kye

Have you tried exporting from Resolve and then pulling the export back into Resolve and seeing if it looks different? If it's different to what the graded shots look like then it's a problem with the export function of Resolve, otherwise it might be that Resolve isn't calibrated properly. Resolve has its own independent colour calibration and profiles capabilities so maybe they've gotten screwed up somehow. For what it's worth I've edited, graded, exported, and uploaded a couple of dozen videos and they look fine to me, except for the usual browser and media player colour issues.

The scaling happens automatically. Resolve handles almost anything you throw at it. Resolutions, framerates, bit-depths, gamma or colour spaces, the whole lot, and it does it so transparently that when I hear that other software doesn't it just makes me confused why anyone would write software any other way. I also have photoshop as well as Resolve, they're good for different things.

Almost everyone is completely outclassed by all their equipment, at least from an artistic point of view (those guys who film walls and then blog about it are safe) so it seems to me that either you didn't like the aesthetic, or you're just aware of something that other people aren't. I could be wrong of course and it might be something else I haven't come across.. I'm shooting home videos with a GH5, Voitlander 17.5mm f0.95 and Rode video mic pro plus. Talk to me about equipment that is too good for the operator, I might be at the epicentre of that scenario!

@Dustin The list of key differences would fill pages. I'd suggest searching for a few "going from premier pro to resolve" videos on YouTube and see what you can find. In terms of what's missing, I have no idea, but I've made dozens of short home videos with it (complete work flow within resolve) and I haven't found it lacking. Welcome to the club!

That's a pity, and it's also interesting to me. When I find something surprising that normally means there is something that I can learn. I'm about to be out of internet range for a couple of weeks so I might play with it and see how it works and what it does

Did you convert your footage into LogC and the right colour space before putting it through the LUT? I haven't played with any XT-3 footage but my GH5 10-bit footage is really difficult to break, so I think it might be a processing problem.

It depends on what you value. A fixed ND will mean you need to adjust the camera settings to get perfect exposure - eg, vary the ISO, shutter, or aperture. A variable ND allows you to shoot with your preferred settings and adjust exposure with the ND. My preference was to get a high-quality ND without the dreaded X pattern for a reasonable amount of money, and I don't mind about using shutter to adjust exposure. Your preferences are probably different, but these are what you are prioritising when you decide.

Let us know if you have questions. I'd encourage everyone to just start using it and jump in. Once you're familiar with how to use it then it's good to learn tools you don't know yet, but in the beginning its good to concentrate on how you like to work. Pumping out little 10-60s videos is fun and gets you familiar with the whole workflow

@BenEricson is correct that you should try it in 4K mode.. @webrunner5 is wrong here - the XC10 in 4K 305Mbps mode has the edge on the C100, it's a closely run race though, which is a tribute to the C100 because it's doing it with about 10% the file size. You may also want to play with sharpening and see what you prefer there. I like the less sharpened look but everyone is different

That's pretty nice! RAW huh...

In general, if you're shooting with 8-bit codecs it's best to get the exposure and colour as close as you can in-camera so you're not trying to push/pull the image too much in post. 10-bit is another story, and of course bitrate also comes into it too. In terms of the dull lighting from the fog/smog it depends on what you're making and what is in the frame, but at a certain point you have to accept that flat lighting creates a flat image regardless of what you do. What kind of end result are you hoping for?

I've watched a few of his videos but don't remember them either way, so would have to have another look

Wow @kaylee you should tell us what you really think!! To be fair, those images are screen grabs so won't be accurate in an absolute sense, but are useful as a comparison. Androidlad was partly right and partly wrong in the other thread. He was right about the pictures I posted being screengrabs, but he was wrong about the vectorscopes because they were taken from a downloaded copy of the video that hadn't gone through a display correction of any kind. I blocked him partly because he assumes that other people are wrong without cause, partly because he didn't try to clarify or have a civil conversation, and partly because I already have enough immature bickering in my life from my two children However, having said all that, it is pretty difficult to get past the colour of 14 bit RAW!

Yes, lighting.. I forget that other people have control of that lol. If we add in other things like acting, sound design, music, grading, vfx, art department, etc the camera percentage approaches zero!

I agree. It's definitely hard though when you have the best in the business making great looking edits and using the best equipment - the logic would then suggest that part of the output is the operator and part is the equipment, so if you want better results quickly then buying the part of that picture you can kind-of makes sense. Unfortunately, the thing that isn't obvious is that it's more like 50% operator, 30% lenses, and only 20% camera, but it's the camera that people fixate on