Messages

I've got an "EIZO Flexscan S1931" Monitor. And i love this Monitor. But its not HD.
So I need an update for my monitor, too.

Full HD / 2k or 1080p is fine. Don't need 3k or 4k, or ultrawide.
Size is not that important. i WANT good colors. I want to see
blacks as blacks, and 99% grey as 99% grey.

But i don't want to spend so much money again for an EIZO.
Maybe some "Iiyama" Monitor. Something like this:

0,50cm (23,8") Iiyama ProLite XB2483HSU-B2 TFT Monitor for 200,- Euros
http://www.arlt.com/Hardware/Monitore-Beamer/60-50cm-23-8-Iiyama-ProLite-XB2483HSU-B2-TFT-Monitor.html

Or maybe this EIZO:
Eizo EV2450-BK 60 cm (23,8 Zoll) Monitor (DisplayPort, DVI-D, HDMI, D-Sub, USB 3.0, 5ms Reaktionszeit) schwarz
http://www.amazon.de/Eizo-EV2450-BK-Monitor-DisplayPort-Reaktionszeit/dp/B00NF3EMNA/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1460045847&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=eizo+fullhd

Only 277,- Euros... i spend 600,- Euros for my old Eizo.

Again. I don't even know the different betwen  "IPS" and "TN",
but i will watch videos about it. I was wandering that there is no thread
about "monitors" in this forum. If i search for monitor. I only found "field monitors".
But PC Hardware is important, too. Graphic Cards and a good Monitor.
4, 5 years ago.. the monitors suck. so i HAVE to buy an EIZO, to be safe.
But now i don't want to spend that much money again. Because i think the cheaper models
are also good today. If you got any suggestions... or good sites about monitors for Videoeditors...
feel free to post it here

Thanks for your answer. I was thinking.. maybe a 2GB card gives me enough power..
For 150,- Euros. I don't know. At the moment.. Resolve is running. Its slow. Sometimes a bit frustration.
But it works. AE and Premiere, too. I wish it would be a little bit faster. And i want to spend more
money later that year on a new system. (but not now)

I never upgrade an old system. I allways buy a complete new system. But because of the GPU
rendering thing... i thought maybe i could save some money and upgrade the card.

If i buy an new PC i would spend 800 - 1000 Euros.
Because i have no clue about "Video Hardware" i simple buy a "Gamer PC" every
4 years from ARLT.com. Soemthing like this:

PC - ARLT Mr. Gamer X-Treme GTX960
Intel Core i5 4690K (4x 3,5GHz), 8GB RAM, 250GB SSD, 2000GB HDD,
NVIDIA GeForce GTX960, ohne Betriebssystem, 3 Jahre Garantie

http://www.arlt.com/PC/Komplett-PCs/Gaming-PCs/Gaming-PC-ARLT-Mr-Gamer-GTX-750-Ti-II.html

I have no idea what is important.
- i7 is better than i5. And i5 is better than i3.
- and i know about SSD.
- But graphic cards... no clue.

But i heard that between i5 and i7 it doesn't make such much different.
Is there a "MUST HAVE" component, i have to check, when buying a new PC?

Hi,

these are the specs of my current (old) PC:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CPU:                  Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz
RAM:                 4 GB (DDR2)
graphic card:     NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Mainboard:        MS-7514
_____________________________________________________
System:            Win7 (64bit)
Edit-Software:   Resolve 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is/was a "gamer PC" which i bought at ARLT.com years ago.
I want to buy some new PC.. but at the moment i could not afford one.
I know "Resolve 12" using GPU Power. Do you think its an good idea to
invest in some new Graphic Card?

Problem is. I´m a totaly hardware noob. I know nothing about "DDR3" or "GDDR5"
(i dont' know if it works on my mainboard.. or if i have to stick to "DDR2".
I have no idea about "pins" and "power suply", etc.
And i don't know if i could use my old graphic card parallel with a new one... so i get
the power from two cards. (is this possible?)

It would be cool if some "hardware-guys" can tell me if its possible to upgrade my system
with a new GPU-Card. If so. Which card should i buy for Video-Editing only. (I'm not a gamer.)
I want to spend between 100-200 Euro. I want to replace the old one.
(but maybe i can run both together.)

