Hey all, I'm on macOS and I've tied myself in knots over the classic Rec.709 gamma situation. I'd love a sanity check.

My setup:

• Eizo ColorEdge (CG2700S), hardware-calibrated in ColorNavigator to Rec.709 / BT.1886 (gamma 2.4), D65, ~100 cd/m².
• It's fed by a Blackmagic UltraStudio Express Monitor 3G over Thunderbolt, HDMI out to the Eizo. So it's a clean video signal, outside ColorSync.
• DaVinci Resolve, YRGB Color Managed. Input color space = DaVinci Wide Gamut, Output = Rec.709-A.
• I also have a CST node in my grade set to Rec.709 Gamma 2.4.
• "Use Mac display color profiles for viewers" is on, so my GUI viewer matches QuickTime.
• Export is Rec.709-A. I deliver mostly to YouTube.

The problem:

My GUI viewer, QuickTime, and the final YouTube upload all agree with each other, consistent, no gamma shift. But my Eizo hooked up through the UltraStudio looks noticeably more contrasted than all of those. So my actual calibrated reference monitor is the one thing that disagrees with everything else.

My question:

I understand the Eizo is outside the Mac/ColorSync pipeline, so it shows "true 2.4" while the 709-A chain shows the flatter Apple-tagged version. But that leaves me not knowing what to trust. I want no gamma shift on YouTube and an accurate preview and a correct export.

• Is my hardware reference wrong to rely on for a YouTube deliverable, or is my GUI viewer the one lying to me?
• What's the cleanest color-management setup so my reference monitor and my YouTube result actually match?

Thanks trying to stop chasing my tail on this.

Hey guys, I'm newer to color grading, and I'm trying to make sure I did the color space transform and resolve correctly. My footage is really pink. My understanding is the DP wasn't that experienced, so I'm trying to figure out whether it was an in-camera issue or an issue with me using the wrong color space and/or gamma. It was shot on a Sony FX6, so I used S-Log to DaVinci wide gamut and DaVinci intermediate, then did a second color space transform from DaVinci wide gamut to Rec 709, as shown in the pictures below.

In addition, if it is an in-camera issue rather than a post issue, what's the best way to make the best out of the footage? I know it's not a deal; the footage may not be great, but I'm not sure they can do reshoots, so I'm looking for advice on how to make the best out of the situation.

It was a real treat to sit down with Dirk for this episode, who was willing to go unusually deep on the mechanics and his philosophy behind look development. His way of breaking down images into specific elements is very intuitive in particular, and he's got a tonne of great war stories from his work on early digital films like Russian Ark and Antichrist as well.

Hello everyone,

I made a black-and-white short film, and when I view it in VLC and then in MPC-HC, the rendering differs in terms of brightness and contrast. I know my monitor isn't calibrated, but that doesn't seem to be the cause of the issue, since I'm watching the same file using two different players on the same PC screen. I also ran the same test with a professional film (*In the Hand of Dante*) and got the same result: the film looks brighter and has less contrast in MPC-HC than in VLC. How can this be explained, and which of the two programs offers the most accurate rendering?

Thanks in advance.

Hi everyone,

I’m trying to better understand what a Chroma adjustment is actually doing from a color grading perspective.

Since this subreddit doesn’t allow video uploads, I’ve posted a short demo here

How would you describe this adjustment visually? What do you think is happening to the image when Chroma is increased or decreased?

Does it resemble a film dye density adjustment, a subtractive color process, a perceptual chroma adjustment, or something else?
I’d love to hear how experienced colorists think about this type of control.
Thanks!

It's a rather large company, and I really want to make an impact (obviously), anyone who's hired runners, or anyone who got the job as a runner, what advice do you have to make a positive impression 😊

It’s seems as though the phantom lut adds more reddish tones(left) then a cinetone which looks more neutral tones(right). Application context, these shots are from a live stream. My question is, I’m questioning which is better.

I want to use slog 3, but s cinetone looks a little more closer to the actual colors in some aspects like the background, but the dress looks more accurate with the arri lut.

Thoughts?

Hi, I think there's no solution to really match them but do you have any advice to soften the difference?

