What are you doing to MAKE BRAW not suck?

While many of you think you can simply downgrade to get CinemaDNG back. You cannot if you purchased a PCC4K with firmware version 6.2.1 installed. This was not something that was described or advertised anywhere. You could make the argument that it's my fault for not doing enough research but BMD has a monopoly on outlets like (youtube, forums, ect) and the word is "BRAW" is amazing.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but it's not. It's no different, if not worse than ProRes. When making edits, your footage degrades just like it would in Lumitri color on any old .mov prores file. This is not the case for CDNG. It is light years better.

I don't think this was a patent issue at all, CDNG is open source and holds no patents, free to use for anyone.

I think this was a power play by BMD, to try and gain more market share away from Adobe to use DR15-16.

That being said, because it is impossible for me to downgrade the camera. How can I make it not suck so bad.

How are you guys dealing with recovering highlights? Using curves, and getting maybe half a stop of correction, if that, before it turns grey? I mean that's such crap. That's not why we purchase black magic cameras.. We purchase them because they let us have cinemaDNG and raw features you'd have to spend nearly 10K to get anywhere else.

My other issue is that it seems they've baked in highlight and shadow recovery into the BRAW files, meaning you can't adjust any of it after the fact. They should at least release an uncompressed BRAW format update, with highlight and shadow adjustments that are made directly to the raw files.

Some people could care less about the storage space, so many people seem to be so happy about.

BRAW is like Nikon saying, "I'm sorry, we're no longer supporting NEF images ( Canon .CR2) and you can now only edit in .jpg." It's a total joke.

I wish everyone would stop riding this, "OMG its amazing" bandwagon and speak some truth. BMD has a serious issue here, considering they aren't even allowing CDNG on their top end cameras. How is a 40MB/s codec supposed to be raw. 80mb/s 4k. I can get my Iphone to record higher than that. Yes data rates matter, it shows what is being stored. In this case, not much. The images looks dull, and cloudy compared to CDNG.

Lastly, is there any way in DR15, premier pro or any other editing software that will allow me to change RED / GREEN / Blue color calibration and saturation?

Thank you, and I'm sorry for the rant, i'm just extremely disappointed that I spent 2000 to have cinemaDNG and then in the exact same stroke they don't allow you to have it, after they've marketed it.

I feel the quality is no different than any other mirrorless camera now. It's very very sad and very disappointing.

I’m pretty sure you are over reacting or that you had wrong expectations from the pocket4k.
Braw is just as usable in post as CDNG, you obviously can’t compare it because you can’t downgrade your camera, but many of us that still can will confirm to you that’s the case.

You can recover even 3-4 stops so I’m not really sure what you are saying about things going “gray” with a half stop correction.

The latitude of CDNG and BRAW on the pocket4k is the same, the only difference with CDNG is a slightly sharper image when zoomed in 200% or more.

If you want higher bitrate just select brawQ0 or 3:1 and you will have it.

And I’m sorry but the comparison with JPEG is borderline ridiculous...

Since when does BRAW sucks????

Man, someone really is not getting it... you're probably one of this new generation who thinks your gear is gonna do the things for you. You have a long way to learn yet. Be humble and you will grow and change.

- BRAW Q0 data rate is near the same as DNG 3:1
- BRAW produce WAY less moire and aliasing than DNG
- BRAW have some issues with pixel level sharpness, but it is not a problem for 4K image which always have extra sharpness. If you look from the other side it appears that it is a DNG without OLPF filter have too many fake pixel level sharpness that mostly produce moire aliasing and pixel level aliased noise around fine textures.
- Dull color depends of color correction and color science, but not a BRAW itself. Your starting point LOG gamma image with wide gamut color space is looks always dull.
- Some reports about BRAW sometimes produce macro blocking on overexposed image on clean blue sky, but probably compression method could be fixed in future updates.
- Red channel clipping problem. It could be fixed, and it is mostly Pocket4K sensor and color science v4 gamut related problem, but not a BRAW itself.
- The main issue with BRAW is color halo around solid contrast color patches. I done some tests ant this halos looks exact as quick chroma blur applied to the image to remove chroma noise and aliasing. So this step in BRAW processing should be really fixed somehow in future updates. In perfect world it could be ability to choose noise reduction strength in camera settings.

