Marc Wielage

Contributors
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    124

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Marc Wielage

    Davinci Wide Gamut Non Color Managed

    in DaVinci Resolve

    My suggestion is to try to keep things simple. I don't necessarily think working in a wide-gamut world will help you unless you plan some serious HDR deliveries. Having said that, Alexis Van Hurkman has an excellent 3-hour tutorial on Resolve Color Management, and it specifically covers wide gamut as well as the advantages and disadvantages of ACES vs. RCM:

    https://www.rippletraining.com/products/davinci-resolve/color-management-in-davinci-resolve-17/

    One thing I think is helpful is that he shows how to take a project completely corrected in SDR and then do a trim pass for HDR. I think this will be useful for certain situations where, long after the fact, the client decides to spend the extra money to have the colorist provide an additional HDR version. 

    As far as matching different cameras goes, I think that's something you can already get with Color Space Transform nodes and actually work independently of color management or even LUTs, for that matter. As long as you have a calibrated display and a color-managed output, you can work just fine in a display-managed environment and get the whole project done. Knowing scopes and the peculiarities of specific cameras will help a lot.

    How do you use the ACES workflow? How to use ACES to set LUTs?

    in DaVinci Resolve

    6 hours ago, Bruno Mansi said:

    There's lots of tutorials on YouTube  with titles like "Five Mistakes Amateur Colourists Make" and "The Pro Colourist Secret to  Beautiful Cinematic Images".

    It's trying to sell the idea that there's a right way and all other ways are inferior/wrong.  I appreciate there's a certain amount of click-bait going on here, but looking at the number of 'likes' and general comments, a lot of people are being sucked into this way of thinking.

    One of these 'secret-sauce' ideas is that by working in ACES, you'll automatically achieve the so-called cinematic look. It seems to me that every pro colourist that takes the time to comment on their workflow, will have a different way of achieving their goal.  It's about developing your own style and methods to achieve the results that clients want.

    Beautifully said, Bruno. I always say, "the beauty of Resolve is that there's often at least 4 or 5 different ways to get good results. The key is to use the one with which you're comfortable, and the one that works the fastest (for you). I never tell another colorist how to work, because if they get good results, if the client is happy, and if the check clears... then there is no problem.

    It is possible to NOT work in ACES, but still deliver an ACES-compatible archival file at the end of the process if the client wants one. That's covered in the manual. 

    • Like 2

    How do you use the ACES workflow? How to use ACES to set LUTs?

    in DaVinci Resolve

    "Most" movies is in the eye of the beholder. There's lots and lots of different ways to work nowadays. I think even Netflix will allow facilities to use other kinds of color management as long as you deliver ACES in the end. And you can deliver ACES-compatible files with Red Color Management 2.

    I do a lot of stuff manually, but much of what I do is just for Rec709. We are using RCM2, so I have the ability to change the pipeline if we wind up in HDR/Dolby Vision, but that still requires a trim pass. We've proven it works, so I'm confident it's a good way for us to handle sessions.

    I often say, "the power of Resolve is that it gives you multiple ways to do the same thing." You have to make the decision which method is best for you. As long as the final color is right and the files are acceptable, everything is fine. 

    How do you use the ACES workflow? How to use ACES to set LUTs?

    in DaVinci Resolve

    Purely my opinion: I'm not a fan of ACES because I don't like the feel of the controls. I feel like the tone-mapping is fighting me too much.

    I think RCM2 can work to a point, but there's also value in using CST nodes to "normalize" the camera source material instead, basically doing it all manually. (And I credit Joey D'Anna from MixingLight for this idea.) 

    I'm the "NO LUTS" guy who would prefer to come up with a look with PowerGrades, since it gives you more control over any image problems. Of course, a Technical LUT or a Show LUT can work, and if the client insists on it, we'll use it. Custom LUTs can also work under the right conditions.

    Timeline Rendering in Resolve - what's the deal?

    in DaVinci Resolve

    On 6/18/2021 at 3:00 PM, Craig Melville said:

    1) Beware of Neat Video and other plugins. And remember that caching them with user /smart or Node Caching is no guarantee they will playback or not cause weird issues in the timeline rendering system AND the could cause temporary non-realtime playback issues.

