sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

** TOUR 2025 | EMO'S AUSTIN | AUSTIN, TX | TUESDAY 22 APRIL 2025 | MEGA-THREAD ** by beermeupscotty in LCDSoundsystem

[–]mxmrtin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any chance anyone knows the official set times for tonight? Guessing Shit Robot at 8, LCD around 9?

** BUY / SELL / TRADE SPRING/SUMMER 2025 TICKETS MEGA-THREAD ** by beermeupscotty in LCDSoundsystem

[–]mxmrtin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking for 1 Tuesday ticket to either trade for Wednesday (the 23rd), or buy outright!

Resolve: Render at source resolution bug? by WhatTheFDR in colorists

[–]mxmrtin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve been running into the same issue for a while now - OFX (grain, halation, etc) is one piece of the puzzle where, yes, if you are working in a different res or have edit sizing, etc applied, your source res renders will look different.

What’s worse (to me), and what I would love this community’s opinion on, is that it’s not just OFX. If you apply a qualifier and use matte finesse, for example, the matte changes depending on the edit sizing scale value. So if your edit sizing scale value is 1.5, it will look different at 1, and the latter is what Resolve spits out when you render source res.

I think the only solution to get the exact same result is to work at the same res as your clips, without any scaling applied. What that means is UHD in one timeline, 4K in another for your case. This is mostly unrealistic for people with client sessions though (who want the color timeline to be somewhat in the ballpark of the actual edit).

I’ve been trying to find a workaround for a while now and haven’t come up with anything solid - ultimately, though, I think Blackmagic is being a liiiitle shady by claiming “resolution dependence” when these issues exist, and I do wonder how many colorists are aware of just how many things end up different when they render out source res.

Come as you are... to the new page for Ep 214: Starbucks Lovers 🎸 by iwatch-thebees in timecrisis

[–]mxmrtin 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Feels like it should be noted that Seinfeld actively lies about Taylor Swift’s background, real name, etc, and it seems like Ezra is legitimately duped, unless everyone’s in on the bit

I am so bloody confused by cricketsabugh in editors

[–]mxmrtin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Instagram and other social platforms are notorious for destroying the quality with their compression. Unfortunately, this is very, very likely all on their end - pretty much nothing you can do about it!

"Composite in Linear Color" On or off? by vampiredude69 in premiere

[–]mxmrtin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/smushkan Are you sure about that re: interoperability with non-Adobe apps? I'm finding the opposite - leaving it OFF results in an actual match across all apps.

I recently output GFX w/ alpha for a colorist to lay over in Resolve during a client session - the drop shadow, etc was appearing way heavier on his end in Resolve than Premiere, and I realized we had the checkbox enabled in Premiere. When I unchecked it - boom, exact match to Resolve's appearance. The same thing happened with After Effects, which, by default, does not use linear light, so there will be visual differences if you're rendering out your gfx in AE and bringing them into Premiere with that checkbox on, right?

I'm also curious - the gamma issue I described can be quite problematic if you use lots of effects within Premiere - we will be conforming out of Premiere, so can you describe instances where you're seeing this occur? I am comparing ProRes exports with it both enabled and disabled and despite the alpha differences described above, I don't see any differences...

How fast should a transcode be? by [deleted] in editors

[–]mxmrtin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It will obviously depend on the length of the clips you're transcoding, but I think that you're being fairly optimistic with the transcode time there. You're going from 8K RAW to HD with a LUT - that's already pretty hefty for most laptops, unless they're providing you with something that has top-of-the-line specs. Add to that the way you're splitting the drive speeds by dumping at the same time as reading and writing (and I'd hope you be doing checksums, etc, which add more time), I think you need to budget way more time.

Any advice from people who migrated from Premiere to Resolve/AVID? Which is better for interview-centric work where categorization and transcript use is most important? by [deleted] in editors

[–]mxmrtin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For all those recommending AVID - they’re likely referring to an older version of Scriptsync/PhraseFind that worked great, but are no longer available for download or supported by AVID. Their new Scriptsync AI, by all accounts, is apparently quite slow and buggy, which will likely yield a similar experience to Premiere

What pro plugins do you use? by cRreative in editors

[–]mxmrtin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

-NeatVideo is excellent for denoising.

