kye

My understanding is that most people currently use Resolve for grading, which means round-tripping to Resolve via the XML export, doing the grading, but then rendering out the graded individual clips which are then swapped into the original project in the editing software to replace the ungraded clips. In this sense, PP (or FCPX) won't be too worried or motivated to make sure that all the dissolves and effects make it out to a Resolve timeline. I'd suggest that BM would be very interested in making sure things import as well as possible, but BM is currently adding entirely new screens and hundreds of new features in each major release, so they definitely have their fair share of bugs too. I've heard that there's normally some work to get all the media linked in Resolve, but it has some quite good features for linking clips quite easily (something like highlight clips -> Relink media -> select "include sub-folders" and point it at a folder with all your footage in it) so if you do need to relink files it's not necessarily a big job. There's lots of advice around for solving strange importing problems so if you want to pursue it at some point then google can help. Ouch - I'd say that using contacts to circumvent their prioritisation of bugs is a bad idea, but considering how buggy people say it is, maybe that process isn't working so well! I remember when those colour features were added. I saw a bunch of Youtubers had released videos with exciting titles and I thought the added features must be really great - then I saw them and actually laughed out loud. If you double (or triple) the available features then it looks like a huge improvement, but to Resolve users they just went from having 1% of the features to 2%, so it's not so exciting from our perspective

I did a quick scan of the differences and I guess the 10-bit video is something I care about, considering how much I push the image around in post. Of course, for most people this is probably a much less important factor. Grading the 10-bit HLG files from the GH5 (even in the 150Mbit mode I shoot in) has been a wonderful experience so far.

Battery monitoring isn't very reliable. So I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on a 1% change in battery level.

@IronFilm can tell you the cheapest way to hook up the mic to your computer. In terms of making a sound booth, you want to pad it out with as much absorbent material as possible, blankets and foam mattresses work well, but use whatever you have. The heavier the fabric is the more likely it is to absorb sound. Of course, rappers have recorded in all sorts of circumstances and on all sorts of equipment, including their iPhone in a walk-in-robe, so experimentation is the key. Remember that music is creative so it's not about quality so much as getting the sound you like, so experiment with everything you can think of. Also, performance is more important than the sound, so if you don't perform well squatting in a wardrobe covered in blankets then change it up. Best of luck!! I wrote electronic music as a hobby for about ten years and when you make something that sounds great there's no better feeling!

I can't speak to the G80/85 but as a recent GH5 buyer I can confidently say that the lenses are the other half of the picture, and if you have to stick to a budget then put some aside for great glass. I've just done a couple of trips with the GH5, Voitlander 17.5mm f0.95, Helios 44-4, and SLR-Magic 8mm, and the stand out aspects to me are the DR, the 10-bit capture, and the three lenses. The 8mm has that WOW factor for scenery and landscapes, the f0.95 gives that lovely DOF on the MFT sensor and great low light performance (better than the human eye), and the Helios gives a soft rendering that really looks like film and without a speed booster gives a 116mm equivalent and rounds out the lens kit. I have no idea how much you sacrifice from the GH5 with the G80/85 but I get the impression it's not so much? Edit: I shoot hand-held and the IBIS worked spectacularly well, at 58mm in gusty winds on a small boat the locked-off mode gave rock solid landscape shots even with the ETC digital zoom mode making it something like 160mm equivalent, it was just incredible.

There are a ton of cool stuff you can do with basic stuff if you know what you're doing. A lot of them don't work so well for video though if things are moving. You can get a lot of cool tips for this stuff by watching those "5 photography hacks for under $5" videos / articles.

It might be interesting to do a Resolve stress test to see if it can handle big projects. Maybe someone who finishes a big project can pull it into Resolve and render it out and give their impressions? I'd do one but I don't have a real project that's big enough to be a genuine test.

If you're on Mac then I think there are big colour problems with QuickTime and I think VLC is regarded as more trustworthy than anything else, it's certainly what I use to view exports. I haven't noticed any differences between Resolve, VLC and watching YT but I might not be as demanding with colour as you. I'd suggest asking the question over at liftgammagain.com, those guys will definitely be able to help.

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

So anyway, if you were to download those videos and pull them into Resolve then they're the vectorscopes you'd get. It's worth looking at the GHAlexa LUTs from @Sage to see what they do to footage too. My top impressions are the knee in the highlights, the overall saturation, and the skin tones. I suspect that if you watch a bunch of test videos shot on Alexa (eg, maybe lens tests or something that's not too heavily graded) then you'll start to see similarities between them and train your eye

As you know I make travel and home videos for my family and looking back on my finished projects it's the ones that are full of shots of us that are the nicest. The kids are in "that phase" where they don't like me pointing a camera at them (or seeing themselves appear in the final product - my daughter says "ew!" every time she sees herself..) but I'm persevering for those moments I can get a nice shot. I've recently started getting over-the-shoulder shots of us looking at big buildings or grand views, or doing the mid-shot and then pan to the thing. No idea if these will work but I'm trying Trees and stuff are nice, but unless you're the cinema equivalent of Ansel Adams it can all start to look at bit like clip-art at some point.