Good project settings for Resolve

[sgofferj]

So, I finally dared to use ML in real production - not on my 6D, though, but on my 7D, and I'm quite happy with the image quality! Thanks to MLV Producer, converting MLV to CDNG was done very easily.

Now, the correction and grading... At the moment I use REC709 as input color space in the project/camera raw settings. Would there be any advantage to using another setting, e.g. BMD Film?

When exporting to CDNG, the chosen export color space on MLVP doesn't really seem to make a big difference.

[PaulHarwood856]

Hey sgofferj,

     I purchased the BMDFilm Adobe Camera Raw Profile by Visioncolor for After Effects and things didn't add up with the 7D. I tried contacting them and they never got back to me. Visionlog is free, and I like to use it with SmartImport2 and transcodingDNGS to ProRes 4444 XQ MOV files. There really isn't a loss in quality, and you can use the Visionlog to REC 709 LUT which brings back all the color. Better yet, you can just many LUTS since the files are flat. I've read Cinelog is good too, $50, but I've had some great results with this workflow. DNG sequences in Premiere Pro is a nightmare, I don't suggest it unless you want to try proxies which are a bit complicated. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.

- Paul Harwood

[markodarko]

Unless you're editing in Resolve you really want to use Resolve as the last link in your editing chain, and hence you don't need to worry about color space.

Grading footage before editing is a waste of time and storage unless you know that you're going to use every bit of the footage you're grading. Also, Resolve's sharpen filter is very kindergarten. So, after many, many trials and tribulations I would recommend the following workflow for ML RAW:

1. Shoot footage in RAW
2. Use MLRawViewer to sort your clips into keepers.
3. Mount your MLV files with MLVFS. (If you've already converted your MLV files to cDNG then this step doesn't apply to you.)
4. Open the cDNG sequences in Adobe After Effects and use ACR to debayer, sharpen and apply a working primary grade to your footage.
5. Render as ProRes 4444
6. Edit in an editor of your choice.
7. Export an EDL / XML
8. Open EDL / XML in Resolve and do your color grading
9. Render as ProRes 4444 and your master file is done.

Additionally...

10. Open in Handbrake and convert for the web using x264 which gives faaaar better results than h.264 export from an editor.

HTH,

Mark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sgofferj]

I am editing in Resolve .

[markodarko]

I am editing in Resolve .

Cool, everything else still applies up to point #6 though unless you don't have access to After Effects IMO.

Cheers,

Mark.

[reddeercity]

@sgofferj can I assume you're using the Linux ? or ?
what version of Resolve ? 12.5 Beta3 I hope  , resolve has come a long way in regard's to handling ML Cdng raw files to  point where I'm really starting to ditch Adobe A.E.
Where I use to preach the A.E. advantage raw workflow (just search reddeercitytv on Youtube I made many Vid tutorial about it ) , I even started the FCPX ProRes4444 XQ Hack on the forum so Adobe creative cloud could render to XQ , As this is not supported native. Now if you where editing & grading in FCPX , A.E. workflow is the one of the best . In fact I use to use visionlog camera profile in A.E. then with Pixel Film Studios LUT Loader for FCPX ( I really Love this plugin don't know how I lived without it) sorry getting a little off topic , but it is related to you question , then de-log with a lut  to rec709 or to film color space . Now my color space answer  because of the new ways Resolve handles raw files I find it's best to use YRGB with Arri raw decoding , full resolution Arri decoding playback   and use customs WB & BD film space . I add some highend sharpness plus some mid sharpness reduce contrast by 30-50% and for me I
then render out to ProRes 4444XQ , what great about this is when I import in to FCPX , all I have to do is go to the metadata file info tab and select from the preset de-log dropdown menu
and I one I use the most is either BDM film space or Arri C-Log . I would highly recommend reading Cinelog - True logspace conversion for DNG and CinemaDNG footage by @Andy600  &   DaVinci Resolve 12 and ML Raw by @baldavenger  , be warned ! baldavenger thread is very technical he wrote it assuming you have a good understanding of color science  , not for newbie .
So to recap use BD film space with input color space ARRI Alexa , and if you shoot everything correctly , like no blown out Hi-light etc... you should be very happy with the results .
I been using this workflow for the last 3 projects , as 90% of what I do is time sensitive material (news story) and it's only news if you can have a quick turn around , like 1-2 hours or less.

