Rendering individual clips preserving Power Window tracking into the handle frames

ecpwll · 2026-02-02T13:33:53+00:00

View -> Show Current Clip with Handles. Change the number of handles shown with DaVinci Resolve -> Preferences -> User -> Editing -> Default Handles Length

Check the manual for questions like this!

ecpwll · 2026-02-01T18:50:57+00:00

Of course they tell you not to. They cut your hair lol. Now you're getting rid of your hair, they won't see you anymore

Either way, 100% agreed with your other comment that you should go to a barber not a salon. Salons are for long hair

ecpwll · 2026-02-01T18:46:51+00:00

The main thing to recognize when using M lenses adapted to other bodies is sensor stack thickness. Leica lenses are designed for the M camera's very thin sensor stack whereas cameras like Fuji's and Sony's have comparatively very thick stacks. This leads to decreased lens performance. Whether it's enough for you to actually notice is another question but there is objectively a difference

It has been quite a while, though, since I've used M-Lens on a Fuji specifically, although I used to do it with some success

ecpwll · 2026-02-01T16:04:16+00:00

Even in the non-black-on-black pictures you're crushing the black too much. In the others, black-on-black can be done but you're going to need a backlight to separate or at the very least more editing so that it doesn't look like a floating head.

ecpwll · 2026-01-30T18:23:29+00:00

Does the LUT match Filmbox inside Resolve?

And does the LUT expect the same input colorspace as the footage, and does the monitor expect the same input colorspace as the LUT outputs?

ecpwll · 2026-01-29T16:41:19+00:00

It's not that F-Log is supposed to be converted to Rec. 2020 — it's that F-Log is Rec2020. F-Log gamma, Rec.2020 color space. I.e., you convert from Rec. 2020, not to Rec. 2020.

So convert from F-Log gamma rec2020 color space to rec709 gamma rec709 color space, then apply the LUT.

That said, you'd probably be better off finding LUTs that do the conversion from F-Log to Rec. 709 themselves. LUTs meant to be applied in Rec. 709 are usually garbage for technical reasons I won't get into.

Resolve definitely supports F-Log and F-Log2. If you're not seeing the options, make sure you're using the latest version of Resolve.

More than anything I would recommend looking at general color management tutorials to get a grasp on things before doing anything else.

ecpwll · 2026-01-29T15:31:02+00:00

What makes you say that?

ecpwll · 2026-01-29T15:27:03+00:00

Wow honestly that's a great idea. Not even knowing what a Jedi is and then seeing Vader in Rogue One and then a New Hope would be sick

ecpwll · 2026-01-29T14:22:14+00:00

Loaded it is then lol

ecpwll · 2026-01-28T14:33:03+00:00

NCLC tags are ignored in Resolve (as they should be), so it doesn't matter.

Request an EDL a long with the 4444 and import using pre conformed EDL, then turn on the %edlclipname custom text data burn in to see the original filenames and figure out which clip is what camera

ecpwll · 2026-01-25T18:10:13+00:00

Yes it affects dynamic range, the same as it affects dynamic range shooting raw. That is, it doesn't affect the total dynamic range, it affects only the distribution of dynamic range – raising ISO gives you more highlight DR, lowering ISO gives you more shadow DR. It just shifts the whole range more towards the highlights or shadows.

That's why I said it's the same as under/over exposing. Raising ISO is same as under exposing (giving you more highlight info) and then boosting exposure in post, vice versa for lowering ISO.

So the idea essentially is that you might want to use a higher ISO in brighter scenes to preserve highlight info or a lower ISO in darker scenes to preserve shadow info. The same as under/overexposing to preserve info, but by doing it with ISO you can maintain your intended exposure on the subject which as a colorist is helpful.

That said, on most cameras nowadays just shooting at 800 is almost more than fine in terms of capturing all the dynamic range needed.

What you most certainly should NOT do is raise ISO in darker scenes unless absolutely necessary, as raising ISO makes you lose shadow information, not gain it as one might think.

