KnightsFan

Guess I've got a one of a kind XT3 then!

It charges while it's on from a 5v.

I have never tried. It's my understanding that ProRes is always in apple's QuickTime MOV container, as it's an apple codec. If an MKV works in your NLE, I think that it's perfectly fine for personal use. However, I would not use it when you need to send footage to someone else unless you are 100% sure it is compatible with their software.

The XT3 can charge it's battery off a regular 5v usb power bank. I don't think it requires 9v.

@MeanRevert Yes, you can use the command line I gave in the original post to convert from H.265 to ProRes 422. ffmpeg -i Reference.mov -c:v prores_ks -profile:v 2 ProRes.mov "Reference.mov" is the original file, and "ProRes.mov" is the new file you will be creating. Change the 2 after profile:v to a 3 if you want ProRes 422 HQ (or 1 for LT, or 0 for Proxy). If you are transcoding an entire project, you will want some way to batch the files. If you have an HEVC hardware decoder (many modern GPUs and CPUs have hardware decoders now), you can use cuvid to speed up the decoding process. Keep in mind that ProRes 422 will probably lose some quality, though really unnoticeable in ordinary viewing. To me, 422 HQ was visually lossless compared to H.265, even under scrutiny.

Sort of... but in my case it's mainly a mis-calibrated monitor. I'm using a fairly nice 4k TV as my monitor at the moment, whereas usually I use a nice (but very old) monitor, which is what my computer is calibrated for. So I'm 100% sure the colors on this TV aren't accurate, and I've got a calibrated LUT for previewing in Resolve so really it's anyone's guess what I'm seeing at this point.

Its certainly interesting comparing the grades across different screens as well.

@MeanRevert we discussed some issues over in the nx1 forum with hevc and resolve. Resolve free technically does not offer hevc decoding on Windows, so the fact that it worked at all was a fluke. As we saw with the nx1, some flavors of hevc worked, but had weird color fringing. So i would say that the only reliable way to natively edit hevc in resolve is to buy the studio version, unfortunately.

Idk lol, I initially decided to make it super rich, and then made a bunch of little adjustments with no clear reason other than "this looks cool." I think I increased brightness on the yellows to make those yellow bits on the red poles stand out, I think I increased saturation on the blues to make his shirt jump out. As usual for my grades, I decreased saturation in highlights to make blown out areas a little less "angry." In hindsight maybe I'd use a similar grade for an Agatha Christie-esque murder mystery. Mildly stylized with a loose connection to reality, but sadistically intriguing in how it teases out people's dark secrets.

I disagree with this on many levels. If you need to make money right now, then yeah, do something that people will pay for, whether its a computer programming job or making coffee for other filmmakers. But if filmmaking is something you enjoy, then do it. You aren't born with talent, you develop it with hard work and experience. Which is exactly what Zach is asking for: how to get experience without access to like-minded people. That is a fantastic reason to make films. When automation and AI make human labor obsolete, people whose sense of self-worth is tied to fulfilling an economic need will find their life has no meaning. (getting off on a tangent, but the point is you should pursue things that you enjoy, regardless of their relevance to other people).

I went a different direction. Three nodes, one for CST and a bunch of curves, and then a second one with a power window on his face for a slight gamma boost. Last node is for noise reduction.

I still use legos to plan out scenes and storyboard. As for showing it, that was a long time ago, maybe if i find some of them and decide i want to put 10 year old me's work online....

My first movies were Lego stopmotion, I say go for it. I'll voice act if you need more characters.

I guess i am coming from the perspective of an FPS, but you can have the game react realistically while allowing the player freedom to partially shape the narrative, a la the original Deus Ex. There was actual free will and player agency within the world and NPC characters. I guess we are probably saying the same thing in slightly different words.

Bioshock? But seriously, I think that the developer of a video game should NOT steer the player. Games are the only medium where the consumer actively shapes the artwork itself. Illusion of free will is ignoring the unique ability of games to provide actual free will.

How is FLog better in low light? Can you show an example? I haven't seen that in my tests so far. I suspect that the only difference is HLG favors highlight range by claiming a higher ISO (1000 vs 640 in FLog). Using my tried and true method of exposing based on what I want in the image, instead of from a light meter, I haven't seen a difference in low light performance.