There were rumors that the patent issue was about the compression of cDNG inside the camera. RED supposedly has some patents for RAW compression on camera. Now if it was so return of the option for non compressed cDNG to the camera would be welcome by me, so I could update firmware/change camera if something happens to it.

How are you guys dealing with recovering highlights? Using curves, and getting maybe half a stop of correction, if that, before it turns grey? I mean that's such crap. That's not why we purchase black magic cameras.. We purchase them because they let us have cinemaDNG and raw features you'd have to spend nearly 10K to get anywhere else.

My other issue is that it seems they've baked in highlight and shadow recovery into the BRAW files, meaning you can't adjust any of it after the fact. They should at least release an uncompressed BRAW format update, with highlight and shadow adjustments that are made directly to the raw files.

This account indicates that either you're going about basic color correction the wrong way (perhaps you're applying a LUT upstream, to destructive affect?), or you may have encountered a beta bug which can occur when "use GPU for braw" is not selected as a preference, which could account for some of what you describe.

Since you give no information on your system or your methods, it's impossible to speculate further. Except to say, this is all wrong.

I've been shooting and publishing videos using BRAW Q5 quite happily.
I from time to time make a lot of adjustments in Resolve's 'colour' page. I've not seen any issues.
Maybe if I was pixel peeping, or downgrading to the Pocket4K from some $20,000 cinema camera system?

I used to shoot CDNG exclusively on the original pocket, and I don't discern any difference or downgrade now shooting braw.

Chris S, here is Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K Colour Fringing and colour issue thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82441 Starting from this post viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82441#p494793 there are some workarounds about better workflow and BRAW settings using RED IPP2 color mapping. For best possible results make sure to reset all settings except White Balance and Highlights recovery in BRAW tab, set native ISO 400 or 3200 and use only normal color correction tools in Resolve.

There are no big difference between Braw and CDNG. I just shot a music video with it and there are no problems a lot of latitude. Plus how is Blackmagic trying to take market share from adobe. 1 adobe didn’t even support their own raw format fully, if you chose CDNG 3:1 or 4:1 premiere couldn’t read it. And 2nd Blackmagic gave everybody the resources to support Braw it’s up to them to implement it.

Maybe this thread will be moot after today's announcement

.... BMD has a serious issue here, considering they aren't even allowing CDNG on their top end cameras. How is a 40MB/s codec supposed to be raw. 80mb/s 4k. I can get my Iphone to record higher than that. Yes data rates matter, it shows what is being stored. In this case, not much. The images looks dull, and cloudy compared to CDNG.....

There is no science based analysis in your criticism whatsoever. What sort of mathematical based comparison have you done? Until you do, your post is just pedantic fanboy ranting driven by behavioral inertia and will be ignored like the hundreds that came before it.

The thread pointed to in post #9 here has been like my Bible. Perhaps today’s announcements will make it unnecessary in the future as it can be somewhat complicated. I’m hoping it’s incorporated into an update to BRAW, Colour Science 5, and the Resolve 16.0 production release.

As for the OP, BRAW is not finished as it is only in its initial release.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just edit it like normal at a significant cost reduction, then submit render, and then clients say, man this is some great footage and you got it to us so fast! What'd you do differently?

I have even had people who claim to know the difference in a final whether braw/prores/cdng were used and they were not able to tell I used braw and thought I used CDNG.

I use BRAW now on every project, no issues or complaints whatsoever on this end.

CDNG will not be missed.

I just edit it like normal at a significant cost reduction, then submit render, and then clients say, man this is some great footage and you got it to us so fast! What'd you do differently?

I have even had people who claim to know the difference in a final whether braw/prores/cdng were used and they were not able to tell I used braw and thought I used CDNG.

I use BRAW now on every project, no issues or complaints whatsoever on this end.

CDNG will not be missed.

Just out of curiosity, which BRAW variation are you running?

Come on, guys. Nobody, viewing normal material normally (you know, like, moving pictures), can tell the difference between Prores, cDNG and any variant of braw, on the same camera, apart from some tell-tale defects like moire in cDNG or color gamut clipping in braw. What differences which do exist would be seen by the grader, not the viewer.