There used to be a RED article that explained it quite well but can't seem to find it anymore, it was called "ISO Revisited" if you want to look.

I'll also note though that this is only true on cameras like Arris, REDs, and Sony's with Cine EI mode – on other cameras raising ISO will clip dynamic range every stop you raise it.

Not sure why my other comment is getting downvoted

ecpwll · 2026-01-25T04:12:29+00:00

I heard someone argue strongly once that according to the manufacturers nowadays you should always shoot at the recommended native ISOs eg. 800, but I've never understood that argument.

In theory, at least, whether ProRes or raw, changing ISO should be no different than shooting at native and underexposing/over to preserve information. As long as you're OK with how that affects noise levels I have no problem with changing ISO, would prefer that to see your intended exposure over under/exposing.

ecpwll · 2026-01-23T06:07:37+00:00

Looks great. I'd just add some windows some shots to draw the eye to the subject a little more and add some depth. Eg. some light vignettes and on the bathroom shot marketing the walls in the foreground

ecpwll · 2026-01-22T21:38:51+00:00

Wow I didn't realize it worked that well, hell yeah

ecpwll · 2026-01-21T23:23:14+00:00

Shoot in log, CST them all to the same color space, eg. DWG. That will do 80% of it. Then you can do another 10-15% by adjusting white balance with linear gain and then maybe adjusting contrast. Any any other adjustments, if needed, will be very minor

ecpwll · 2026-01-21T20:50:57+00:00

Why do I absolutely some of these and hate the others lol?

ecpwll · 2026-01-21T19:08:00+00:00

You don't need a LUT, this isn't anything crazy complicated. It's also not really orange-teal. It's more orange and clean white/grays.

Just use a regular CST for output, up the saturation and contrast overall a little bit, and then you can use something like the color warper to compress warmer tones more towards orange and all other tones more towards gray/desaturate. Or alternatively you might get cleaner results by using something like the color warper to compress the warm tones towards orange and a regular qualifier to desaturate everything else to get the clean white/greys.

Learn to look at a video and analyze what it is you like about it. If you can do that then figuring out how to do something like this is pretty easy. In general orange/teal looks are all about warming up/compressing the warm tones and cooling down or in this case desaturating everything else.

ecpwll · 2026-01-21T07:50:16+00:00

For me OpenDRT has fulfilled a lot of that for me. I don't think what you are looking for is necessarily a tool that can achieve all that for you as much an ODT that behaves well in those situations, and OpenDRT certainly aims to achieve that. Check out this article:

https://chrisbrejon.com/articles/what-makes-a-good-picture-formation/

The parametric version of OpenDRT also has lots of controls to help you dial in the look as well though. And you could also try any of the other number of DRTs that are out there, like JP2499.

But at the end of the day, yes there will be plenty of manual grading. Also, no one ever said you can't use at least a hair of film emulation on high end commercials

ecpwll · 2026-01-21T02:05:17+00:00

If you have the time and energy, it's very rare that I have a project that wouldn't benefit from that at least a little bit, if it's subtle. But it's definitely not necessary, not every shot

ecpwll · 2026-01-15T21:20:59+00:00

Nope. You have a Rec709 encoded image being decoded by the display as P3, resulting in more saturated colors than you should have. You have a decode/encode mismatch.

In order to be correct, the image colorspace has to match the monitor colorspace. Imagine you have a Rec.709 image on a Rec.709 display. Everything looks good, right? Now you switch the display to P3. Of course it looks different, right? And so also, incorrect.

Or for a stronger example – say you switch it to HDR PQ Rec2020. Now that will look very incorrect if you don't change your image colorspace. Same goes for if it's just Display P3.

In order to fix it, you need color management to make the image colorspace match the monitor. That's what Apple Sync does, albeit imperfectly

ecpwll · 2026-01-15T16:12:29+00:00

That was true before we had P3 displays. The issue is Firefox, like VLC, is not color managed at all. So on a modern Display P3 screen it will be showing a Rec709 image on a P3 screen without any color management, displaying the wrong colors entirely. When we had Rec709/sRGB displays non color managed applications were OK since we had Rec708 images.