    I'm actually OK with Neat Video, but I generally only use it as a "second pass" technique. I'll render a timeline to a mezzanine format like ProRes 444 (or XQ), then take the flattened file apply Neat Video on a scene-by scene basis, and then render it again. For our purposes, 444 is what I'd call "visually lossless" and nothing is lost going down one more generation. We do make sure the Neat settings are optimized per sequence, and I'm not afraid to bypass it when it looks OK without any NR. We also optimize Neat for our specific GPUs, and it's actually reasonable, I think somewhere around 5-6fps without caching.

    There is a school of thought where you can run the flattened Neat Video pass with the regular timeline, and do a composite or a blend based on screen content: in other words, not use 100% of the NR pass, but just a piece of it. My philosophy is to lean towards "less is more" processing with NR whenever possible. 

    I agree that you have to do some strategizing with plug-ins and figure out what's going to drag the system down, what needs to be cached, what a reasonable node structure should be for a specific project, and so on. Every project has different challenges.

    Difficult formats, like H.264 and so on, do present problems and we try to transcode those in advance whenever possible. "Render in Place" is a valuable tool and a welcome change in Resolve 17.

    What is your workflow for using Film Print Emulation LUTs(eg. Kodak Vision 2383)

    in DaVinci Resolve

    44 minutes ago, Stefan Ringelschwandtner said:

    In the past  I often thought... well "a LUT" (or color grade) and a bit of grain is "enough", but Halation and camera shake, and other small details really complete the emulation. 
     

    Hey, Stefan. I agree with you to a point, but from my point of view (and Kodak's), Halation and vibration are actually flaws, not always a positive creative look. The halation is a conditional thing: I've been using Glow, Scatter, and sometimes BorisFX tools to add selective diffusion when the scene needs it. But it's not something I'd want all the time, and sometimes I only want it over a specific part of the frame, and I need to eliminate it from some shots entirely.

    I concede it's a creative choice. 90% of my work these days is color-correcting 1980s/1990s films for reissue, and because I started in telecine more than 40 years ago, I'm extremely aware of what actual film looks like. The trick is that different stocks have different looks, negative looks different than print, both look different than IP and IN, and not all these looks are desirable. When we were doing film D.I.'s in the 2000s, we actually calibrated the LUTs so that we knew how the image would be interpreted in the film recorder, and by doing tests with the lab, we knew how an answer print struck off the digital negative would look. That's a case where we had a "real" print look (created by Kodak) that would resemble a projected print right next to it in the D.I. theater. Making film-outs was a huge headache, and I was not sorry to see that part of the business (mostly) go away.

    But as the Filmbox people have said: "this is not exactly film, but it kind of resembles film to a point." I can accept that with no problem. It's an interesting look that might be beneficial for certain projects. BTW, @Walter Volpatto agrees with you: he's actually using ResolveFX Grain more than other tools these days at CO3, and it's very telling that a colorist at his level can get great results out of off-shelf tools. 

    • Like 2

    What is your workflow for using Film Print Emulation LUTs(eg. Kodak Vision 2383)

    in DaVinci Resolve

    BTW, for yet another approach to film print emulation, check out Stefan Ringelschwandtner's blog and link here:

    https://mononodes.com/photochemical-film-look/

    He's giving away a Resolve correction (4 or 5 nodes) that are actually pretty effective from what I see. (You can tip him a coffee if you like it.) His approach is fairly complicated, but it's certainly cheaper than buying a film emulation plug-in, and there's a lot of good thought behind it. Having said that, if I had to do film emulation, I'd just use Filmbox and call it a day: it's one node and actually looks pretty good. But it's not free.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Can we disable particular node on each clip for the whole timeline?

    in DaVinci Resolve

    On 6/13/2021 at 11:59 PM, Sachin Desai said:

    I have a timeline in which one particular node is for a specific adjustment at clip level. is there a way to disable or group that node for each clip. like in base light, you can add a layer to a particular pass to disable or enable for each clip

    Well, Resolve is not Baselight, but there are always workarounds.

    One method: used a Fixed Node Structure so that every single shot in the entire show has the same number of nodes. Make one of the nodes this specific adjustment -- say, Node #7. Now, deselect this node, then highlight all clips and choose Color -> Ripple Node Changes to Selected Clips, and just that one node will be turned off. If you need to turn it back on, do the opposite.