Any sugesstions.

Little 50D RAW Test...

https://vimeo.com/156992961

Canon 50D
1568 x 784 (upscaled to 1080p)
Objektiv: Porst Tele 1:28 / 135mm
ISO: 200

SanDisk Extreme Pro CompactFlash 64GB
Lexar Professional USB 3.0 Dual Slot Kartenleser

Workflow: MLRaw Viewer v1.4.3 convert to DNG + Davinci Recolve

", the only thing i hated was rendering out- 12 hours.. found a mistake... 12 hours again..."

thants why i render "quicktime PNG.mov" file.... when in Premiere or AE.
Later i convert that pnq.mov file in a h264 file for vimeo/yoputube. (via quicktime pro)
If i found a mistake. i can easily drag the PNG.mov file in the AE/Premiere Composition...
only edit the "mistake".. and click render again. and than it only takes a couple of minutes to render.

Yes, Germany. I never bought a used camera. But when i want to buy i Canon 50D i have to.
I was checking amazon for "Canon 50D - gebraucht" and it cost between 360 - 400 Euros.
I will also check "Ebay Kleinanzeigen" for Berlin, but only find prices between 400 - 500,- Euros.
Its a nice list. Would be nice to buy canon 50D for 250,- Euros. But where?

[I want to buy Canon 50D. Reasons:]

Hello, at the moment I got an Canon 60D with Magic Lantern... shooting RAW Video.
The 20MB sucks. So i want a asecond APS-C Camera with 70MB or 80MB. (50D or 7D)
My budget is around 1200,- Euros.

I want to buy Canon 50D. Reasons:
- 1584 x 894 continues recording is fine
- i don't need sound
- its cheap. Only 400,- Euros + Fast CF Cards (another 100,- or 200,- Euros)


Now i confused because of this thread and the 7D.
I thought 7D is not working...because:
- raw-chart = 7D was allways on the "NOT WORKING" area. (not anymore, but still sceptical)
- Bending issues


But i also read this:
- 7D has less moire?!
- 50D image looks nicer (worked with a lot of 7D and 50D raw footage)
- Some people say 7D looks better.


My own thoughts:
- The Monitor / Settings on a 7D might be better
- 7D less overheating.
- 7D maybe a little better in low light?


Than i thought i could also buy a "Black Magic Pocket Camera" for 1000,- Euros.
But i'm afraid that the monitor sucks, and the battery life sucks, too.
And i need EF Adaptors, too. I don't care abaut ProRess, or "Compressed DNG" Files.
Magic Lantern RAW is fine... and it think i want to go with a Canon Camera + Magic Lantern.
I will use the camera only for "personal experimental projects". Not commercial work.

I know i reactivate an old thread.
I just want to know if there are any new experinces.
New thoughts about that topic? (50D vs 7D vs Black Magic Pocket Camera)

[1.]

Did some more tests. Got some more questions about Davinci Resolve 12.
About interpreting footage.


Sime suning "DaVinci YRGB" (Color Science Settings)
I simple choose "Cinema DNG" in the "Camera Raw Settings"
When I'm at "COLOR" in Resolve... i simple select "Clip" (Decode Using)
and in "Color Space" i have the options between "Rec.709" and "BMD Film" and "BMD Film 4.6k"


BREAKDOWN:

1.
I simple choose "Clip" in the "Decode Using" Setting.. and after that chose the Color Space.
Is this ok? Or should i do some other settings in "Project Settings"?


2.
In "Color Space" I can choose between "Rec.709" and "BMD Film 4.6k".
In Rec.709 everything looks fine.. but the noise sucks (as seen in my screenshots). When I choose "BMD Film 4.6k"
the image looks realy realy flat...  like i added a "flat LUT" or shooting in "cinestyle profile".
But when i add some curves, bring back the saturation the picture looks very good. And the Noise looks good, too!
(which is super important)

Instead of Cuves and saturation i can also add a simple "Linear to rec.709" LUT i found in the VFX LUTs Folder....
and it works almost perfect. The Image looks very good... and the noise, too.
Much much better as if i choose "Rec.709" in the "color space" directly.


