Other: 4K XAVC Catalyst prepare Davinci workflow loss of information?

P

Publimix

Veteran
I use Catalyst prepare to manage my clips. That works nice.
The next step is to make a rough cut in Catalyst prepare.

The files can be imported (as FXP xml format) into Davinci Resolve.

That suggests Catalyst will transcode the files to a format that Davinci can open.

Will this decoding have influence on the quality of the files?

Anyone who uses this workflow? (and is happy or unhappy with it)?
 
I don't know the answer to your original question, but why not do your rough cut in Resolve? It is practically a full-blown NLE today, and I do rough cuts on all my footage there prior to grading. The less I have to deal with Catalyst the better.
 
Hi Doug,
I love Resolve, I use it 100% as NLE. Think it will blow adobe away in the next few versions. But...
I think the media-management in Catalyst is still a little bit better. I also like the fast correction in Catalyst and the easy way to sort the files. And also working with mixed media (dji, gopro, avch works well in catalyst.) Exporting from catalyst works, (xml) but the color grading is lost during the process.

But I might be ending up doing everything in Resolve. But for now I also have a copy of Catalyst on my laptop so I can organize the clips everywhere.

The only real problem with catalyst is a bit silly. As I live in the most windy part of the Netherlands I have some footage with very loud wind-noise from the internal microphone. (didn't set it up properly). And it is possible to mute the audio channel, but per clip and not in a batch action.
I don't want to close the opening of the microphone with chewing gum. (Am I the only one talking to the camera? Whispering lens-settings into the internal microphone?)
 
Well, everyone has to find a workflow that they feel comfortable with but it seems a little funny that you want to use Resolve for editing only (the best grading software ever made) and use a vastly inferior program for grading. That is backwards. My advice is to learn to use Resolve as it was intended for grading and perhaps for editing too (personally I prefer Premiere for editing). Catalyst is a prosumer toy compared to Resolve. I don't understand what organizing you're doing in Catalyst anyway? What is that about? How and why are you organizing clips in Catalyst? Perhaps I don't know enough about your workflow, but is sure seems overly convoluted to me.
 
No I use resolve for color correcting too.
Workflow:
copy clips to laptop, (with Catalyst) sort files and quick grade. Make folders, mark good shots, sometimes make rough cut.
export to resolve for editing (on other computer) and for grading.
Export only the best clips to keep editing computer 'clean'

I use resolve for grading too, but sometimes a quick grading in catalyst is just enough.

The organizing is simple, at this moment I am filming a project that takes several months, the project has several parallel sub-projects that take place at the same time. So for each sub project I make bins. Sometimes one shot is for sub-project 1 and the next is for sub-project 2.
This makes editing a lot easier.
 
Hi Publimix,

I did a lot of testing of Browse and Prepare when it first came out by Sony. I think its good software for doing quick preview grades (or even final) with clients, or giving them a copy of Browse so they can create new file versions in formats their NLE can read. It's also handy for the clip management alone, something like what the older Sony XDCAM Browser or Content Browser use to be.

I also mostly color in resolve using roundtrip workflows when clients provide me with their R3D or Sony footage, etc.. I don't think you're going to run into any major quality issues transcoding to a new codec so long as you are choosing a really good strong codec like DNxHD or ProRes.
 
In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, blindly applying a blanket LUT to all the footage and then rendering it out is not grading -- no matter what software you use to do it. If that's somebody's intended workflow, they should be shooting with a nice scene file in Custom that provides the final look they want, or just burning in a LUT with CINE EI. That is a much simpler way of shooting and totally avoids messing around in post applying LUTs, transcoding, etc.. Applying a LUT in post might be a component of grading, but by itself, applied to many clips all at once, a LUT is not grading.

And what is the point of spending a bunch of time in Catalyst moving clips around to organize them in different XDROOT folders? What difference does it make where a clip resides on the hard drive? Organizing clips by any criteria you want in bins, sub-bins, short segment sequences, etc. is what an NLE like Premiere is all about. Not to mention the fact that once you start re-sorting clips in your XDROOT folders on your edit drives they will not longer be mirror backups of your archive hard drives (clones of the original cards) that should have been made immediately on the day of shooting.

Time is money and anything that streamlines the workflow is to be embraced.

If you can work faster and smarter than other people vying for the same client, you have a competitive advantage that makes a tangible difference to the bottom line. And even if that is not a concern to someone, the faster you finish one project, the sooner you can get going on the next one.

Of course that is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Publimix said:
I use Catalyst prepare to manage my clips. That works nice.
The next step is to make a rough cut in Catalyst prepare.

The files can be imported (as FXP xml format) into Davinci Resolve.

That suggests Catalyst will transcode the files to a format that Davinci can open.

Will this decoding have influence on the quality of the files?

Anyone who uses this workflow? (and is happy or unhappy with it)?
Click to expand...
You will have to import your original media into the Resolve media pool for the XML to work. An XML file only transfers an edit database, not the media itself. Nothing is transcoded.
 
Because he's doing some grading in Catalyst, I believe in his described process he is transcoding it into new files along with exported XML/EDL of rough cut.

He'll have to clarify.
 
Yeah that was the problem, there are two different ways:
- Catalyst prepare, organizing and grading, then transcode to resolve. As separate clips or as one clip. DnxHD (a bit confusing Catalyst lacks UHD export). (when exported as DNxHD Resolve import new timeline as 1920 x 1080)
- Catalyst prepare organizing and exporting via xml to resolve. Make storyboard, rough cut and export. This will make Davinic importing all the clips from that storyboard direct into the media pool, including clips with in and out points. (but without color grading)
I use the second way. So I have to do the real color corrections in resolve and keep the UHD.

I agree with Dennis, sometimes it is enough to grade in Catalyst. Exporting to Resolve without transcoding, but with color-grading information would be nice then (and keep all the transcoding as the last step).
 
Last edited:
All you need to do is export separate coloured clips from Prepare into a different folder, then export XML from Prepare but discard the non-colored clips it generated, then go into Davinci and the first thing you do is import your colored clips to the media pool manually. Then go to EDIT tab and import your XML, but make sure not to check the box "automatically import media". This will now link you your edit using your coloured clips.

I work in ProRes for this, but I wasn't sure if you have a MAC system or not hence why I mentioned DNxHD.

EDIT: Here is step by step guide I wrote that may help you with Resolve import settings: http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2014/09/roundtrip-workflow-in-resolve/
 
I always like to learn something new so any advice for improvement is welcome.

My workflow is based on Final Cut but I'd better say that I use Final Cut because the options in the workflow.I ingest all my media and store it on a media drive. The project files is on my computer. Then I go through the files and sort them: favorites, keywords, rejected. You can hide all rejected filesand you won't see them in your project anymore. But they still are available, just deselect "hide rejected". You can use them for other edits or other projects.
Deciding at the beginning if to keep clips or delete them for ever takes (for me) too much time. I better focus on the story I want to tell. If the flat look confuses you can apply a LUT anyway. Tell the story, make your edit and if you are done you can export via xml to resolve. That' why it's called POSTproduction. :-)

I am sure there is a similar workflow on CC. I am totally convinced about speed, efficiency and pricing of FCPX. I always can use my footage for other projects and storage consumption because of copies and double archives is low.Your mileage may vary and my way does not cover editing raw footage which I do only in 2% maximum
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top