    Another method: used a Shared Node for all clips. Place that specific correction in the Shared Node. Then, bypass the node or delete the correction.

    Another method: make a keyframe in the Timeline Node Window, add a node for that specific function for the entire show. Bypass it when you don't need it or use a Keyframe to turn it on or off. 

    • Like 1

    What is your workflow for using Film Print Emulation LUTs(eg. Kodak Vision 2383)

    in DaVinci Resolve

    On 5/26/2021 at 3:31 AM, Jamie Neale said:

    Have been experimenting with Look Designer and Colour Lab more recently. Again it's not cheap ($499) like most good things but their approach is creative and scientific. I like that they're about developing looks beyond a 'film look' and encouraging us all to play and experiment abit more.

    I've found it's much more useful to understand the characteristics of film and why we like rather than trying to replicate film exactly. Also a big fan of Steve Yedlins approach. Definitely worth checking him out.

    Yes to both. Dado Valentic is a real character, but he's passionate about what he does, and I'm actually pressed with the ideas and interface of Look Designer and GrainLab. ColourLab isn't compatible with the way I work -- I'm not a fan of the idea of having one different LUT and a CDL (or whatever it is) per shot for 1500-2000 shots per feature reel, created in a different program, and then bring it over to Resolve with a script -- and as far as I'm concerned, I match perfectly quickly on my own with Gallery stills, Memories, and scopes. But Look Designer has some fascinating ideas. I would say Look Designer and Filmbox are lightyears beyond something like FilmConvert or a mere LUT. 

    BTW, I'm also impressed with the same company's Scatter, which is the best OFX diffusion plug-in I've ever seen. Remarkable tool. 

    Re-creating a music video look

    in DaVinci Resolve

    On 5/28/2021 at 10:14 AM, Benjamin Handler said:

    Marc & Nicolas: I've heard of this parallel / layer node pulling. Just to clarify, the workflow would be something like: make a parallel node, with the top node as my "look" and the bottom node used to push skin more towards flesh tone? The idea being the parallel node will prevent the "look" node from effecting the skin, yes? I've tried this but I may be doing something wrong as it's never worked great for me. I'll look up tutorials and investigate but any quick pointers are definitely appreciated.

    Yes, a friend of mine (formerly from CO3/Santa Monica) bristles when I say "Orange  & Teal," because he insists it's "Flesh Tone & Teal." Eh, either way, it's two opposites on a straight line on the vectorscope, which provides huge color contrast.

    I just do the overall grade as a normalizing grade, then a teal-ish node at the end, then add a layer node and take the flesh tone from the original grade before the teal. Absolutely normal flesh in a teal "world" looks too weird, so generally you need to back it off like with a Key Mixer Output adjustment down to 50% or 60%. It's very subjective. It's not like you're pushing orange/flesh into it... it's actually the original skin as a key, in a world of teal/green or teal/blue. 

    There are other ways to do it, but of course it helps if the DP actually lights it that way on set and you have an art director that arranges the set accordingly. You get a bold DP like Lawrence Sher on Joker who's not afraid to use colored gels on set, and you can get some spectacular results.

    • Like 1

    Re-creating a music video look

    in DaVinci Resolve

    On 5/23/2021 at 2:31 PM, Nicolas Hanson said:

    Hi Marc. Any reason why you wouldn't use a parallel node istead of a layer node in this case? I find that by pumping the color I want from the source in a parallel node will give a less destructive result than with a key inside a layer node.

    Yeah, I'd say the reason I'd go with a layer node is that it works better for me. Use what makes the most sense to you. I always say, "only the results matter." (Well, that plus whether the check clears.)

    • Like 1

    Re-creating a music video look

    in DaVinci Resolve

    If it's overall cold, but you're trying to preserve somewhat natural fleshtones, the classic solution (in the last 10 years) has been a layer mixer pulling the skin as a key from an earlier source node. Usually the trick is to lower opacity so it's not quite perfect normal skin, but at least halfway there. That way, you don't wind up with blue people. 

    One thing you often have to consider is the music video you're using as a reference may have been lit that way on set. The problem with trying to create that look is you may be forcing a look that's never quite going to be equalled. It'll be tough, especially if it involves relighting and situations where there's not enough color separation (or light separation) between actors and background, or foreground and background.