So.. my current Workflow is:


A: Convert MLV to DNG using:
____"MLVViewer" works fine .. and "MLVMystic_v0.5" allways works fine!
____"raw2cdng" not working (no matter if 12bit or 16 bit .. Resolve is crashing)


B: At Resolve .. in "COLOR" Edit Mode.. simple choose CLIP (Decode Using) + COLOR Space = BMD Film + Gamma = BDM Film 4.6 K ...

C: Apply some "Linear to rec.709" LUT at starting point.



...

The image looks good.
But... am I doing something terrible wrong?

I also read this thread here:
DaVinci Resolve 12 and ML Raw
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15801.0

And tried it:

1. Switch to "DaVinci YRGB Color Managed"
2. Alexa LogC for Timeline Colorspace
3. Rec.709 Gamma 2.4 for Output Colorspace

looks ok... but the "noise" looks not good.

In the thread it says:
"By selecting Bypass as the Output Colorspace option, you will
see your image in LogC Gamma and Alexa Wide Gamut.

When i do it... my image looks exacty the same... as if i simple chose
my method:
- "DaVinci YRGB" (Color Science Settings)
- In COLOR select: "Clip" .. and then select "BMD + BDM Film 4.6k" (Color Space + gama Options)



So... is the "DaVinci YRGB Color Managed" Method really important?
Or is my method also fine?

Thanks for all the feedback. In the next days / weeks i will do more test scenes, and do more research to optimize
the workflow.

[PROBLEM:]

hmmmm. I'm switching back and forth between "Resolve" and "ACR"
"CinemaDNG" is from Adobe... so i think ACR is more powerfull debayering DNG Files.
(also very good in raw sharpening / denoise. a litte bit better than Resolve.)

BUT. AE is extremly slow for editing dng files.
My Idea is to EDIT all the dng files in "Photoshop".
But i cannot open 400 files in Photoshop. But i thought i can use "Bridge"... and EDIT
only one DNG file... than "copy" that raw-adjustment to all 400 other dng files in the same folder.
After that i could open those "modified ACR sharpened DNG" files into Resolve and do the edit.

In Photoshop/bridge its also very easy to add "camera profiles" like "Vision Log"
(http://www.vision-color.com/visionlog/)
to the dng file.. to apply a flat look.

Its a bit like this Workflow in Lightroom:
JPEG workflow for ML RAW video using only Lightroom and Premiere
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6864.0

only with "Adobe Bridge."

PROBLEM: I tried the right mouse button on a dng file an click "open in camera raw". But i got a error message.
I updated bridge, photoshop and camera raw plugin.. but i simple cannot "open in camera raw".
i searched 1 hour to fix that problem... but found no solution.
i searched this forum if someone tried this workflow... but found nothing.
I did not want to start a new thread, yet.

Edit some more footage (The scene with the chair and the green bowl).
I got the best results with:

Color Space = BMD Film
Gamma = BMD Film 4.6K

The scenes are all "washed out" ... but its fine. I aplied some simple 1D Luts to it.
Testet "Canon Log to Rec709" and "Canon Log to Video". I still have to push the Saturation up to 50.
And add some simple S-Kurves... but now the image i got from Resolve is almost as good as i get in AE.
No "ugy noise" anymore.

I checked the Forum for the best Workflow.. but only found some strange threads how to like
a "Lightroom Workflow" which is interesting.. to do the colorcorrection in Light room.. and
expport the files in High JPGS.. and edit those jpgs sequenze in Premiere. So the rendering is fast, too.
And Lightroom got the same "RAW Converter" like AE / Photoshop... so its very good.

But if someone got some more "MUST READ threads" about worklflow / Resolve / ... best way to convert MLV files
feel free to post it here

OK... i did some more Tests in "Resolve 12"...

LEFT = Color space = BMD Film (but i have to push the satuation up to 100)
RIGHT = Color space = Rec.709 (but i don't have to push up any sliders for the colors)



It start to look so MUCH better, than the Resolve 11 Version. I don't got
the Resolve 11 Version anymore. But i know that i use "BMD Film", too.. instead of Rec.709.
I pushed/klicked any button. But nothing changes in "Resolve 11".

So when i use "bmd film"... the noise looks much better.
But the whole image looks grey. I have to push the saturation up to 100%
to get the colors back.