USB is always 5V. A step up converter takes care of the voltage change, but 7V 2A is 14 watts, so you'd need a single USB port that supplies at least 2.8A, and probably a good bit more than that to be safe, unfortunately.

I used the offical Fuji FLog luts, and created some using LutCalc. For HLG I used the Color Space Transform node in Resolve, and tried out the HLG LUTs that came packaged with Resolve. Overall i found it much easier to get the result i wanted when using HLG.

I have only done a few tests so far, but i am liking HLG better. It is easier to grade.

I thought I addressed that with my theory that the RGB slider operates on a linear image before the gamma curve is applied, which explains why it clips almost immediately in Gamma DR but not in Gamma Normal or C. But I expect that the RGB slider multiplies shadows as well, so not sure how much usable DR you would gain as it basically just lowers exposure overall. Certainly something to test if you want to follow the rabbit hole! I think the only way we could meaningfully get a DR increase is if we could apply the RGB multiplier to the top half of values, but not the bottom. Most of what I've seen so far, both with my tests and yours, is really minimal, if at all present. As far as I can tell, MP doesn't really add DR with a positive value, it just raises the blacks up a bit. At most you gain back a little bit of noise. With negative values yeah, it seems to lose shadow detail. So I usually leave it at 0. Haha yeah, I just spent a good part of my day on this, and the funny part is I doubt I'll ever even use my NX1 for a project again! For my next project we're using the director's XT3. I did shoot a big project on my NX1 using RGB boost last year, which I might detail here once it's released. For me it was all about finding a general setting that worked for everything, since I wasn't going to fiddle with settings on set even if I knew wanted. So I used RGB values near 1.99 in Gamma DR, built some LUTs that worked with those settings, and left it that way. Worked pretty well in hindsight.

Nice, so ISO is consistent so any improvements in DR are from the boost itself. I guessed aperture because I can see some difference in sharpness, especially in the light in the background. However, one thing I notice now is that there is a bright column in the background on the right that is only visible in one shot, and in the same way there is more pure white in the lamp. Since a Histogram totals a constant value, then adding white will necessarily change all the other bars as well. So I'm focusing more on the waveform. It certainly appears that the lamp's patch raises a little bit farther past 100, which is interesting. Also it's got those noisy tendrils shooting way up to 110 almost. I wonder if it's possible that since the lamp is in sharper focus, the NX1's sharpening kicks in and adds some more local contrast to the lamp, sending a few pixels higher into superwhite? I mean it's not like the camera is actually resolving detail brighter than the center of the lamp. Though of course that doesn't explain the patch overall being taller, just the noise up to 110. Out of curiosity, are you using 0-255 of 16-235 here?

Very interesting! It looks a lot like the results I got with 1.00 vs 1.99. How did you match exposure? Did you open the aperture a stop on the 1.00 version?

Cinematic color is a color scheme that thematically complements the story, and implementing that color scheme in the lighting, set design, and color correction, and then remaining consistent about those choices throughout the movie. It doesn't matter what you pick. Dark and gritty (original Blade Runner). Bright and bubbly (Grand Budapest Hotel). Harshly dry and brown (Once Upon a Time in the West). Rich but artificial (In the Mood for Love). Soft and painterly (Barry Lyndon). Different color scheme for each location (Fellowship of the Ring). Just pick something that resonates with the story, explore it thoroughly, make it consistent and cohesive, and carry through from script to edit.

Ah, I see what you mean now. But could that be from changing light? I think that spike at the top end of the histogram is the color patch, and everything above that is the reflective bits of the the color chart borders. Looking at the waveform, on the top image there is nothing above the rightmost color patch, whereas on the second image there is some vague noise much higher on the waveform than the rightmost patch.

Does one image have some motion blur? The word x-rite is much sharper in the bottom image. It looks to me as though the lighting changes a little bit, too. The balance of brightness on the bottom right frame of the color checker vs. the center hinge changes considerably between the images. But it seems clear from the waveform that patches of every brightness are reduced in value by what appears to be a common factor. The apparent bump in shadows on the histogram I think is due to the lower bound changing from -.081 to -.131 (at least, that's what I assume those numbers are)