The future of colorists/color correction
by Michael Esteves
on
Sep 12, 2009 at 3:35:53 pm
I know this may be an in appropriate question to ask, but based on experience and the way the markets are evolving, how do you think color correction will be in the future? Pros and Cons?
Once again, sorry if this may be a stupid question.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 12, 2009 at 4:55:11 pm
The future of Color Correction will be less about access to the tools--as we have seen with Color--and more about colorists that can do great work on cheaper platforms. Today's 100K investment in a high-end workstation will be worth the equivalent of tomorrow's 5K investment in a workstation. And a lot of the "prosumer" stuff people use will become the norm as the level between high and low decreases.
So just like how "everyone is an editor" with Final Cut Pro. Everyone will be a colorist, with programs like Color and technologies like The Dreamcolor (which no one on the forum approves of now). Of course, most of these newbie colorists will suck because it takes a lot of time to see things properly. But there will be those that can work at a much faster/higher level than what we see today; so tracking 10 secondaries per shot will just be the norm. And using technologies, like the FX room in Color, will also be "normal" as opposed to now, where most users ignore it or don't get it. Instead, it will be required, which means Colorists will have to have some fundamental understanding of compositing in order to get the end result. And Directors will demand this kind of thing because they are always looking for another "new look" option.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Noah Kadner on Sep 12, 2009 at 5:48:08 pm
Yeah with BMD buying daVinci I'd agree- desktop color correction will be more and more accessible going forward. So if you're running those $500/hour color grading suites start locking in your clients...
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Michael Esteves on Sep 12, 2009 at 5:58:30 pm
All these acquisitions by these huge companies, is probably not a good thing for the market in general.
Where does that leave the colorists in the grand scheme of things?
For example, companies/producers have not been paying full rates for projects, just because its a RED shoot, or and EX3 shoot! The advent of these cameras are causing a lot of problems for people who work in this business as DPs, editors, etc.. because they don't get paid there full rate. I find that when a producer tries to undercut a DP or editor (or any type of member in the production scale) they are not respecting the value of there work.
This example i just posted above, is something that has been on my mind and has been really bothering me.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Mike Most on Sep 12, 2009 at 6:08:29 pm
You're making an assumption that is the complete opposite of what Grant Petty has officially said. Blackmagic is not Apple. Selling more DaVincis doesn't necessarily help to sell more Decklinks. The current DaVinci product line is not particularly conducive to either cost cutting or feature poaching to make a cheaper product. I'm not saying that won't happen, but it's not why they bought the company, and it's not implied in anything they've said. Quite the opposite. If you want to make a more generalized statement about color correction moving towards a more desktop oriented basis, that's fine. But Blackmagic's purchase of DaVinci does not enhance that argument.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Stuart Ferreyra on Sep 12, 2009 at 6:16:17 pm
There will always be a place for the bedroom guy and the professional guy. They both target different demographics but the BIG PROBLEM is the fact that, unfortunately, the bedroom guy plummets the professional guy's rate. While the professional invests in professional and expensive color gear the bedroom guy tries to get by with mediocre equipment. This is not FCP editing. The color grade field requires expensive tools to get the job properly done (specially monitors).
I believe there are many talented new artists that are finding a way to express themselves through color grading. I am happy some of us are in the position to offer quality services that 10 years ago were impossible unless we were backed up by millions of dollars, but I am also sad about the level of mediocrity that gets away with poor quality work that consequently puts a fine tool, Color, in an inferior level when it is really not.
I don't know how the industry will shift. Now that Blackmagic owns DaVinci maybe we will see an scale down desktop version of it and hopefully the colorist job will once again be looked at as an artistic medium and not as part of the I am the producer, director, photographer, editor and colorist -do it all- guy.
Stuart Ferreyra
Timecode Multimedia President / Colorist / Post Supervisor
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 12, 2009 at 7:34:00 pm
[Stuart Ferreyra]"There will always be a place for the bedroom guy and the professional guy. They both target different demographics "
That was true even 5 years ago, but now the bedroom guy may also be the professional guy. I know of a few "big time colorists" who only ran daVinci suites even two years ago now setting up fully functional, full 4k feature film ready suites "in the bedroom." Well, not really the bedroom but in their homes because tools like Color, the JL Cooper / Tangent Panels, FSI Monitors, Projectors and the like are completely affordable.