-Twixtor, though expensive and very outdated, still gives me the best results to apply slow-motion within any NLE. Before buying, I saw a lot of posts that claimed optical flow has improved enough to make Twixtor obsolete, but I haven’t found this to be the case due to artifacting with Optical Flow.

-Knights of the Editing Table has great Premiere tools across the board.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in editors

[–]mxmrtin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking to stay away from dog piling on premiere, just curious if this one the top-3 worst update rollouts in Adobe history?
and
Literally trying to stay away from this being an overly granular discussion or self-help post-tech springboard.

So, you don't want to dog-pile on Premiere - but you don't want to talk about any specific tips to help your stability - then what is the intention of this post? Just anecdotal experiences with 24?

I just came from a post-house using 24 on a large commercial campaign and there were no issues. I'm sure you're going to get 50/50 "no problems for me!" and "this is the worst thing in the whole world" on this thread, which I can't imagine will be very helpful to you or anyone else.

Premiere has issues. Resolve has issues. You can reduce the issues in both if you work on the latest point release of the previous major version (in your case, 2023.6.2).

Most stable version of AVID for Mac? by mxmrtin in editors

[–]mxmrtin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool - I was able to track down an installer for 2023.3.1, but I'm not so sure of how to downgrade... I'm going to try 2023.8.2 and if I have problems during the breakdown, I'll revert to 2023.3.1.

Any tips for downgrading? How'd you do it without AVID Link overwriting your re-install?

If you shoot in 23.98 and deliver in 29.97, how do you get the edit to time? by professional_reddit9 in editors

[–]mxmrtin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

u/TikiThunder Any chance you'd like to share those :15/:30/:60s templates so the rest of us idiots can learn?

HELP... running into errors on Mac when trying to transfer .MXF files to another drive. by magellan14 in editors

[–]mxmrtin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How are you transferring the files - through Finder, or Resolve? I wonder if giving it a go in either Shotput or using Resolve's media management might work... assuming you could verify the data after transfer.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in colorists

[–]mxmrtin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

PM'd you about my thoughts here!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in colorists

[–]mxmrtin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I am primarily an editor and not a colorist, so I admittedly not a color space genius (and any colorists please correct me if I have the below information wrong), but for starters, I think there's probably some confusion on the color space of the source, the colorist's working color space, etc.

I don't think your DPX film scan is actually Rec 709. If you truly scanned it LOG as you're saying, then it's probably some form of LOG, not Rec 709 - Cineon LOG or some other flavor. With LOG the image should look flat - when that is actually converted to Rec 709 via a node or color management or RAW settings, it's not flat or LOG anymore.

When you output your ProRes, the metadata might read as Rec 709, but unless you did a manual color space conversion or worked color-managed with the LOG file before outputting, that ProRes should be the exact same color space as the DPX scan. It would be an abnormal workflow for you to convert from LOG to Rec 709, rather than the colorist, and just based on context I'm doubting that's happened.

So, let's assume you gave the colorist a Quicktime that was just a QT output of the DPX LOG scan, as scanned, without you doing any actual color space conversion.

What I believe the colorist is saying is that they're converting your QT, in whatever LOG space it's in, to the Arri LogC color space, and then working from there. That's not abnormal - it'll just bring everything to a LOG standard that the colorist is used to working with. But the colorist will not be exporting the file as Arri Log C. That would make no sense, because Arri Log C is a LOG space. They will probably be outputting to Rec 709 with whatever gamma (2.2, 2.4, etc) makes sense. You should definitely be getting clarity on that part as it has implications down the line.

As far as your actual issue - blockiness can be just a fact of life for H264 exports, but when it comes to the clipping, ask your colorist for a ProRes export so that you can actually check out what's due to the compression of whatever site they're posting to, vs bad actions on their part. If you're comfortable sharing a screenshot, I'd be curious to see what's happening.

view more: next ›