Using Resolve with 4:2:2 10-bit GH5 files

I just got a Panasonic GH5 and am super excited to use it, since it shoots 4K 4:2:2 10-bit video. I got home from the trip where I bought it and excitedly opened Resolve 14.2 (the free version) to look at the video... and it doesn't work. When I attempt to load files into Resolve, it only loads the audio and not the video.

Searching this forum, I see some references that the GH5's 10-bit video will only work with Resolve Studio -- the paid version of Resolve. Help! Will the GH5's video *not* work with the free version of DaVinci Resolve?

Thanks!

Bob Kovacs

No, it won't work in free version.

No, it won't work in free version.

Thanks for getting back so quickly, Andrew. Do you (or anyone else) know if Resolve working with GH5 10-bit 4:2:2 files is likely to happen in the near future? If the paid version can do it, obviously it can be done. Why punish GH5 owners?

I assume the work-around is to convert the files to ProRes. Any comments on that?

I'm surprised that there is any issue with these files, since I never heard a whisper of it in all the gushing praise I've read about the Panasonic GH5.

Bob Kovacs

Unlikely it will happen in free version, because BM needs for this licensed AVC decoder, which costs them money. Free version relies on OS provided AVC decoder (so MS or Apple paid license and BM can use this for free). Those OS provided decoders are not full spec, so files like 4:2:2 10bit don't work.

Yes, you have to convert them to some intermediate codec preferably, so ProRes, DNxHR. You can use free ffmpeg for it.

Thanks!

Hi.

I hope your are happy with Andrews very nice answers. But I wonder why you got the GH5?
Back in April Blackmagic announced the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K. It will cost $1,295 including DaVinchi Resolve Studio and will be available later this year:

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... nemacamera

I think it will be a better choice, if you want to work with DaVinchi Resolve.

Regards Carsten.

Hi.

I hope you are happy with Andrews very nice answers. But I wonder why you got the GH5?
Back in April Blackmagic announced the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K. It will cost $1,295 including DaVinci Resolve Studio and will be available later this year:

I got the GH5 because it was a one-time deep discount: The camera and a nice Panasonic lens together were $1,500. I have two other Panasonic Micro-FourThirds cameras, so I already have an assortment of lenses for them. (And yes, I know that the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K is also Micro-FourThirds.) And the GH5 has been shipping for more than a year, so I figure all the bugs are worked out. And it really is a nice camera that also takes good photos to go with the video. (And again, I have the lenses for it.)

I'm highly intrigued by the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K, however.

What I wasn't expecting was that playing back and/or editing the GH5's 10-bit 4:2:2 files would be a problem. In the 20+ reviews and blog posts I've read about the GH5, I do not recall playback and editing concerns being mentioned.

Bob Kovacs

I agree. Fact that GH5 has been out for a year alone is good enough reason, specially when on other side we have BM product. First lets see if it ships on time, then we will see how many initial serious or not problems it will have and how quickly they will be addressed . Then we can talk how it compares to GH5

I agree. Fact that GH5 has been out for a year alone is good enough reason, specially when on other side we have BM product. First lets see if it ships on time, then we will see how many initial serious or not problems it will have and how quickly they will be addressed . Then we can talk how it compares to GH5

I'm excited for the BMPCC4K myself, but many people are counting this chicken before it hatches. Enjoy your purchase OP, it is a fine camera.

For anyone following this discussion, I found a conversion program called "Convert V6" (or just "V6" for short) that let me convert the GH5's 10-bit 4:2:2 files to ProRes. Convert V6 is for 64-bit Windows computers only... you can read up and download the software here. The author of the software requires a small payment -- I paid $5 to be allowed to download it.

Using V6 was complicated. I found a video that discussed how to use Version 4 of the software, and that helped me figure out how to use V6. If I feel productive, I will make a YouTube video specifically for V6.

Here is where you can find the V6 software: http://hdcinematics.com/wnorton/2017/10/16/v6-intro/

And here is the video for V4... you'll have to go about six minutes in to where the V4 discussion begins:

I tested the V6 conversion software, and it works. One great feature is that it does batch conversions, so that you can stack a bunch of videos in it and it will churn through them and convert them. It also has a player, so that you can play the GH5's 10-bit files to see what is on them.