My Thoughts   

[sgofferj]

@markodarko:
No Adobe here... Just for principal - long story...
@reddeercity:
Actually, I got myself a Windows 7 license just for Resolve . I'm on 12.5b1 at the moment, waiting for more feedback on b3 in the BMD forums before I install it.
I'll try your method.

[Andy600]

@sgofferj - It really depends on how you prefer to work and what hardware you have available. A raw workflow in Resolve where your source material remains raw until final render will give arguably the best results but comes at a cost in terms of file storage and the processing each raw frame. Resolve has caching which can help with the latter but you still need a powerful machine with lots of fast storage (preferably RAID) and at least 4GB GPU memory.

Alternatively you can compress and render the raw footage to an intermediate format like ProRes or DNxHD/HR in a log colorspace - it's up to you what colorspace to use but Alexa Wide gamut/ Cineon works well with ML raw footage and can fit into 10bits if needed (though 12 is better). This will give you much lighter file sizes that retain the dynamic range and most of the latitude of the raw footage with very little noticeable difference compared to editing raw (especially if rendered to ProRes 4444 XQ).

Playback performance and editing transcoded footage is much less processor intensive and easier to edit. You also avoid needing a proxy workflow although that is also another route you could go.
The downside of transcoding is that decisions on white balance and exposure are baked-in but it's standard practice to balance and clean-up raw shots on the first pass and many/most colorists will transcode footage this way before getting to work, especially on features where there is little or no VFX.

If there will be VFX then it's best to work in Linear colorspace, ideally ACES and render to Open EXR, half-float - this is effectively the same as linear raw files with baked-in white balance but an EXR file is typically larger than a CDNG file so again, it's all about storage.

Log footage can also be transferred back to linear making it easy to fit into a VFX pipeline. The difference between something like Log-C ProRes and EXR is mainly in the spread of information. Log encoding does bin some information but it also distributes information evenly between all stops. This does alter RGB pixel values - an EXR file will retain exact pixel values without binning anything which is ideal for very precise VFX compositing work but heavy for anything else.

The key thing to remember is to 'know what colorspace your footage is in' because a properly described colorspace can easily be reversed or transformed using a function or lut.

You mention that the colorspace settings in MLV Producer don't make a difference to the CDNGs and that is correct. Raw does not have a colorspace but a set of instructions (meta data) that tell the raw-reader how to interpret the file. A colorspace is assigned later by the raw editor (ACR, Resolve, Nuke etc etc) and remains flexible. MLVP colorspace settings only effect the transcoded output when the image is no longer raw.

In answer to your question as to the advantage of debayering to BMD Film or other log colorspace over Rec709 - Well, if you're gonna transcode, don't have masses of storage and big GPU memory, want an easier time editing and want file portability for external editing etc, want to use look luts and have as little creative decisions imposed on you at the initial first stage then it's a big YES! - but if not then Rec709 will be fine. Rec709 2.4 gamma is pretty much the standard and you'll most likely be outputting in this colorspace regardless of what route you go.

[Danne]

Thanks Andy600.

[sgofferj]

Thanks @Andy600 !

Yes, I do have a fair amount of storage and a reasonably fast machine (Core I7-4770K / 32GB RAM / GTX770). Hence I decided to use MLVP to convert MLV to cDNG and work in Resolve from cDNG without intermediate codec. Besides, subjectively I find Resolve performs faster with cDNG than with ProRes or DNxHD material, especially when moving on higher speed through the material or backwards. At the moment, I'm doing the rough cut for my project, also deciding which of the material I use. After that I'll go into color correction and then into grading.

I understand the advantages of debayering to log space with regards to creative choices. Does it also have advantages as to dynamic range? I'm trying to wrap my head around the whole colorspace-stuff and it's not easy if you never dealt with the underlying technologies before . I was assuming that if I edit straight from cDNG, all raw information will be available, regardless of which colorspace I choose for debayering, i.e. I don't lose any dynamic range. Is that assumption correct?

[DeafEyeJedi]

Excellent post as usual and Thanks @Andy600 for always making sure none of us would run away from Cinelog-C's wonderful products!

@reddeercity -- quit being a tease and I am anxious to know how in the world it's even possible to ditch the good ole' AE for DR12 alone? Just to hear this coming directly from you sets off big waves. HUGE Waves, David!