I'm lifting shadows and cut highlights a bit to lower contrast ratio on the sunny scenes. Cool them down and warm up the cloudy ones. Slightly desaturating sunny clips.

Am I going the wrong way? What else?

Thank you

I recently got an ASUS external monitor to use as a reference display, to make color grading easier. The monitor is connected to my MacBook Pro with the UltraStudio Monitor Express 3G.

However, I’m not really sure if I’m using the correct project settings to prevent gamma shift issues. In the System > General settings, I have enabled “Use Mac display color profiles for viewers” and “Viewers match QuickTime Player when using Rec.709 Scene.”

In the Project Settings, I’m using DaVinci Wide Gamut and Rec.709 Scene. On the Deliver page, I have Color Space Tag and Gamma Tag set to “Same as Project.”

I work with CSTs, and my output CST is set to Rec.709 Gamma 2.4.

Are these the correct settings to use?

Also, my monitor is set to Rec709 Gamma 2.4

Thanks!

I’ve seen people say to do as little as possible to make it work. So like, addressing problems isn’t a granular thing where you’re keying and changing the hue and levels on every element and correcting for lighting and whatnot, when you see a thing that’s off from your hero shot, you just do the broad stroke move and then go to the other shot and then it’s whack-a-mole and you end up with weird skin tones and weird black point. Is going back and forth part of the job of matching something correctly? Or is it like in your mind that all the elements are just going to fall in line if you’re doing broad strokes bc they were shot in the same space and there’s no good reason why the camera science shouldn’t make every element just line up with the right broad stroke moves if the out of camera reality did not change (and I mean, this doesn’t really seem true, if you’re using a different lens, aperture might have to be different which means that matching with light levels might also need to be different which means the color temp of the non-natural light may add subtly different hues in different amounts so surely this isn’t the case) Eg if a wall is a desaturated bluish gray in one shot, and it’s a brighter and greenish thing in another shot, but everything else looks like it matches, are you using the qualifier and windows or are you just slightly changing gamma and then doing something else to compensate? Seeing a specific problem that I can fix independent of other things is an attractive thing. But I also know that I have a tendency to fixate and over-complicate. That being said, being in VFX and animation it would seem that the job is demanding that you micromanage details.

I know the answer is “do as much as necessary as little as possible bc you only have one life” but do you spend your time keying stuff on like maybe 50% of shots? Is there like a strategy where you kinda can go through really quick and know exactly that you’re going to need to key an element?

Do you feel like you need to key more when you’re trying to shape light?

Do you feel like you’re only predisposed to key stuff when you’re making an artistic choice to make something larger than life?

The broad strokes solution always seems like the best idea and people want to be elegant, they want it to be quick and good. However, do you think that a lot of colorists understate the granularity of their process?

What exactly takes up the majority of your time in the full time week of work that it takes you to color grade a short film that has say 90 shots, and 9 scenes to match 8-10 shots within with a few straggler shots in a singular setting? Anything you spend more than an hour working through? Some stuff is done in a minute and I get that. But just back of the napkin math, you’d be spending an hour on a few shots if it takes you 4 days 8 hours a day, no?

Hey there! I’m using the eoyilmaz-py3 DisplayCal v3.9.19 on my Macbook M4. When I try to calibrate my VG271U monitor in Mac it makes the screen look extremely washed out. Blacks are pure black, but that’s it. The only solution I can find is to run single curve + matrix, which is obviously not ideal. Is that what everyone else is doing, or am I running into something else?

Opening shot and you can't even make sure all the frames of face refinement are rendered???

This ad keeps coming my way via Reddit.

Hi I need some help with creating a LUT for my bmpcc 6k pro, every time ive imported a LUT that I’ve made in Davinci Resolve, it always comes out flat and desaturated, only slightly different than the log image.

Can someone walk me through the process of exporting a LUT from DVR and into the cam, I’ve been setting my CSTs to Blackmagic Design Wide Gamut Gen 4/5, Blackmagic Design Film Gen 5 gamma. Output is rec 709 gamma 2.4. So Im really not sure why it just seems like it’s unable to read my LUT properly. All my LUTs are <1.5MB, I can’t find any information on the input and output colour spaces for the camera LUTs in the manual or anywhere online.