For those who claim otherwise, would you really bet the house on passing a blind test?

I just edit it like normal at a significant cost reduction, then submit render, and then clients say, man this is some great footage and you got it to us so fast! What'd you do differently?

I have even had people who claim to know the difference in a final whether braw/prores/cdng were used and they were not able to tell I used braw and thought I used CDNG.

I use BRAW now on every project, no issues or complaints whatsoever on this end.

CDNG will not be missed.

Just out of curiosity, which BRAW variation are you running?

5:1 and 8:1 BRAW

Dmitry. Thanks for answering Chris the correct way. Useful posts.

Chris, I simply don't use it. There are a few issues, but I haven't heard most of the ones you listed.

Your option may well be to upgrade to the new Braw coming out. I had been pushing with a higher quality mode that preserves details and pixel contrast more, with a new Jpeg standard, or other, to do it in less space. Old Braw is not a complete answer for every situation, sure, but hopefully new Braw is more what you want.

Funny joke removed, to condense thread.

I feel the quality is no different than any other mirrorless camera now. It's very very sad and very disappointing.

I have the perfect solution. Get a new camera.

Have you ever seen anything shot in BRAW that you like? If so, contact that person and get some information. If not, sell your camera. Easy peasy.

I’m pretty sure you are over reacting or that you had wrong expectations from the pocket4k.
Braw is just as usable in post as CDNG, you obviously can’t compare it because you can’t downgrade your camera, but many of us that still can will confirm to you that’s the case.

You can recover even 3-4 stops so I’m not really sure what you are saying about things going “gray” with a half stop correction.

The latitude of CDNG and BRAW on the pocket4k is the same, the only difference with CDNG is a slightly sharper image when zoomed in 200% or more.

If you want higher bitrate just select brawQ0 or 3:1 and you will have it.

And I’m sorry but the comparison with JPEG is borderline ridiculous...

Thanks for your response. Is it possible my exact camera is defective. I'm going to post screen shots, because I literally cannot.... CAN NOT... recover highlights. I have 2 options when filming. It seems like the dynamic range is worse than a zebra. It's either blown whites, or crushed blacks, no in between.

1. Underexpose to the point where nothing is even close to white on the histogram, then in post boost the exposure. == When pushing the exposure to lift shadows the highlights are then blown.

2. Expose correctly to where whites are just under blown on the histogram and lift the shadows. == Shadows look terrible and grey when trying to boost.

I can never get detail in the sky.

It's like unless the scene is evenly and perfectly lit every time there is no dynamic range. That's not what black magics are known for.

Thank you.

If you wouldn't mind, would you please pm a 10 second sample clip with cinemadng?

Since when does BRAW sucks????

Man, someone really is not getting it... you're probably one of this new generation who thinks your gear is gonna do the things for you. You have a long way to learn yet. Be humble and you will grow and change.

Definitely not that person. Have you used CinemaDNG? It's not, the footage has tons of compression artifacts and no highlight/shadow lifting. (Not to mention the loos of RED GREEN BLUE Primary adjustments)

Tell me how you recover highlights. In a way that's any better than any old flavor of .mov using the highlight slider. When you use anything outside of "Raw Editor" in DR15/16 it's the same effect editing on regular .mov footage gives you. It's not editing the raw image. If you push them beyond 1/2 stop they fall apart.

I'm starting to think that my personal camera could be defective. Because everyone seems to be convinced BRAW is the ****. On my camera it is not. ProRes gives higher quality. And even then the shadows are still crushed.

Everything that you've said about BRAW is patently untrue. Perhaps you need to practice more with Resolve to learn how to do everything that you say BRAW can't do.

I'm open to this thought, maybe I simply don't know enough about DR. Which is partially why I made this post?

How are you recovering shadows and highlights? I'll try the same and post the results. I'm thinking my camera could be defective. It's like the exposure curve is screwed up.

Thank you.