V6 is not a perfect solution, but for $5 it's a no-brainer.

Bob Kovacs

You should ask.
There are free GUI based ffmpeg driven solutions (with batch ability) which are fairly easy to use.

You should ask.
There are free GUI based ffmpeg driven solutions (with batch ability) which are fairly easy to use.

I looked at ffmpeg extensively yesterday, even downloading it and trying to puzzle it out. You're right, though... I should ask. (Although that might get four different answers!) I don't mind the price -- five bucks is reasonable for software that looks pretty clean.

Now that you mention it, though... what ffmpeg-based solution do you suggest?

Bob

what ffmpeg-based solution do you suggest?

handbrake is perhaps one of the most exemplary ones, because it's also open source and quite reliable and mature.

but it's still very useful to learn handling tasks by ffmpeg on the command line, because this gives you a lot of additional opportunities, which aren't available via simple GUIs, and you somehow learn to understand what really going on beyond all his simple helper utilities. that's very helpful to prevent insufficient transcoding (e.g. loosing the timecode information and color related metadata etc.)

Smartffmpeg is simple GUI. Then you just need good preset to convert to your chosen codec (if you not happy with one of the built-in).

When you convert AVC 10bit GH5 files ffmpeg command is quite simple (if you know it ):

ffmpeg -i "source.mov" -map_metadata 0 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le -c:v dnxhd -profile:v 4 -c:a pcm_s24le -movflags write_colr "out.mov"

this will create DNxHR HQX (10bit) MOV file (map_metadata allows to keep recording dates). Audio will be PCM 24bit. Timecode will be also copied by default.

If you want to flag DNxHR as full range you add: -color_range pc. By default it's always flagged as limited range (even if ffmpeg properly reads GH5 AVC color range).
Latest Resolve seems to properly read color range flag from DNxHR (older versions always assumed limited). It also properly writes range during export, so BM does read posts and reported issues

Now that you mention it, though... what ffmpeg-based solution do you suggest?

My suggestion is to use the command line interface. You have full control and can make batch files with parameters.

It takes some time to learn but it is well worth the effort!

Hi.

I hope your are happy with Andrews very nice answers. But I wonder why you got the GH5?
Back in April Blackmagic announced the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K. It will cost $1,295 including DaVinchi Resolve Studio and will be available later this year:

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... nemacamera

I think it will be a better choice, if you want to work with DaVinchi Resolve.

Regards Carsten.

we can make lovely films now on the GH5 ..... the PCC4k we can only dream at this stage.

Getting the studio version also gives you a lot more features then just being able to play the 10bit GH5 files. Highly recommend it.

Seconded, the Studio version is absolutely worth it!
You can try to find a dongle second-hand, some owners of cameras sell theirs. Last time I checked it was about half the price with some luck.

I find it amusing that people have cameras and computers that must have cost them lots of money and will not spend $299 on software to make it all work !!!

I find it amusing that people have cameras and computers that must have cost them lots of money and will not spend $299 on software to make it all work !!!

i also hardly understand, why people always want to spend money for tools/tasks, which can be handled by free open source solutions in a much more satisfying way. unfortunately this also affects davinci resolve, because we all know, that even the studio version and its h264 codecs simply can not compete with the quality of the well known open source x264. so you'll get a little bit of improvement concerning file format support for this $300, but it's still far beyond the even much wider format support and actual encoding image quality of this free ffmpeg based solutions. i think, this should be at least understood as another reminder, that price tags and effective quality/capabilities/customizability don't have to be seen as always strictly correlated.

asking for better common [low end!] file format support and acceptable codecs resp. image quality on all platforms, should be therefore seen as a absolute legitimate request, which IMHO doesn't belong to this particular set of advanced "studio" related refinements, which should extend the application for more professional use. it looks much more related to the absolute basic feature set -- i.e. capabilities, which should be available in both kinds of resolve -- as long as the non-studio version is not just seen only as a free "demo version" to attract and catch new users.

