the episodes are released, I'll share with everyone 👍

Yes, it was based on how the aspect ratio is perceived, on how it could help with the sensation of people being left behind and the conversation about wildfires in our country being the same for the last decades. It's an old subject that keeps getting worse. Its very much a subjective choice but I'm happy I went with it. I'm releasing the first two episodes in a few weeks but if you want a sneak peek, I can send you the links in exchange for your honest opinion. I would offer the same to everyone on the forum but I havent't developed the subtitles.

Obrigado @Emanuel 👍 I used a sony a7s ii with canon yellow ring lenses. I like the 4:3 aspect ratio and it seemed appropriate for the subject and feel of the documentary. Luckily, filmconvert nitrate was release and I got a few more lessons on resolve so now I'm much happier with the final images. I did a new test with handbrake and with quality to 15, x265 and medium speed ( was pretty slow ) I got a 3gb files from a 53gb. Much better quality.

Off course you can, why wouldn't you? https://www.youtube.com/user/franciscobfroes/ Judge away 😄 That was one of my questions about youtube uploading. So it's definitily worth the extra step?

Is there a x264 plug in for resolve? I'm aware of the YouTube and vimeo guidelines for awhile. I've got better results from x264 than h264 so that's why I've kept doing it. Maybe now I will start with x265. I know YouTube compression will always deteriorate video quality. I asked this because of differences on quality by uploading 4k instead of 1080p. Does that still make a difference? And yes... I can't control where people see their videos so I'll just upload the best file I can get.

I did a slow encoding with 18 on the quality bar. From a 50gb master file I got a 700mb x265 one. The quality is OK but compared with the master, you notice the difference right away. I'll need to up the quality for better final file. Do mobile phones display 4:3 correctly on a vertical display? Or you always need to rotate to get a better view? I agree with you. If that decision will turn away viewers, might as well do that and increase the chances for views.

Hello all. What's your advice for delivering a solid picture quality for YouTube? I'm delivering in fhd. I usually export a dnxhd 10bit file for a master and use handbrake with x264 compression for uploading. I tried x265 but the loss of clarity is huge. Also, do you export a 16:9 file with bars or do you export it without the bars? I have a large project for delivery in 1:33 and altought is going to be available on YouTube, I kinda want to disincentivize people to watch it on phones and smaller screens. What's your take? Thanks.

I don't argue against the extra quality that raw files give you. In some cameras that could be more evident than others. What I meant was the extra hassle and time that raw files impose on your work flow. Sure if it's a one day shoot it's not a big deal. Now multiply that for several days and the amount of extra time you lose dealing with transfer times, possible transcoding and slow performance on your nle for a small to medium improvement on image quality is not worth the effort for most shoots. Not to mention the extra money you spend on cards and storage. And since I always have redundancies for storage, it's a lot of time spent just transferring files. To summarize, I'm not against raw but I see people praising it without recognizing the amount of extra time and money needed to deal with it. Want to shoot raw? Go for it.

So you're finding that raw is too much for the majority your needs and a good 10bit file is a great for most shoots? 😄

Sure. I'm curious as well how the new competition is gaining on the a7s ii.

I have some clips of an a7s ii in super high isos. I can send some clips to you. The problem with the a7s ii in crazy high iso is the compression and of course noise. You can get good results but your image starts to go soft.

I agree that deepfakes could be a big problem in the future that will only create more doubt and confusion. Fake news with lies and manipulated media are already here. But the argument that film will be a solution to fight for truth in the future doesn't seem very likely to me. Probably someone will create a software that tells you if something has been manipulated or just plainly demonstrating your original digital files. People will always believe in what they want or try to descredit you with false acusations. Ps: You can print a digital movie on film, so you still have that "possibility" of manipulation.

That would mean they would have to edit on an old moviola and never touch a computer for digital editing. The moment you scan your footage and edit it somehow you're already subject to doubt and distortion. But isn't film always a distortion? For various reasons you manipulate time and emotion with cutting. Before that you manipulate what you see with blocking, lighting and framing. Even if you never cut and only use real people and situations, you're always going to manipulate what other people see through framing and distance. And that only shows a portion of what is on front of you. I could ramble on this topic for a while. Sorry.

Never heard of it but it could be 👍

Film is still a desired medium for long time storage. Nobody knows the media of the future but film can always be digitized. That's why it's still a relevant medium beyond acquisition.