I’ve been using the film to extended video LUT but these are overexposed and always make my blacks look super noisy in post so I really need a long-term solution, any help would be greatly appreciated!

Edit: I’m using Open DRT as my DRT so does that change things? I’ve received a comment from another thread saying that only primaries can be exported as a LUT, is that true?

I want to get a dedicated small 15–16” monitor for scopes. Does anyone have any ideas on where I should mount it with my setup? I was thinking about mounting it above my reference monitor, but I’m not sure how well that would work. Thanks!

I'm on the paid studio version of Davinci Resolve and have installed the most recent update. The splash screen describes new and improved 'neural engine' tools in regards to deinterlacing and upscaling.

I remember seeing some impressive upscaling demos years ago with Davinci Resolve, however many professional video editors working with clients insist on avoiding all of Davinci's deinterlacing + upscaling tools and swear by using NNEDI3 upscaling + QTGMC deinterlacing using software such as Hybrid, as shown here by Zachary Halberd in the enclosed video to this post.

The Hybrid route is used by several other channels I follow, such as 2kliksphillip [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\\_f-foTlhhFY\](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f-foTlhhFY) who effectively highlights just how heavily taxing on computer energy + memory resources this method is, and that's not even factoring in the further mileage when it comes to encoding to pro-res files, doubling and/or tripling the file sizes of the original / raw low res interlaced videos.

The general consensus everywhere else online appears to be that QTGMC + NNEDI3 are simply the best at what they do and nothing else ever compares. But later down the line would it not be possible that Blackmagic could overtake both of these, within the built-in tools of Davinci Resolve, meaning there won't be any need to be generating these massive pro-res files from the likes of Hybrid anymore?

The idea of, potentially being able to return to an earlier Resolve project when further improvements on its own upscaling + deinterlacing come in, and generally being able to refine + tinker with exactly how I want both to be within Resolve itself, without the gargantuan amount of time, energy and storage consumptions of the QTGMC + NNEDI3 route has just left me feeling curious as to weather this might be the smarter workflow in the future, or maybe right now.

I'm just interested to know what everyone here prefers to use and why.

Thank you very much for reading.

Here's a private link to my 30 second teaser of my short: https://youtu.be/W7tvKwixC8c Before I post on IMDB i wanna make sure its the best look I can get.

Used an Alexa mini and zeiss lenses format (4k Apple prores 4444 12 bit) mixed with a *BMCC 6k braw 12 bit and Canon prime)

Enclosed are screenshots of each node tree. I'm using Filmbox to get a true film look.

Trying to achieve that classic blockbuster t&o look.

I'm told im 10% there but trying to fix that last bit to make it all gel together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media info: A007_05260620_C008.braw
5.49 GB
Modified: Friday, May 26, 2000 at 2:20 AM

General:
Kind: Blackmagic Design Raw Movie
Size: 5,493,343,176 bytes (5.49 GB on disk)
Where: Macintosh HD ▸ Users ▸ abear ▸ Desktop ▸ untitled folder ▸ SUB BUH DUH ▸ Card 1
Stationery pad
Locked

More Info:
Camera Type: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K G2
Camera Firmware Version: 8.1
Compression Ratio: 12:1
Clip Resolution: 6144 x 3456
Sensor Area Captured: 6144 x 3456
Lens Type: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Rotation: 0°
Focal Length: 85mm
White Balance Kelvin: 6,500
White Balance Tint: 10
Sensor Rate: 24fps
Internal ND: 0
ISO: 200
Shutter: 180°
Aperture: f2.1

A080C017_251116_R45B.mov
2.72 GB
Modified: Sunday, November 16, 2025 at 2:05 PM

General:
Kind: QuickTime movie
Size: 2,720,006,144 bytes (2.72 GB on disk)
Where: T9 ▸ NOV16th-Suh Buh Duh ▸ A080R45B
Created: Sunday, November 16, 2025 at 2:05 PM
Modified: Sunday, November 16, 2025 at 2:05 PM

Camera Type: Alexa Mini LF
Camera Firmware Version: 8.1
Compression Ratio: 12:1
Clip Resolution: 3840 x 2160
Lens Type: Zeiss Cp3
Rotation: 0°
Focal Length: 85mm
White Balance Kelvin: 6,500
White Balance Tint: 10
Sensor Rate: 24fps
Internal ND: 0
ISO: 200
Shutter: 180°
Aperture: f2.1

Stationery pad
Locked

In short, how do you get the past lives look? (A pastel muted modern film look)

I am currently struggling/losing my mind right now.😭 I've been color grading in DaVinci for about 6 years, and I've been able to recreate many types of looks over the years, but on this one project, the client wants a Past Live Look. My only question is... How???