- BRAW Q0 data rate is near the same as DNG 3:1
- BRAW produce WAY less moire and aliasing than DNG
- BRAW have some issues with pixel level sharpness, but it is not a problem for 4K image which always have extra sharpness. If you look from the other side it appears that it is a DNG without OLPF filter have too many fake pixel level sharpness that mostly produce moire aliasing and pixel level aliased noise around fine textures.
- Dull color depends of color correction and color science, but not a BRAW itself. Your starting point LOG gamma image with wide gamut color space is looks always dull.
- Some reports about BRAW sometimes produce macro blocking on overexposed image on clean blue sky, but probably compression method could be fixed in future updates.
- Red channel clipping problem. It could be fixed, and it is mostly Pocket4K sensor and color science v4 gamut related problem, but not a BRAW itself.
- The main issue with BRAW is color halo around solid contrast color patches. I done some tests ant this halos looks exact as quick chroma blur applied to the image to remove chroma noise and aliasing. So this step in BRAW processing should be really fixed somehow in future updates. In perfect world it could be ability to choose noise reduction strength in camera settings.

Thank you for this. This is really going to help!

Since when does BRAW sucks????

Man, someone really is not getting it... you're probably one of this new generation who thinks your gear is gonna do the things for you. You have a long way to learn yet. Be humble and you will grow and change.

Definitely not that person. Have you used CinemaDNG? It's not, the footage has tons of compression artifacts and no highlight/shadow lifting. (Not to mention the loos of RED GREEN BLUE Primary adjustments)

Tell me how you recover highlights. In a way that's any better than any old flavor of .mov using the highlight slider. When you use anything outside of "Raw Editor" in DR15/16 it's the same effect editing on regular .mov footage gives you. It's not editing the raw image. If you push them beyond 1/2 stop they fall apart.

I'm starting to think that my personal camera could be defective. Because everyone seems to be convinced BRAW is the ****. On my camera it is not. ProRes gives higher quality. And even then the shadows are still crushed.

I can get details in the sky and it was bright, are you shooting in film log?

- BRAW Q0 data rate is near the same as DNG 3:1
- BRAW produce WAY less moire and aliasing than DNG
- BRAW have some issues with pixel level sharpness, but it is not a problem for 4K image which always have extra sharpness. If you look from the other side it appears that it is a DNG without OLPF filter have too many fake pixel level sharpness that mostly produce moire aliasing and pixel level aliased noise around fine textures.
- Dull color depends of color correction and color science, but not a BRAW itself. Your starting point LOG gamma image with wide gamut color space is looks always dull.
- Some reports about BRAW sometimes produce macro blocking on overexposed image on clean blue sky, but probably compression method could be fixed in future updates.
- Red channel clipping problem. It could be fixed, and it is mostly Pocket4K sensor and color science v4 gamut related problem, but not a BRAW itself.
- The main issue with BRAW is color halo around solid contrast color patches. I done some tests ant this halos looks exact as quick chroma blur applied to the image to remove chroma noise and aliasing. So this step in BRAW processing should be really fixed somehow in future updates. In perfect world it could be ability to choose noise reduction strength in camera settings.

Thank you for this. This is really going to help!

Yes, as an outside observer, I thought Dmitry's post was excellent.
Steve

Thanks for your response. Is it possible my exact camera is defective. I'm going to post screen shots, because I literally cannot.... CAN NOT... recover highlights. I have 2 options when filming. It seems like the dynamic range is worse than a zebra. It's either blown whites, or crushed blacks, no in between.

1. Underexpose to the point where nothing is even close to white on the histogram, then in post boost the exposure. == When pushing the exposure to lift shadows the highlights are then blown.

2. Expose correctly to where whites are just under blown on the histogram and lift the shadows. == Shadows look terrible and grey when trying to boost.

I can never get detail in the sky.

It's like unless the scene is evenly and perfectly lit every time there is no dynamic range. That's not what black magics are known for.

Thank you.

If you wouldn't mind, would you please pm a 10 second sample clip with cinemadng?

1. Boosting the exposure is still going to clip values eventually because you're boosting the highlights as well. It sounds like you're shooting some that's high dynamic range so if you preserve highlights then you need to boost shadows and midtones specifically.