What I love about DaVinci Resolve is that the “free” version can be used in a professional environment and deliver commercially usable content. No strings. No questions asked. Thank you BMD. (Though I do think if you are making a living using Resolve, you should support BMD)

For the past few years I’ve been using Lightworks for our church sermons, which can’t be beat when it comes to its pure cutting prowess, but it’s free version is limited in output resolution and codecs. This may be fine for hobbyists and vloggers (and church sermon videos), but it’s far from usable commercially. In fact, many professional Lightworks users finish on the free version of Resolve. Like most other NLEs, the free versions are basically just trial versions. But Resolve is different, and I hope it retains this uniqueness.

For the past few years I’ve been using Lightworks for our church sermons, which can’t be beat when it comes to its pure cutting prowess, but it’s free version is limited in output resolution and codecs. This may be fine for hobbyists and vloggers (and church sermon videos), but it’s far from usable commercially. In fact, many professional Lightworks users finish on the free version of Resolve. Like most other NLEs, the free versions are basically just trial versions. But Resolve is different, and I hope it retains this uniqueness.

Although one might get a confused look if someone were to ask:

"So how do you edit those wonderful sermon videos?"
"Oh, I use black magic!".

I do hope he can Resolve their confusion

I find it amusing that people have cameras and computers that must have cost them lots of money and will not spend $299 on software to make it all work !!!

Money is not endless. Although I got a great deal on the Panasonic GH5 and it was too good a deal to pass up, there's no reason to spend money if I don't have to. Lots of video production gear competes for my money, so if I can save in one place, I can spend in another. Saving $300 on editing software means I can get a wireless mic or a prime lens or a better tripod or a slider or an external display. When I go on a shoot, people & clients expect me to have these things. They never consider how I edit the video -- they just assume that gets done magically.

Bob

Also- USA or UK or other "richer" countries based people have to realise that in many countries 500$ is a monthly salary, so what is 500$ for some, it feels like 2000$ (or even more) for others (+sometimes products are even more expensive).

In the modern world of software, you can often exchange time for money, not only the other way around. There exist free tools to convert your footage and then there is free Resolve to edit it (and much more than edit only).

You'll only spend time (and some disk space).

Curious.. I use ffmpeg (cmd line) for most things.. including batch processing files for various reasons. But why does it require the studio version of Resolve to access these AVC GH5 files but the free/open source version of ffmpeg is able to do so? How does ffmpeg get around the licensing costs of the AVC codec that BMD has to pay for?

I too would say get the studio version if possible.. and like many I am waiting on the BM4K camera to get my studio license as part of that cost.

I find it amusing that people have cameras and computers that must have cost them lots of money and will not spend $299 on software to make it all work !!!

Money is not endless. Although I got a great deal on the Panasonic GH5 and it was too good a deal to pass up, there's no reason to spend money if I don't have to. Lots of video production gear competes for my money, so if I can save in one place, I can spend in another. Saving $300 on editing software means I can get a wireless mic or a prime lens or a better tripod or a slider or an external display. When I go on a shoot, people & clients expect me to have these things. They never consider how I edit the video -- they just assume that gets done magically.

Bob

I understand you, but my comment was to be realistic about what you have and need to finish your work. A powerful enough computer for Resolve and a GH5 with lens etc must have cost you way over $5000. It was this relation to $300 that I was referring to. You could of course just shoot 8 bit then the free version of Resolve is fine.

Curious.. I use ffmpeg (cmd line) for most things.. including batch processing files for various reasons. But why does it require the studio version of Resolve to access these AVC GH5 files but the free/open source version of ffmpeg is able to do so? How does ffmpeg get around the licensing costs of the AVC codec that BMD has to pay for?

It doesn't, but no one will chase you as this is unrealistic. It's easy to chase BM as company though.