I also DP'd this project using the Arri Mini LF and various filters such as glimmer glass, low contrast, and pearlescent. The lighting is soft and similar to past lives, and I've been able to emulate/ replicate many film looks in the past, even getting an Odyssey look easily in one night.

I've tried dehancer for emulation, the dctl 2499, and even made custom curves and adjustments to try and replicate the colors. (I know Filmbox is better, but I'm poor🥲 I don't think that's the issue though & I'm going to do a trial to see if it helps.)

I know about halation, gate weave, flicker, saturation failure, color loops, subtractive saturation, and split tones. But for some reason, these colors allude me. I researched which film it was shot in (500T), whether it was pushed or pulled, and whether they printed or kept it as a digital intermediate for the final output, and I even went down a rabbit hole looking to see if the Colorist Tom Poole said anything about how he went about achieving it, whether there were inspirations.

I know Company 3 has its own proprietary tools and equations for color, and they have scientists and colorist teams for this sort of thing, but I've never struggled with a look harder in my life. The pastel muted colors look beautiful, but I'm fearing it's impossible without very specific tools or look development.

Has anyone been able to replicate it?

Asking for a friend...

I've been trying to improve how I handle highlight roll-off in DaVinci Resolve and wanted to hear how experienced colorists approach it.

I'm mainly working in a CST sandwich workflow (Input CST → grading → Output CST), and I'm curious about a few things:

• What are the most commonly used methods for highlight roll-off?
• How do professional colorists preserve highlight detail without making the image look flat or "cheap"?
• Which tools do you rely on most (HDR Wheels, Curves, Luma vs Sat, Soft Clip, Custom Curves, Resolve FX, etc.)?
• Do you perform highlight recovery/roll-off before the output CST, after it, or both?
• If you're working inside the CST sandwich, what's your general approach to keeping highlights natural while avoiding clipping?

I'm not looking for a single "correct" method I'd love to understand the different workflows professionals use and why they choose them.

Thanks in advance!

https://postdojo.mx/#evento-venezuela

Good people - should be worth attending, especially if spanish your native language.

I own an Eizo CG2700X and have been using it for about a year now with a clean feed via an UltraStudio Monitor 3G.

For a while, I've been noticing a subtle green tint in the highlights. I've tried recalibrating the monitor multiple times using the built-in calibrator, but the issue always comes back.
*(Rec.709, D65, Gamma 2.4, 100 nits)

While looking through Advanced Settings → Gain, I noticed something odd. After calibration, my RGB Gain values were:

Red: 1502

Green: 2000 (the maximum value)

Blue: 1563

Out of curiosity, I manually lowered the Green Gain to around 1500, and the image immediately looked much more neutral and accurate.

I then performed a full monitor reset. The default Gain values were:

Red: 2000

Green: 1999

Blue: 1875

Even with those values, I didn't see the green tint—the image looked pretty accurate.

The confusing part is that every time I run a calibration, Green shoots back up to 2000, and that's when I start noticing the green cast again. Manually bringing it closer to the Red and Blue values seems to fix the issue visually.

Has anyone else experienced this with the CG2700X?

Also, would it be a bad idea to manually adjust the Green Gain after each calibration if it consistently produces a more accurate-looking image? Or would that defeat the purpose of calibration?

If anyone else owns a CG2700X, I'd really appreciate it if you could check your Advanced Settings → Gain values after calibration and let me know roughly what your RGB values are.

Thanks!

I'm a seniour colorist with +15 years of experience at a facility you most likely heard of but shall remain unnamed... and I'm honestly so tired of seeing all these influencers calling themselves colorists and trying to shove luts, powergrades and courses down people's throats. It does nothing to bring our community up and only spreads misinformation and bad habits.