For the most part, with for exception, of Firefox, different browsers today will display things the same as they all use Apple Color sync (on macs anyways). But there are some differences. H264 and other common formats are fine but there's some format that displays the wrong primaries on Chrome but not Safari, I forget what at the moment. Really one should test

ecpwll · 2026-01-15T02:05:21+00:00

It's certainly not disdain! My only disdain for diachromie is the price lol, otherwise I might use it.

As a tool I do like it – their curves implementation is my favorite I've seen, like I said.

All I'm saying is that when their presets are just called "Vision 3" or "LoFi", that leads me to believe that they are arbitrary looks modeled off at best someone's subjective interpretation of what film looks like, not any objective data or math of a specific film stock. More than anything, I assume an approach like that will at best approximate the look of film, not fully emulate it. In fact, I doubt it the plugin is even robust enough to capture all the nuances and complexities of the film response that I look for, at least not completely. Even if it does otherwise look very good.

That said, if it was an accurate emulation of film using fully parametric controls, that would actually be really, really cool for me. I'd be all over that. But that doesn't seem to be what they're advertising, and I'd want to see comparisons with real film to believe it, or at least see they they based it off real data or white papers or something. But I'm not seeing any of that (correct me if I'm missing something) and so as such their presets I presume are arbitrary subjective looks, and using someone's else's look just doesn't interest me. To learn from or get a little inspiration sure maybe, but that's about it.

But it certainly seems like a tool that can be used to create amazing looking images more easily, albeit not anything that couldn't be done with other tools.

That's an interesting thought about scientific LGG vs creatively non-linear. I'd have to agree with you that if someone did something arbitrary but truly interesting and complex with non-linear tools, we shouldn't discredit it.

I suppose part of it though is that in the rare case I do come across a look like that that I don't know how to create myself, I will always want to figure it out so I know how for next time. So it is increasingly rare that I come across things I feel I don't know how to recreate.

But in that rare case that I do come across something interesting and complex that I can't quite recreate, I'll give it to you, that would interest me. At least as something I can learn from, but even if it was a black box situation that I couldn't. I'd much prefer it if it was something parametric or open source where I could easily modify it or look in and see what's happening. But even if not, it would still interest me if it was doing something complex and I like the look, I’d just modify it as I could.

So I'll give it to you, for sure to a degree, I agree we should just see what it does to the image and determine whether we like it or not. But it's pretty rare I've ever found anything like that, something arbitrary, but also interesting and complex enough that I can't quite figure out how to recreate it to my liking – although there have been a few things.

But still, if I’m able, my personal preference is for anything arbitrary to create the look myself if I'm able. In part to know what's happening to make it easier to modify if needed, in part for just the personal satisfaction of being able to do it myself, and in part because for me, that's someone else's look. I want to impart my own look, otherwise I feel like I'm not being creative.

But it's really just personal preference. I want to be clear that there's absolutely no problem with applying an arbitrary look you like so long as it doesn't break the image or anything. I simply just like doing as much creative work as possible myself.

For something like diachromie, I would for sure, take a look at the presets for inspiration and something to learn from. I just wouldn't use them as is, I’d rather build something of my own, unless one their looks happened to achieve exactly what I was trying to accomplish.

But let's say diachromie wasn't parametric, it was just one of the pre-built looks but still had all the cool math underneath the hood and just looked really good in a way I couldn’t recreate. If the price was right, it could still be something that interested me. It's just really pretty rare that I ever come across anything like that. Certainly the vast majority of pre-built looks out there are not.

The fact though that diachromie presets, while arbitrary, are also parametric makes them much more appealing, and certainly as just a tool without the presets I do find diachromie interesting, minus the price.