You could of course just shoot 8 bit then the free version of Resolve is fine.

no! -- that's not true in case of all operating systems! -- the non-studio version of resolve for linux will not even support 8bit h.264 .mp4/.mov files! you have purchase the studio version, if you want get access to this exceptional PRO-feature in this case!

and although i prefer a peaceful coexistence of different choices in general, i really can't stand this kind of absurd limitations, which definitely discriminate against free solutions. in this regard i would suggest, that it should be just the other way around consciously, because most users of commercial operating systems do not care so much about the price and stupid limitations anyway.

but beside this particular shortcomings, i would generally argue, that those, which really make huge profit based on exploiting some tools written by others -- no matter, if it's just free open source software or an affordable commercial product -- should feel at least an ethical obligation, to give something back in return. but those, which don't make any relevant earning by using just the same tools in more idealistic contexts, shouldn't be compelled to behave just the same. if they instead openly share their experiences with other users, produce nice and valuable pieces of art etc., it's usually just as productive and beneficial for all of us as just paying a few bucks to the credit of one of the few big commercial software monopolists...

A powerful enough computer for Resolve and a GH5 with lens etc must have cost you way over $5000.

Actually, the GH5, nice lens and computer (which is reasonably powerful) cost well under $3,000. I grew up really poor, and learned to do a lot with a little. That's one reason why I like Blackmagic's products.

Bob

A powerful enough computer for Resolve and a GH5 with lens etc must have cost you way over $5000.

Actually, the GH5, nice lens and computer (which is reasonably powerful) cost well under $3,000. I grew up really poor, and learned to do a lot with a little. That's one reason why I like Blackmagic's products.

Bob

Then you are lucky you got a really good price. Current B&H prices for GH5 with 12-35 lens is $2,895.98 . I build my own computers and one with a GTX GPU that will make Resolve work well will cost in my mind over $2000 for a really basic PC. So I was being approximate saying $5000 since I have not included extra batteries for the GH5 etc or drives for the PC. Total cost for a good setup could easily be over $7000

If you want things cheap or for free then you get what you pay for. Life is not free. If you want free then you will be missing some features and I support that. If you want features pay for them. Do you work for free ?

Sometimes I get questioned about the awful practice by BMD of offering free software with 'crippled' features. I usually suggest politely that they use the free versions offered by Avid, Adobe or Apple etc. After they see what else is on offer for free, they usually count their blessings that BMD offer ANY free software.

I'm grateful that Blackmagic Design offers such a functional editing program for free. Really, I am. And I recommend the software (and the company) to others. I just wish that it didn't cripple the very feature that supports my new camera.

If that makes me a stinking whining hypocrite, then I guess you can paste that term in my signature.

Bob

It's all about the money. IMHO it is fully acceptable that BM doesn't want to pay license fees for something they are giving away for free. So blame Microsoft for not licensing your cameras format for decoding.

Hehehe, why on earth would you blame MS?
MS provides OS with what is needed for Windows average customers. They are not going worry about pro world. This is what software providers should and do, including BM. You simply buy Resolve license and if you can't afford use transcoding.

To the judgmental contributor: Slow your roll. Why be cruel and condescending? Having grown up very poor myself (though in an urban setting) -- in a family of 9, while Dad worked hard at 3 jobs and returned home to our homemaker, child-nurturing Mom, I for one, thoroughly empathize with Bob.

Bob's gotten surprisingly attractive deals on acquiring his wares (Praise God he's smart to have even acquired quality gear for much less than you even imagined) -- defying the old cliché and unwitting sweeping generalization --
"You get what you pay for" (sic).

And doubtless, he's tremendously grateful and works hard at making a living. Try thinking tbe best of people rather than giving them undeserved condescension and unnecessary grief, as if on trial for the crime of merely desiring a *feature* in Resolve, that Resolve Studio possesses.
(Don't get it twisted)

God willing -- with a BMD Pocket 4K cam or some other BMD model in his future, he'll be on board with Resolve Studio when ready.

Loosen up. Pick on somebody your own size if you must, but I'm going to have to ask you:
Let Bob alone; and you know who you are; -- O'Tay?

#HaveFun but #PlayNice.

