Re: Any IRIDAS Speedgrade users care to weigh in?

I think one of the great things Apple did with Color, and is missing from SG, is the ease of roundtripping.

You hit "Send to Color" and an XML was generated for you, brought into Color, and connected to your original media. Start your grading right away, no fuss, no muss. When you were done grading, you rendered, hit "Send to Final Cut Pro," and your sequence was magically right back in Final Cut, with your correction applied. If nothing went wrong during the process, that is.

Even though Color was kind of a leap out of the comfort zone for FCS users, it never felt like Apple was sending you too far out into the woods. Sending an EDL to SpeedGrade feels a whole lot like the conform process in Resolve, and I feel like that's going to be a turnoff for a lot of new users. But people seem to be flocking to Resolve Lite, so what do I know?

I've done a decent amount of work in Color, and a bit in Resolve Lite. So far there is nothing too unusual about the way SpeedGrade works in comparison to these applications. From a colorist's perspective, everything either makes sense, or you can at least understand the thought process behind it.

Most of the work I do ends up distributed over the web, so the lack of broadcast monitoring isn't a huge deal-breaker for me. If I need a calibrated monitor, it's usually in a situation where it makes sense to pay for use of someone's grading suite for a day or two (or exchange an in-kind favor). But I can see how this is going to limit SpeedGrade's day-to-day usability for a whole lot of people, especially given the limited number of I/O devices it can talk to.