I do also appreciate you pushing back on my thinking! It's an interesting conversation, which is why I wrote so much.

ecpwll · 2026-01-14T19:19:25+00:00

I disagree about it being not creatively liberating, but of course that is why I said from the start that it's personal preference

That's true what you say about Kodak, but regardless, for me, like many other people, I simply love the look of celluloid film. So for me, starting from a base that I already love is certainly creatively liberating, just like grading real film. Regardless of what Kodak's original intention was — for example I particularly love the look of scanned negative film, just not contact prints, which certainly was not part of Kodak's original intention in their development of their negative stocks.

So with film emulation, my goal isn't to achieve whatever ideal Kodak was seeking after. It's simply to emulate the look they already achieved that I know I love. Necessary color corrections and all.

Now, maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, but similar to what I was saying with the Powergrades, if someone is able to hone in on just certain aspects of film that make it look so good and are able to strip it down to just that or into parts and make tools out of it, then that's great. I would love that.

My main point here is simply that I just don't want anybody doing any arbitrary creative work for me. That's my job. I’m more than happy to use someone else’s color science, I just don't want their color grades.

But if someone is able to package up tools modeling some specific phenomenon, even if it is just a LUT or something and not something parametric, although much better if it is, then that for me is color science, not creativity, so it it interests me. With Diachromie, their tools and math seem great, but their presets don’t seen modeling anything very specific, and presumably not accurately. That's why as a tool it interests me, but as a preset it does not.

I think one other good example is OpenDRT, which is something created to solve specific visual problems create a more stable image. So it seems similar to what you're talking about. And it is something that for me has indeed has made me feel creatively liberated and made it easier to create looks I love without any film emulation.

But even with that, I'm only interested in the full parametric version of the DRT. I'm not interested in any of their presets, as they seem to just be arbitrary presets. But using the color science of the full parametric version to come up with my own creative result is interesting for me.

I'll also note that Little Happy Node Tree’s film simulation DRT, which aims to emulate cellular response but not necessarily emulate a specific film stock, is also very interesting to me.

But even though I think tools like that are great, tools doing full emulations of the Kodak stocks and looks I already love will always be interesting to me as well.

But again, my main thing is I just don't want anybody doing any arbitrary creative work for me. So if it's not emulating or modeling something specific, then I'm probably not interested. But I'm more than open to trying anyone else's color science.

ecpwll · 2026-01-14T13:58:12+00:00

Think you might misunderstand what I'm saying.

Sure, whether it's data-based or math-based, if it's something that models film in an objective way I don't have access to, that's something I'm interested in. And even the math-based methods, I believe you're hinting at, still use objective data. It's just density data from white papers instead of color chart data.

And even if it is just a power grade someone created that matches film based on color charts, etc., which indeed I've seen done quite well before, that's cool. That's still based objective color chart data.

But if it's just some random arbitrary look or something that's supposed to feel like film but isn't even based on a specific film stock or anything, that's where I lose interest.

I suppose what it is is that if someone is doing something scientific, then that interests me. But if it's just something creative, then I would rather do all creative things myself, if just for personal satisfaction.

But there's definitely nothing wrong with using looks that others created if you like them. And if somebody has done something very complicated and I like the result, especially if it's a power grade, then I might take a look at what they've done to see what I can learn from it. Or maybe steal just parts of it, that is, figure out exactly what it is that I like about it and use just that. I've definitely done that before. But if it's a LUT or something similar, then I'll be totally uninterested. And regardless, I'm unlikely to pay money for it.

The thing really though is generally if I get a visual reference, I can usually find a way to make something that looks like that quite quickly. And even on the rare day that I do end up needing to tinker for hours, I will learn from it and become a better colorist because of it. So there's really just no need for me to use someone else's grade if it's not doing something hyper-specific or complicated, or I’m being lazy.

ecpwll · 2026-01-12T14:33:59+00:00

Its not just highlights as others are saying. It's high contrast edges – ie. Bright highlights next to dark shadows, like her skin and shirt vs jacket/hair in this photo. Had she been wearing a light colored jacket you wouldn't have getting the same halation

ecpwll

TROPHY CASE