[reddeercity]

  don't me wrong @DeafEyeJedi there a place for everything and everything in it's place .
I being finding the ratio of Speed/Time = a nice image specially on time  sensitive material .
ACR is still superior by a long shot but with great sadness not very practical on larger projects where time is a problem .
Unless you have problems shots e.g. Very noisy , Blown out Hi-lights  etc... basically poor cinematography techniques/skills .
I found when I started to take more care in my setup: exposure, ISO, lens choice etc... and treated Raw video with more respect.
" Yea We Can Fix that in Post !"    We all say that at one time or another and that's where we really need A.E. with ACR to bail us out !
I then filmed with the attitude of everything will be in log/film space like I use to with h264 (cinestyle) expose properly no mistakes etc... .
I notice a few thing when I change my techniques , first I hardly ever had any blow outs or any clipping unless I wanted it , I had primarily colors more in balance
and very little noise and of which I have notice is very organic looking like film grain (I don't mind that at all)  which translated to less grading work with almost no image issue .
Now that resolve reworked it's input color space and better debayering of Raw ML Cdng , I being find the Arri  input colorspace leave my footage with Warm tones
that are similar to Alexa and therefore the arri c-log in FCPX really make thing come together and leave me with killer Skin tone in closeups etc... .

No I haven't completely ditched Adobe ACR , but I'm in more favor of Log/LUT base workflow since FCPX support this native (the Log part) .
My Raw workflow before was more towards a Positive film or flat/rec709 pre-graded file where ACR/A.E. has amazing results , but prove to be just
to dam slow , Bottom Line. So as long as I fellow best practices that I made for myself I can achieve my goal . It was only a matter of time before
resolve started to catch-up to ACR , and even though it's not 100% perfect I world say it's in the 90% area .

Later on I post some shots/video of this workflow in action with setting & results 



                                             

[DeafEyeJedi]

Ha  Looking forward to it @reddeercity as I just managed to upgrade DR to 12.5 Beta 3 (Thanks for your help on the CUDA driver update tip) and gonna take a dive into this new workflow you just posted few posts up. Thanks again, David!

[reddeercity]

@DeafEyeJedi , here you go this how I use Resolve 12.5 beta 

[DeafEyeJedi]

Excellent timing, David, I'll definitely take a dive and swim through this tut of yours and will report back my findings as soon as possible. Thanks again for your prompt response.

I just have this one question that keeps luring overing over my head with the fact that under the export advance settings within DR12.5 which then gives you options to use full debayering or not (it's on the very bottom) have you considered using that or should I leave that unchecked?

[66dellwood]

Great thread.  I am still using DV Resolve 11 for fear that 12 will not work on my older machine.  (W7 but a new graphics card).  Is 12 all that better for handling raw? 

I use CDNG files exclusively.  I most often do all the editing and color in Resolve for quick turnaround.

My workflow for quick and dirty:
1. MLV files from Canon 5d2
2. Convert MLV to CDNG with MLVProducer (other than Hot Pixel fix; I do not make any other image settings changes on the understanding that none of them will affect the CDNG raw image file)
3. Import CDNG files into Resolve 11
4. I adjust the Project Settings/Raw in Resolve to CDNG with Color Space and Gamma changed to BMDFilm (I understand this results in Log/flat image that preserves range but will need be unflattened at some point); Highlight Recovery checked
5. LUT:  I will either select a LUT in the Project Settings (most often the case) or in the Color tab (eg, Hunter's LUT) in a separate node
6. Adjust exposure and grade
7. Render out as a final single clip


With this typical workflow, will Resolve 12 provide some meaningful benefits?

[reddeercity]

Yes , Resolve 12.5 is worth it. Being on Win7 it's easy to uninstall 12.5 and go back to 11 .
I run 12.5 on both my Mac & PC , my desktop PC is 5+ years old (AMD FX8350 clocked to 4.9 , 8GB Ram & 2 GTX 580 1.5GB ea. Cards)
I find 12.5 pickup performance a lot plus and the fact you have near A.E. ACR Raw debayering quality is will worth the upgrade alone
even if it cost a little performance . Just a note on GPU , I have a GTX760 2GB in my i7 hackintoss and when I use MLVFS for virtual Cdng's with resolve
I get 24-30 fps and if I just import real Cdng's I get 45+ Fps & with my PC's GTX 580's cards I only get 18-24 fps which is ok so it's really
likes Lots of GPU . Not that I know what your PC is but by having a big ass video card can extend the usage of a slower system.