In the "Project Settings" (Resolve 12) i choose "CinemaDNG".
So its getting better with the noise in Resolve 12... but its weird that when i use
BMD Film the Noise is so much better... but the image is "grey" (like black and white)...
i really have to push the saturation to 100.. and it stills looks washed out.

I just want to show you some new results. I will try to use other "MLV to DNG" Converting Tools
(not using the MLV Viewer). and hope Resolve will not crash. And when i get that "foggy night" scene
the way i wanted. (similar Colors / Noise like in AE) ... than i will test some footage with more
color in it.. like the "green bowl" scene.

thanks for your answer. AE is so damn slow to show DNG files in realtime... and so damn slow in rendering. (But i can render all night.. thats not the big problem. but realtime editing, color grading in Resolve is 100x times better than AE.)
Never heard of Adobe Speedgrade... i will check it out. I really wonder if i'm the only one who noticed the big difference between AE and Davinci. Even when you shoot with a 5D mark 2 or 3.. and ISO100 / 200 / 400 .. you allways got some noise in the shadows and in AE it looks so much better. well. anyway. Thanks for all the help.

Thanks. But i know noise reduction tools like neat and other. I don't need / want to use them.
As i said before. THIS is "testfootage". I don't need to fix noise in it. I just recognize HUGE difference
between AE and Resolve. On files which are shoots at "ISO 200" .. and i don't want to use noise reduction
on this file. Its not about "noise reduction" or "get rid of noise. I LOVE the noise in the AE Version.
I love analog noise, and digital noise.
BUT.. the AE Noise looks so much better than the noise in Resolve. And i don't know why.
Is it the DNG FIles? or some metadata? 12bit, 16 bit problem?
Is the Adobe Raw Converter 10 Times better than Resolve? (i don't think so)

fog.MLV (around 700 MB - the foggy night scene)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B40YiSxH8aq8Ujh2QkZsd2U2WmM/view?usp=sharing

If any other person can get better results in Davinci Resolve than i do... that would be great.
But not with any noise reduction plugins. just the "raw sliders".
Maybe my dng files suck. i' dont know.
But if AE and mlvproducer looks so much better than Resolve... it must be possible to get
similar results in Resolve, too.

And the "fog.MLV" File is just a test. I don't care about it (its underexposed and Iso1600 just to see the noise).
But i care about other, well shoot scenes,
ISO 200, ISO 400 files... and there i also got really ugly noise  in Resolve and i realy want to fix that.
The next days i will definitly try "MLVFS" and "MLP".

Resolve more shadow pulled out? (hmmm. i don't see it)
And its 100% the same Color Temperature (as shoot). Did not move that slider.

As you can see in this image:


The green bowl is "warmer / (different)" in the Resolve version.
Same with the foggy night image. The "big Colored Noise Dots" in Resolve
makes everything feels a litte bit warmer

At the moment i upload the "foggy night.mlv" to google drive. It must be possible
to create a similar look with Resolve. At least a look that looks like the AE version
without any sharpening/noise reduction. Or a look i get with "mlvproducer".

At the moment i tried "raw2dcng" ..and converted some "16bit maximum dng" files.
Looks good in AE.. but Resolve crashes when i tried to open it.

@mothaibaphoto: I know that.
I want to SEE the difference in the"noise". So i took extra "bad underexposed footage"
to have a detailed look at the noise.

But. If you take a look at this image (scroll down) its not underexposed:
http://monostep.org/temp/resolve_vs_ae.jpg

And i still got "ugly noise" in Resolve. Take a look at the green bowl... and the
missing details in the brush. its a huge different.

Yes i used the "MLRawViewer 1.4.3" to convert the MLV Files to DNG.
And Yes. I still got the MLV Files.
Any better/other tools to convert the MLV?!

EDIT: This is what the MLV file looks like in "mlvproducer".
(still better than DNG files in Davinci) and very similar to AE


(its a screenshot... so its a little bit scaled down. like 90%)
hmmmmmm.

Than i got this (Sharpening / denoise set to ZERO):



the exposure is set to 0.5 (in AE and Resolve) but that is
the only thing i changed. If i set the exposure to 0.0 .. the image
in Resolve is stil darker than in AE. But its not only that its darker...
the "noise interpretation" is very different. And its also a problem when
usning Iso400 or 200.