We need to raise the bar of the quality of freely available education in this field, so I want to arm you with the tools to have some critical thinking of your own and not fall for these sales traps.

Here's some tips to help filter out the posers:

1. easy one... If they trying to sell you a LUT/Powergrade... very slim chances they're legit. Yes we use LUTs but no we didnt get them online from some dude selling them for under $100 bucks. The colorists using LUTs had those custom built either by themselves, a trusted collegue or more likely, a color scientist. AND if you really want that LUT then at the very least make sure they specify what the input/output are for it.

And no we don't use other people's powergrades... Why? Very simple... to build speed and intuition we need to be intentional of every single click, swipe of the panel and operation. And you cant do that using someone else's foundation.

1. If they don't use an I/O or a panel.... absolutely guarantee you they don't do professional work.

2. Log to final grade before and afters.... do I even need to say anything about this...

3. They're selling your their "secret sauce"... sorry to break it to you, but there is no secret sauce. Just salt... aka your eyes. Only thing that makes a colorist actually good is their taste and having a deep understanding of the toolset, especially knowing how to use the tools available to you at the most optimal way. And yes most of the work you're asking how did they achieve that was because the footage was really well shot. Now what makes a colorist sucessful is a whole different topic... and its not talent.

4. Own your looks. Its easy to use plugins and pre made stuff but what happens when you're with a client and they send you that curveball asking for something completely different? If you don't know what to do then you're in trouble... and if all you do is slap a plugin/LUT and use that as a base every time, you're gonna be fighting that look. This is literally the most fun part of the process and most people give that away to a plugin... Creating your own looks and having full authorship over the image and pipeline is the most rewarding feeling you'll find in this career.

5. There is no "Step by Step Guide to Becoming a Colorist". Each person's path is different. What worked for me might not work for you. This is the most subjective and non linearized industry there is. There is no one path, just experiences. Best you can do is persist, invest in yourself, learn the craft, learn to communicate effectively/be charismatic and network as much as possible. Its not for everyone, but it definitely is for those who have the hunger and persistance within them.

6. Using qualifiers and magic mask on every shot... thats just not feasable. Simplicity is always the best strategy. If you can solve it without a magic mask, then do it. If you can instead do it without a key, even better... Now, if you can do it without even using a shape/mask... then you're onto something. I actually only track 1 in every 20 shots nowadays...

7. They show you how to copy a look but only do it on one shot... Suffice to say that is a waste of time. Not to throw any shade on reverse engineering grades, as that can be a great way to learn (once you have a foundational knowledge)... but doing it on one or two, three shots is really not capturing the fine nuances of what that look is actually doing. When I build showluts I look at it on hundreds of shots, in all sorts of settings. You should stress test your looks. Its a great way to refine your craft.

8. stay away from anything labelled "get the [insert hollywood movie name here] look". None of those guys have any actual idea how that look was made. Rough.. yes, but true.

Hope these help some of you.

*if you're a seniour colorist reading this... I encourage you to add to the list. Share your knowledge.

I've recently started using the Edits app for Instagram to provide better quality uploads. HDR compatible phones are on the rise which is great as it shows the HDR content properly. However I noticed that when the phone is in a battery saving state, or shared to an Instagram story, HDR is turned off.

My question is, is there a best practice in Davinci Resolve to upload videos that are still decent luminance and saturation? I've seen some videos that display so well in both SDR and HDR. Is it just the case that the video was exported in rec709 and uploaded through Edits as an HDR video?

I added a Dell U3226Q to my post/color setup and I love two things about it: the OLED blacks and the built-in colorimeter. I’ve recently finished and delivered two documentaries with it and had no issues. I’m curious where working colorists would draw the line between “good enough for real work” and “true reference monitor required.”

Both are 31.5" 4K QD-OLED monitors, both hit 1,000 nits in HDR and the Dell has a built-in colorimeter that can use the same Calman calibration ecosystem as the Flanders. What else justifies the extra 10K in price for future SDR or HDR projects?

I’m not claiming the Dell is a Flanders. Just asking where the difference becomes visible, measurable, or operationally critical.

Right now, the U3226Q feels like enough for my work. Where does the extra money actually show up in real-world grading and delivery? Appreciate any advice!