Even thou I love MLVProducer , Have you try to use MLVFS for PC and import the virtual Cdng's ? so you don't double up on drive space.
It I my make a suggestion or you maybe doing this already , I Set the Camera Raw debayering to Arri full and decode by clip not Cdng's
you have way more control over the raw & be aware of the fact the Hi-Light recover can cause bad artifacting .

[66dellwood]

Thanks David.   I will give Resolve 12.5 a shot and cross my fingers.  I have a decent graphics card as well.

Quote:
" I Set the Camera Raw debayering to Arri full and decode by clip not Cdng's
you have way more control over the raw & be aware of the fact the Hi-Light recover can cause bad artifacting ."

Will give that a try but a few questions based on your video in the thread.
1.  Why are your Raw settings different in the Project Settings (ARRI) than in the Raw settings in the Color tab (CDNG, BMDFilm, Highlight Recovery)?
2. Do the Project Raw settings work differently than those in the Color tab?   I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that if I want to treat all my clips the same way, I would set the Raw settings in the Project settings and not have to make them again in the Color tab (unless I wanted to override project settings in any particular clip).
3.  When you say " I Set the Camera Raw debayering to Arri full and decode by clip not Cdng's"  I am not sure which settings (Project vs. Color tab) you are referring to.

[Andy600]

The ARRI debayer is for ARRI Raw only and has zero affect on DNGs.

You are correct in point 2. If the camera raw settings are set to 'Project' it will use whatever choices you selected in the main project settings panel.

[66dellwood]

thanks Andy600, I began to question my understanding of raw editing of my CDNG files in Resolve.  If I may, can I confirm the reasonableness of the following settings in my Project Settings>Raw:
1.  Select CinemaDNG (in the box at the top right);  I assume this is the only sensible choice with CDNG files
2.  Decode Quality:  Full Res  (I assume I can go with less than full to get smoother playback while editing, but as long as I "force debayer to highest quality" in the render settings, the rendered image will still be of the highest res/quality)
3.  Play Quality:  assume this only affects playback in Resolve and does not affect the rendered image
4.  Decode Using:  Project
5.  White Balance:  I can tweak as needed if a WB adjustment makes sense for all clips
6.  Color Space:  BMDFilm
7.  Gamma: BMDFilm

I understand that by selecting BMDFilm for color space and gamma, Resolve will decode the CDNG files as "Log".  I assume this is a little like using  the Cinestyle camera profile for h.264/mov. files on my 5d2.   A flat image is produced as a starting point for grading resulting in improved dynamic range, detail and other benefits.

8.  Check Highlight Recovery
9.  In Project Settings>Lookup Tables:  I usually check broadcast safe and set to 0-100 and select a LUT (like Hunter's LUt) to apply to all clips

I have assumed that selecting BMDFilm "to flatten" then using a LUT to "unflatten" is a beneficial process to go through (otherwise I would just go Rec709 and skip the LUT).  But with raw images, I am not sure why this is the case  (I would not do anything similar with my raw photos).

I assume this workflow is still good in Resolve 12.5.

[Andy600]

Everything looks fine to me although I'm hesitant to recommend Hunters lut as it introduces banding artifacts - make sure you set lut interpolation to Tetrahedral (main setting panel) if you do use it to minimize this.

Rec709 is fine if you are working with DNGs from start to finish. There is no need to convert to log unless you intend using a lut that requires a log input (like Hunters which is built for BMD Film colorspace) or want/need to transcode to ProRes, DNxHD etc to reduce processor usage, reduce file sizes, archive or make the shots more portable.

BMD Film is the same principle as Cinestyle although they are technically quite different. BMD Film is designed specifically for the sensors in BMDs own 1st gen Cinema camera range. It's not ideal for all DNGs (nothing is) but it's not bad. Resolve's Color Managed YRGB colorscience will override the debayer so there are a lot of other log/gamma/gamut options you can also try.

[66dellwood]

Andy600:  very helpful, much appreciated.  For quite a while, I just assumed BMDFilm and a LUT was the best workflow for CDNG.  I hear you on banding artifacts.

is the Tetrahedral setting recommended for all LUTs or just the Hunter's LUT?

Can you recommend any recent LUTs designed to work with BMDFilm?

"there are a lot of other log/gamma/gamut options you can also try"....   such as??

Am looking to keep the workflow quick and simple.   Really appreciate the input.

Jim