2. Are you sure you trying to lift the shadow by using the Log panel? That compresses shadows, it doesn't lift them. To raise shadows you want to either use curves, increase the Shadows value (click 2 in the joined button that looks like this (1|2) at the bottom of the Color Wheels to see this option), or up to the ISO if you shot at a lower ISO since that boosts the middle gray point.

About highlight recovery. When people say that they mean highlights that are completely clipped. You can't do that with curves or basic color correction, you do it by checking Highlight Recovery in the Camera RAW panel. That option tells Resolve to try to reconstruct clipped channels using non-clipped channels. So obviously it works worst on things that are grey or white because the channels clip at the same time. But for non-overcast skys it works really well.

I'm open to this thought, maybe I simply don't know enough about DR. Which is partially why I made this post?

You should have been more clear about that from the beginning. It sounded like you had previous experience with CDNG and Resolve before and that BRAW wasn't working in the same way for you.

You might also want to check out your workflow, for example here:

What am I doing to make Braw not suck?

Using it properly, I guess.

Maybe this thread will be moot after today's announcement

I hope so! That would be fantastic. Then i'll be happy to retract all of my previous statements.

Chris S, here is Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K Colour Fringing and colour issue thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82441 Starting from this post viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82441#p494793 there are some workarounds about better workflow and BRAW settings using RED IPP2 color mapping. For best possible results make sure to reset all settings except White Balance and Highlights recovery in BRAW tab, set native ISO 400 or 3200 and use only normal color correction tools in Resolve.

Thank you for this! I really appreciate this!

I'm open to this thought, maybe I simply don't know enough about DR. Which is partially why I made this post?

You should have been more clear about that from the beginning. It sounded like you had previous experience with CDNG and Resolve before and that BRAW wasn't working in the same way for you.

I do have experience with CDNG just not in DR. In after effects and premier pro.

I'm open to this thought, maybe I simply don't know enough about DR. Which is partially why I made this post?

How are you recovering shadows and highlights? I'll try the same and post the results. I'm thinking my camera could be defective. It's like the exposure curve is screwed up.

Thank you.

First ensure that you are exposing correctly, don't simply rely on what the camera shows, practice with using the histogram, zebras, false colour until you understand how and what each of these tells you. Your in-camera or monitor settings will also affect how zebras, for example will show up in over-exposed areas.

Secondly, go on YouTube and watch lots of different videos showing how Resolve works in its specific areas. The Blackmagic ones are far too clinical and more like a Microsoft Office manual, you need to watch tutorials by users who can explain specific techniques in short videos, not a hour or so. Casey Faris, Goat's Eye View, Learn Colour Grading are a few who can explain in easy to understand terms.

Have Resolve open, watch, pause and copy what's going on (two monitors helps).

Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I always use the histogram for exposure, but it seems like every time I do, even if Highlights are nowhere near the clip i can't bring the image back. It's always blown or too dark. Luts, grades, everything makes the highlights blown. I will post examples.

I do have experience with CDNG just not in DR. In after effects and premier pro.

I still think you should look at the 5-minute Ripple Training tutorial I posted up above that shows specifically how you work with BRAW in Resolve; this is from a Blackmagic-Design-approved tutorial and there may be a few key steps that you're overlooking. Check it out, make sure you're following all those steps and experiment with the settings he's showing to see if that helps.

You might also want to check out your workflow, for example here:

Thank you.

What am I doing to make Braw not suck?

Using it properly, I guess.

Tiff Vs .NEF .Cr2. You can make color changes, cut layers, add new things, x.y.z, but it's not RAW.

Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I always use the histogram for exposure, but it seems like every time I do, even if Highlights are nowhere near the clip i can't bring the image back. It's always blown or too dark. Luts, grades, everything makes the highlights blown. I will post examples.

Forget LUTs, avoid then at all costs until you learn to post-process without them. Once you do, you'll find that LUTs are rarely, if ever, required. Using LUTs anywhere in the process will more or less lock you in from any further processing (it effectively bakes in the grade).

You need to start processing from basic principles using the tools available in the Colour section. You also need a fairly good monitor that's calibrated, so that you can see the full spectrum of colour (at least what the monitor is capable of displaying). And when it comes to taking, you really do need to stay at the ISO400 and ISO3200 setting wherever possible to get maximum quality.