Resolve Studio 14.3.0.014 | MiniMonitor | DTV 10.9.7 | Win64 8.1 | ASUS ROG G751JL, 2.8GHz Intel i7HQ, 24GB DDR4, 1TB HDD, 500GB EVO 850 SSD, 2GB GTX965M | Mackie MCU Pro | Softube Console 1 mkii | Shuttle Pro 2

Sorry if I have offended you and Bob in particular but I get a little feed up with people complaining that the free software they have doesn't do what they want. So I stand by what I said. If there is a feature you want that isn't in the free software you have then find a version that has what you want and pay for it. If companies do not get paid for their work then they may not be around to provide free software !!!!

I too grew up in a poor family in the UK so know what it is like to not have money. That has nothing to do with paying for things that you want just restricts what is available to your resources. By all means find ways to get what you want at the lowest cost but don't complain that a company isn't giving you stuff for free that you want. Your clients or employer may have similar views !!!

Is it cruel to say: Wake up and smell the coffee ?

Sorry if I have offended you and Bob in particular but I get a little feed up with people complaining that the free software they have doesn't do what they want. So I stand by what I said. If there is a feature you want that isn't in the free software you have then find a version that has what you want and pay for it. If companies do not get paid for their work then they may not be around to provide free software !!!!

I too grew up in a poor family in the UK so know what it is like to not have money. That has nothing to do with paying for things that you want just restricts what is available to your resources. By all means find ways to get what you want at the lowest cost but don't complain that a company isn't giving you stuff for free that you want. Your clients or employer may have similar views !!!

Fully agree with Ron, if it's free then why do people expect the software to have many of the same features as the paid version. I paid for the studio version so expect the free version to have less features otherwise why would people like me buy the studio version?

Fully agree with Ron, if it's free then why do people expect the software to have many of the same features as the paid version. I paid for the studio version so expect the free version to have less features otherwise why would people like me buy the studio version?

about this "why?", you should perhaps read: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html

"I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way..."

and this wasn't just written by some crazy guy because of deadly boredom. it became step by step a very influential measure, which sustainable changed fundamental principles of software access. and it even worked out very well in practice! e.g. those particular operating system and development tools, which davinci resolve was originally build on and still determine its actual shape to large extend, are all based and protected by licensing rules founded in this initial proclamation.

If people want to write free software that anyone can use that is fine with me. Just don't expect companies who have paid employees to do the same. Also, just because a company uses free software in its products does not mean they have to give away their software. If Resolve runs on a free UNIX OS does not mean the application that runs on this OS has to be free. I ask the question of those people who write the free software where do they get the money for food and lodging ? One may suggest that indirectly their employer is paying for the FREE software !!!

FWIW, every Panasonic camera I've ever had came with software called "PhotoFunStudio," which I have always ignored. However, in reading about the Panasonic GH5 camera and updating its firmware, I saw that PhotoFunStudio can play and edit 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 files. So I just gave it a quick try and it can indeed playback 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 files -- that will at least let me see what I have recorded. I did a simple render to a 4K file, and I can play the rendered file on my computer, so I assume it is an 8-bit file. (I didn't see any setting within PhotoFunStudio that would allow me to render to a 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 format, but I'm still looking around.) PhotoFunStudio is plenty quirky and not at all intuitive to get started -- for one thing, you have to "register" a folder within the software before you can navigate to that folder to look at the files. And the registration process is s-l-o-w. Once I registered a folder, I could then navigate to it and view any videos in that folder.

I just mention this for any other GH5 owners who, like me, wondered how to view the 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 files from your camera.

Bob

I just mention this for any other GH5 owners who, like me, wondered how to view the 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 files from your camera.

Bob

If you want just view then you can use any of the many free players or something with more "timeline a like" possibilities like VirtualDub2. There is no need for any convoluted and slow software.

No, it won't work in free version.

Sorry Andrew but this information is incorrect. If you are on a PC then all you need is the correct HEVC video extension which you can get from Microsoft by following this link

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/hevc- ... verviewtab

Then 10-bit works just fine in the free version.

I know this because it worked fine on my PC.