    • Like 1

    What is your workflow for using Film Print Emulation LUTs(eg. Kodak Vision 2383)

    in DaVinci Resolve

    I have actually worked in workflows where the LUT comes first. If the end result is correct, then it IS correct.

    In truth, I think if you're just trying to get the "look" of 2383 print stock -- which is more contrasty than I think most people know (particularly people who've never done a film-out and struck a print from digital files) -- you can actually fake it pretty well.

    I think a lot of the so-called Print LUTs and plug-ins out there are a lot of smoke and mirrors with very little real science or usefulness behind them. Having said that, I've been experimenting with Video Village's Filmbox lately, and I really like their philosophy and approach. They say this:

    Filmbox does not represent pure empiricism. We certainly tried to gather good data and stay close to that data but our methods are not prefect and there were subjective decisions made about how to tune and implement the data into a functional system that produces creatively satisfying results. We encourage you to try it and see if our model of film lives up to your mental model of film.

    It’s worth noting that both film and Filmbox can be made to have many looks, and what people think “film” looks like is a bit of a moving target. This is especially the case now that almost nothing is actually printed to film, and many people’s memory of “film” is actually of some hybrid film/digital processes. Some might say film looks like Vision3 negative stock scanned at their favorite post house and graded by their favorite colorist or processed by their favorite LUT. That process may or may not look anything like printing that same negative to a print stock. And even that might not look like an older film that used a different photochemical process.

    Ultimately our intent is that a high-end cinema camera processed with Filmbox faithfully reproduces the characteristics that have been hard to achieve since the advent of digital cinema.

    As skeptical as I am, and as outspoken as I've been in the past on the borderline-fraudulent claims made by some companies on their film emulation products, I have to say I agree with what they say. If your description is, "hey, it's not exactly like film, it's not like all film, but it's kind of in the ballpark of 5219," I can buy that because it's a film that still exists and you can actually shoot it and test it today. Video Village goes into the methods and testing process they went through to create Filmbox in this FAQ file:

    https://videovillage.co/images/filmbox/features/FAQ.pdf

    Two caveats: the software is not cheap (about $395 a year), and it's Mac-only at the moment. I have zero connection with the company except as a customer. But I'm impressed with what I see so far.

    • Like 1

    Looking for Color Grading Resources

    in DaVinci Resolve

    Mixing Light, FXPHD, Ripple Training, and Lowepost are the main ones I recommend the most. Some books I'd recommend (some on color theory, some on color correction in general):

    "The Art & Technique of Digital Color Correction" by Steve Hullfish
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Technique-Digital-Color-Correction/dp/024081715X

    
"Color & Mastering for Digital Cinema" by Glenn Kennel
    https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Digital-Cinema-Industry-Handbook/dp/0240808746

    "Digital Cinematography: Fundamentals, Tools, Techniques, and Workflows" by David Stump
    https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Cinematography-Fundamentals-Techniques-Workflows/dp/0240817915

    "Color Reproduction in Electronic Imaging Systems"
    https://www.amazon.com/Colour-Reproduction-Electronic-Imaging-Systems/dp/1119021766

    "Cinematic Color" (which is free)
    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jeremyselan/cinematiccolor/master/ves/Cinematic_Color_VES.pdf

    "Color Reproduction in Electronic Imaging Systems" 
    by Michael Tooms
    https://www.amazon.com/Colour-Reproduction-Electronic-Imaging-Systems/dp/1119021766

    "Digital Video and HD: Algorithms and Interfaces"
    by Charles Poynton
    https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video-HD-Algorithms-Interfaces/dp/0123919266

    
"The Reproduction of Colour"
    by Dr. R.W.G. Hunt
    https://www.amazon.com/Reproduction-Colour-R-W-Hunt/dp/0470024259

    
"Color Mania: The Material of Color in Photography and Film"
    by Barbara Flückiger
    https://www.amazon.com/Color-Mania-Material-Photography-Film/dp/3037786078

    
"Colour Cinematograph"
    by Adrian Cornwell-Clyne
    Chapman & Hall
    https://www.amazon.com/COLOUR-CINEMATOGRAPHE-Third-Revised-enlarged/dp/B000GU30WE

    Some books on workflow are good to know:

    "Modern Post: Workflow & Techniques for Digital Filmmakers" by Scott Arundale
    https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Post-Workflows-Techniques-Filmmakers/dp/0415747023

    "The Guide to Managing Postproduction for Film, TV, and Digital Distribution" by Susan Spohr & Barbara Clark 
    https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Managing-Postproduction-Digital-Distribution/dp/1138482811
    

    And the best book on Film Lab color-correction I've ever read is this one:

    
"Film Technology in Post Production"
    by Dominic Case
    https://www.amazon.com/Film-Technology-Production-Media-Manuals/dp/0240516508

    
The latter explains how film was color graded in the laboratory prior to television and digital. Some of the basic principles still apply today. 