Thanks man, I'll try these settings. I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure my monitors are the issue.

Could the choosen LUT in the LUT menu on the camera have anything to do with it? I set it to "Pocket 4K film to Extended Video".

Forget LUTs, avoid then at all costs until you learn to post-process without them. Once you do, you'll find that LUTs are rarely, if ever, required. Using LUTs anywhere in the process will more or less lock you in from any further processing (it effectively bakes in the grade).

That's factually inaccurate, and about the worst advice you could give a beginner. Normalizing log by eye is not for novices, who will have no idea when the adjustments are "correct". It accounts for much of the terrible grading of BMD footage you see on youtube.

Here are just a few samples of some footage I feel looks completely terrible.

The shadows look terrible. They have so many artifacts and so many blotchy noise spots. This could never be used on any production. Granted it's back lit, but still. Some of my favorite shots are backlit.

Is ISO 400 that magic sweet spot?

I'm also using a Metabons Nikon F mount speed booster with a Tamron 15-30mm F2.8. I know lenses have a lot to do with color reproduction, but this doesn't seem like that. In addition the image in general just looks hazy. Adding more contrast, more gamma, or contrast seems to make it much worse as seen below.

Thank you in advance for any feedback on this.

The first one is the original Shot in BRAW. (I think 3:1 could be 5:1)


Here is my color adjustment


Zoomed In issues


Another Example


My settings all below


Original BRAW histogram


After Edit Histogram


BRAW Settings


After cranking up gamma contrast and messing with curves.

[
That's factually inaccurate, and about the worst advice you could give a beginner. Normalizing log by eye is not for novices, who will have no idea when the adjustments are "correct". It accounts for much of the terrible grading of BMD footage you see on youtube.

I think Ray is just confusing BMD's technical LUTs (and in this case display LUTs) with third-party creative LUTs and doesn't understand the difference; we've been through this before.

The BMPCC 4K manual has detailed instructions on the use of LUTs for display and also describes how LUTS like Blackmagic Film to Extended Video can be recorded with clips, including in BRAW files.

Here are just a few samples of some footage I feel looks completely terrible.

Without seeing the actual clip -- you might want to link to it -- it's impossible to know what's recoverable and what isn't. For example, it looks like there are areas of fairly extreme underexposure, from which you're not likely to recover much detail, in favor of noise.

But what's terrible first and foremost is your "grading".

I disagree. Using LUTs developed by others provides zero learning experience and is exactly why you see crap on YouTube

I'm not talking about third-party LUTs, designed to achieve a particular look. It's BMD's normalizing LUTs, applied in Resolve, which are at issue. Learning to use them is essential for most beginners. If you really "fully understand" the difference, there's no indication of it here.

Third-party LUTs can also be useful. It really depends on the what's to be achieved, and knowing what you're doing.

I fully understand the difference.

Then why did you write: "Remember that LUTs are created by someone else with files that may in no way reflect your files. So there's no guarantee that what the creator of the LUTs has shown on YouTube or wherever, will ever be reflected in your final output" in response to the OP's question "Could the choosen LUT in the LUT menu on the camera have anything to do with it? I set it to "Pocket 4K film to Extended Video".

Do you know who developed "Pocket 4K Film to Extended Video" and what its purpose is?

Ray, please. You're an admitted beginner, and you're propagating bad information, based in ignorance.

And unfortunately, it's not the first time. If the idea is to drive away people, you're succeeding. Working against the OP's errors is hard enough, without your compounding it beyond repair.

I have been post-processing RAW still files for 15+ years. The concept is exactly the same as for video image processing.

No it isn't. Please take some time to study up on the various ways to normalize footage from log to Rec 709 or another standard color space. LUTs are one perfectly acceptable (and widely used, even in Hollywood) way to do it. Color management (such as ACEs or Resolve Color Management) is another. Custom curves are another. But technical LUTs are perfectly acceptable for this purpose and you're not getting the distinction. Log is not RAW; these are two different concepts.

So you too are suggesting that people should not learn about colour grading basics?