I uploaded it because i realy want to use "Resolve" instead of AE.
And maybe i'm just to dumb to click the right buttons in Resolve.
The difference between Resolve and AE is very big... and i don't think AE
got a better "noise reduction" Tool. (And i don't even use it (just the defaults))

I also got similar (good) results (like AE) in "MLVProducer".
So i don't know whats the problem with Davinci Resolve.
Of Course... ISO 1600 is to high. But even when i use 800 or 400...
the noise in Resolve" looks terrible (as you can see).

here are some DNG Files ... 1280x544 pixel - Iso1600 - Canon 60D:

NIGHT SCENE / FOG (Nebel)

http://monostep.org/temp/__Nebel_A_000000.dng
http://monostep.org/temp/__Nebel_A_000001.dng
http://monostep.org/temp/__Nebel_A_000002.dng
http://monostep.org/temp/__Nebel_A_000003.dng
http://monostep.org/temp/__Nebel_A_000004.dng
http://monostep.org/temp/__Nebel_A_000005.dng

I take some old footage and did some more tests.

AE CS6 vs Resolve 12


My Settings in AE CS6:


So i also did some noise reduction in AE... (i think those are the default settings)

EDIT: I will upload the "MLV" Files.. of the "night scene" so other people in this
forum can download an create own DNG Files. (uploading now... onto my server)

I was a bit tired yesterday. i did not use any "noise reduction".
I use "standard" (default) sharpenig ... in AE which is 25% or something
and 10 in Resolve (sharpening) .. but no noise reduction.

i also tried MLVProducer... but got some problems with brightnes, color temperature, etc.
but its much cleaner than the DaVinci Resolve. More similar to "AE".

I know the Denoiser from Neat Video... and also use Denoiser in Nuke.
With RED Material... etc. And it works best when the "noise" is small and clear.
And when i shoot with 400 ISO... i don't care about the noise in the dark shadows... as
long its the "clear noise" i get in AE.

I don't want to reduce the noise. When i open dng files in Resolve i want the same noise-look i get in AE.
Thats all. Later that day, or the next days i will shoot some test footage with 800 or 1600 iso...
I want to get behind those things. ... how the"RAW Video Converter" works (interpretes Noise) in Resolve vs. AE.

In AE the "noise reduction slider" is at 25% .. i think. standard settings  (raw import options)
In DaVince Resolve .. the noise reduction slider is at 10. (standard settings)
I tried different settings... but Resolve allways looks like this.

if i got some time i will make some more
tests with different ISO, 200, 400, 800.

I installed Davinci Resolve 12 .. and got the same issues:

LEFT = Adobe AE CS6.0
RIGHT = DaVinci Resolve 11 (12 looks the same)


Seetings:
- PC, Windows 7
- Canon 60D
- MLV size: 1280 x 544 pixel.
- Converted the MLV files with MlRawViewer Version 1.4.3 to DNG Files


The Image in "DaVince Resolve 11" is 5% darker. But the bigger problem is the noise.
In AE the "camera noise" (i used ISO 800 or 640) is much smaller. So the image is very clear.
In Davinci Resolve the "camera noise" is bigger.. and more colorfull. like some "blocky RGB Dots" ..
and so the whole image lost a lot of details. .. and the image looks more like "h264 Video" and less than "raw".

Please download these two files and switch between those two in your image viewer:

http://monostep.org/temp/raw_01_ae.jpg
http://monostep.org/temp/raw_02_resolve.jpg

You will see a huge different. I really want to use "Davinci" but i can`t.
I'm a filmmaker, no tech guy.

I ask myself what is the problem.
Is the Davinci RAW Converter so bad?
Are the dng files bad? is there another way to convert those MLV Files into "better dng" files.

Maybe i just missed a button in DaVinci Resolve. Am I the only one with that issue?
So many people are using DaVinci Resolve... maybe they never questioning the "noise"...
and shoot with 100 or 200 iso. but sometimes you want to shoot with 400, 800 iso
and i think its a huge different. (i allready said that) Hope to find a fix for that.