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1

    Chromatic adaptation OFX

    in DaVinci Resolve

    We use the Chromatic Adaptation OFX plug-in to change baked-in 6500°K color temperatures on material that really should be 3200°. In Resolve 17, the Temperature & Tint controls in the Primary pallet were altered so they more or less reproduce what the Chromatic Adaption plug-in does.

    You can also get some extreme looks with it, but you have to watch out for unexpected results and out-of-gamut issues.

    DaVinci Resolve 17, new features

    in DaVinci Resolve

    My quick Top 10 List of New Favorite Resolve 17 features:

    1. Color Warper. Will be great for experimenting with new "extreme" looks without resorting to a LUT.

    2. Zone-based Color Adjustment. For people who wanted something sort of inbetween Log & traditional LGG controls, this is it. (You can draw comparisons between this and Basegrade in Baselight.)

    3. HDR Palette: and this will work in every mode, not just HDR. These three additions to overall color control will send a lot of us "back to school" in terms of learning how to take best advantage of these tools.

    4. Magic Mask for auto-roto tools. Can't say yet how this will work with "problem" situations, but the concept is good.

    5. Color management that really works. They've clearly put a lot of thought and effort behind this, and it might be enough to sway me to finally start using RCM2.

    6. Little things are improved: you finally get Font Preview when you change typefaces on-the-fly.

    7. We can finally manually re-order Timelines in the Timeline bin, plus you can temporarily hide Timelines you don't need at the moment -- very helpful for very long, complex sessions.

    8. Scene-Detect (or at least a version of it) now works on the Color page.

    9. Lots of new OFX plug-ins. I can see using TransformFX quite a bit for certain repositions, and the Keyer additions will provide added flexibility in some situations.

    10. I think the refinements to the user interface are great, and I'm particularly happy that they're making available new buttons for the Advanced Panel with lots of new modes available.

    I'm also really impressed that BMD clearly listened to many, many user comments over the past couple of years and has incorporated a lot of suggestions and improvements based on that feedback. This is the biggest Resolve release in a long time -- maybe ever -- and I almost went into shock the first time I saw it.

    Hue vs. Sat. Vs. Saturation control

    in DaVinci Resolve

    It probably would be easy to check with bars and a scope -- try both methods and see what happens. Color Boost also provides a different way to desaturate, affecting the most-saturated or least-saturated parts of the signal (depending on how you use it). Having different methods helps, but I have to confess, I'm so under the gun most of the time, I grab whatever I think will get there fastest and try that first. Keys also provide a way to selectively desat just part of the signal (even a large part, if you widen it out), but you have to be very careful about qualification and making it as soft and artifact-free as possible.  

    Skin retouching

    in DaVinci Resolve

    I would say try everything and see what happens. It's not so much a technique as it is a process: sometimes one thing works better than another. I find learning how to pull a soft key, a qualifier with little or no artifacts, is critical. Every situation is different, and sometimes it requires multiple masks and multiple keys. 

    Once qualified, in Resolve you have the options of using soften tools like -Midtone Detail (minus), or Blur, or Mist, or Beauty, or Soften/Sharpen, or SNR, or Face Refinement. The latter is fastest and easiest if the face doesn't move too much; god help you if it does. It is possible to recreate all (or at least most) of what Face Refinement does manually, with about 10 nodes, but that requires ten sets of mask tracking... depending on what you're trying to do.

    The trick really is to make sure you do as little damage as possible, and make sure the rest of the image retains some kind of natural sharpness. In situations where I'm dealing with some really difficult age issues, I'll throw Glow on top of it on the theory that that would be the classic "Hollywood Soft" filter approach.

    But again, every situation is different and it's a question of developing good skills and good judgement over time. There is no single technique except time and good judgement (and sometimes luck).

    • Like 2