Normalizing log footage is the first step in color grading basics. See Alexis van Hurkman's Color Correction Handbook or any good online tutorial. This is the part you don't seem to understand. Anyway, I provided a link to the Ripple Training 5-minute guide to the BRAW workflow in Resolve, which I think could be helpful to the OP to make sure he's processing his files correctly in Resolve.

And Google (YouTube), like always, is monitoring what I'm looking at and gave me this:

Why do all of these people keep suggesting exactly what I've been saying?

I believe this Youtuber is referring to “creative luts”, which apparently some folks hope to use as a magic bullet of sorts.

I bought the very fine Ripple Training advanced course for Resolve 15. The very first thing discussed is having a grading strategy. Apparently, people who get paid to grade do so successfully by first “normalizing” clips by adjusting luminance and chroma values in a primary grade step, before doing a secondary grade on select portions of the clip. Then they proceed to the creative grade.

During the primary grade, either technical luts or color management can be used for normalization. I personally have found using Resolve Color Management (RCM) to be the best starting point.

But this is just one strategy, as I understand it.

Steve


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Whether a color management scheme or a LUT is applied, it's fundamentally the same process: log footage is transformed according to a math formula to a different color space. My own preference is RCM -- the manual claims the math is better than through an applied LUT, but it's the simplest and cleanest way to do it and there's no chance of inadvertently clipping data, thanks to improper use of a normalizing LUT.

You could also use ACEs, though there's less apparent flexibility in adjustments than RCM.
Without this step -- however the grader chooses to normalize the footage, color management, LUT or manually-- you'll never get a decent grade. Correct one element, and it'll make something else worse. If you're confident a beginner can normalize manually in the course of grading, refer to page 1 of this thread and have a good look at the result.

FWIW my 'beginner' view....
I've spent hours watching and rewatching Resolve tutorials. I've spent money on courses, for example at Ripple Training. Grading in Resolve is a very steep learning curve for beginners, at least for me.
I personally have found it easier to adjust my footage using the correction tools than using a LUT.
For me I try to get the shot as good as I can in camera. Of course in situations of a main subject in shadow, while other parts of the scene are bathed in hard, bright sun, are going to be a challenge. It's going to involve compromise, where some of the brighter parts of the image might be blown out, unrecoverable.

Both the camera (P4k) and Davinci Resolve are complex to use properly. If I'm having issues I know it's down to me, not the product. I wouldn't say using LUTs is 'essential' for beginners. If I get my CDNG or BRAW footage right in the camera, I find it relatively easy to get it to stage one viewable in Resolve using the wheels and curves.

Folks, this is not controversial. You can choose to do it the right way, or you can do it the way Ray suggests.

Of course, it's true some skilled colorist normalize footage manually, but that doesn't end well for most amateurs. Nor do most professionals see any virtue or pedagogical advantage to avoiding color management. It's an industry standard, after all.

The proof, of course, is in the product. Then again, asking people to post examples of their excellent grading, using non-standard methods generally beyond the skill levels of amateurs, probably wouldn't end well ("that how I wanted it to look"!).

I think this is a lost cause and I won't add anything more after this, but see this quote from Alexis van Hurkman's Color Correction Handbook:

"When you're grading a project that originates with log-encoded media, your first order of business is to normalize it, using a contrast adjustment of some kind, to take the first step in your grade and to be able to see what you're working on. Your first adjustment to normalize log-encoded media is not intended to achieve perfect contrast; its purpose is to provide an ideal starting point for moving the wide-latitude log data into the 32-bit floating-point precision of your grading application's image processing pipeline, in preparation for more work.

In other words, first you normalize and then you fine-tune.

There are two ways of normalizing a log-encode image so you can start working with it in more depth: using a lookup table and manually."

He then goes on to illustrate how to normalize with a camera LUT (and making adjustments before and after the LUT), using color management like RCM (which is simpler and what I use), or doing a manual adjustment (e.g., setting the white and black points and then building an S-curve with many control points, which is time-consuming).

After normalizing is done, that's when you move on to lift, gamma, gain, color balancing, etc. to fine-tune the result, and then on to secondary grading.