I wish I could find a place to share this more broadly because this information about it not working in the free version seems to be all over the place and it took me ages to find that link.

Are your sure your files are 10bit 4:2:2, not 10bit 4:2:0?
If MS has added support for 4:2:2 then Resolve may use it, so they it may work. MS uses GPU for the decoding and none of the GPUs supports 4:2:2 files, so it's even less likely to work (they could switch to software decode though).
Please make sure your files are 4:2:2- send mediainfo screenshot.

Are your sure your files are 10bit 4:2:2, not 10bit 4:2:0?
If MS has added support for 4:2:2 then Resolve may use it, so they it may work. MS uses GPU for the decoding and none of the GPUs supports 4:2:2 files, so it's even less likely to work (they could switch to software decode though).
Please make sure your files are 4:2:2- send mediainfo screenshot.

Andrew,

A great question.

I was failing to read those files from a Mavic 2 Pro drone when I had the free version. The M2P is 10-bit but could be 4:2:0. I've seen a lot of posts from people saying that the M2P footage can't be read by the free version and using that link fixed it for me. But, this is a question about the GH5.

I have a friend in Oz testing it with his GH5 footage but...it's bedtime there right now. Hopefully, we have a definitive answer tomorrow.

I can't test it with my GH5 because I upgraded to the Studio version.

Even if it does work, the Studio version allows me to work with files without having to generate optimized media, so I would never suggest to people that upgrading isn't worth it - it totally is.

Once my friend replies hopefully we can confirm - thanks for the comment and keeping me honest!

Bob,
You do realize you don't HAVE to record 10 bit, right? If you're workflow can't support it (because you won't pay for Resolve) then the simplest thing you can do is simply record 8 bit. Unless you are recording V-LOG or doing very heavy grading, you might not notice a difference.

Are your sure your files are 10bit 4:2:2, not 10bit 4:2:0?
If MS has added support for 4:2:2 then Resolve may use it, so they it may work. MS uses GPU for the decoding and none of the GPUs supports 4:2:2 files, so it's even less likely to work (they could switch to software decode though).
Please make sure your files are 4:2:2- send mediainfo screenshot.

Andrew,

A great question.

I was failing to read those files from a Mavic 2 Pro drone when I had the free version. The M2P is 10-bit but could be 4:2:0. I've seen a lot of posts from people saying that the M2P footage can't be read by the free version and using that link fixed it for me. But, this is a question about the GH5.

I have a friend in Oz testing it with his GH5 footage but...it's bedtime there right now. Hopefully, we have a definitive answer tomorrow.

I can't test it with my GH5 because I upgraded to the Studio version.

Even if it does work, the Studio version allows me to work with files without having to generate optimized media, so I would never suggest to people that upgrading isn't worth it - it totally is.

Once my friend replies hopefully we can confirm - thanks for the comment and keeping me honest!

4:2:0 is fine will work over MS GPU based decoder. 4:2:2 won't.

Hi.

I hope your are happy with Andrews very nice answers. But I wonder why you got the GH5?
Back in April Blackmagic announced the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K. It will cost $1,295 including DaVinchi Resolve Studio and will be available later this year:

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... nemacamera

I think it will be a better choice, if you want to work with DaVinchi Resolve.

Regards Carsten.

I use the GH5s, BMPCC 4k, and the GH5. They are very different beasts! Though the BMPCC 4k is the cheapest of the 3, I use it as my A cam for interviews and what not. It can look fantastic, but it definitely is a cinema camera (meaning it requires some extra care and consideration to use properly because of its nature as well as its quirks). I wouldn't really want to use it as my main run and gun cam, whereas the GH5 and 5s are solid for just about any situation.

Timothy, can you elaborate a bit on your specific reasons for not using it for rungun style, and what particulars you are referring to with the BMPCC4K? I ask for my knowledge. not to be a smart ass. I would like to know/learn more about how to properly use this camera. I am sure I am missing some stuff. I have a post on using it for sports video stuff, and have learned a bit there from the responses as well. But I am about to shoot a cotillion with this camera (and my Sony AX53 to cover a wider angle of the dance floor, etc).