Just like we edit feature films, broadcast HD television and the like very inexpensively in our shop, the same is now true for professional colorists who either don't want to, or need to, keep working in a daVinci suite or other hardware based suite.
The market is changing and some of these guys who run $600/hour suites can now work at home for say $200 to $300/hour. The clients save over half the money per hour but they still get the professional colorist who has been working 10, 20 even 30 years.
Just like Final Cut Pro and AJA / BMD opened up professional level editing equipment for anyone, Color FSI / Panasonic / eCinema opens up professional level color enhancement for anyone. As has already been mentioned on this thread, it's the talent level that will separate those who can operate Color and those who are truly colorists and deliver what the client desires.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 12, 2009 at 8:14:31 pm
There will always be a place for the bedroom guy and the professional guy. They both target different demographics but the BIG PROBLEM is the fact that, unfortunately, the bedroom guy plummets the professional guy's rate. While the professional invests in professional and expensive color gear the bedroom guy tries to get by with mediocre equipment. This is not FCP editing. The color grade field requires expensive tools to get the job properly done (specially monitors).
I agree and disagree. The landscape of filmmaking is radically shifting as technology is radically shifting in relation. What was once inaccessible to the journeyman outside of the industry and more or less left to people with access and high end tools, is now democratized. So consequently almost anyone can pick up a video camera and shoot something and post it all on their laptop and learn how to make stuff decent>better>good as they go.
This definitely gives the "professional guy" a problem; especially IF the end product is JUST AS GOOD. Like it or not, this industry will continue to shift in that direction. Only your relationships will slow down (not stop) this shift from high end to "indy." The bottom line is money. And as a producer, if you can get it just as good from the "bedroom guy" or the company built up of "bedroom guys" why would you continue to pay a premium?
Obviously, the collision between good/experienced work and cheap/inexperienced work is a big problem. Saying, "This is not FCP editing" is not accurate. Just like how everyone is a FCP editor but very few know the art and craft of editing, anyone can/has easily become a Apple Color colorist and not know the art and craft of color BUT can bill themselves out and get away with mediocre work. I am sure for a lot of smaller projects all you gotta do is adjust the levels and correct for color casts and the Producer thinks your working miracles.
As to protecting your investments or companies of investments in expensive gear, you can't stop the march of time/technology. Blackmagic just introduced a monitoring system to support mini-display port and lcd computer monitoring with deep color (30 bit), which is optimized for displays like the Dreamcolor. I have yet to hear of a single experienced colorist on this forum approve of this kind of setup, but I have seen many of these new technologies used professionally where they were good enough. As adoption of these technologies picks up--and it will--the place Apple Color shops have taken from DaVinci shops, will be replaced by even cheaper "just as good" shops and individuals THAT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. This will be an ongoing, sloppy process.
As for for technology particulars, clearly it is more expensive to build good monitors, video cards, etc. However, at the end of the day if I set up my $2500 42" LCD TV monitor that is getting a 10 bit signal fed to it via HDMI or mini display port and it I have calibrated it AND it is right next to your $10,000 eCinema display and they both look "just as good" AND we do a series of tests AND you are liking what you are seeing on my monitor, why would you pay the extra $8000? I am hyper-aware that on a technical level, you would rather go with the more expensive solution--just as you would with image acquisition and so on down the chain. But the proof is not in the theory; it is in what you see.
I have worked with an "A List" colorist at a shop at the highest end of the spectrum (hint: Company 1, 2, ...) and also with someone that did color work in After Effects and Apple Color. And I found that I got much better work in a better environment from the latter.
So if the "bedroom guy" colorist knows his/her stuff and has a setup he/she is confident in, then their is no reason why this will not become the predominant way of doing things. The need to justify spending "so much" on productions from the top down AND protecting expensive investments AND the long (self-serving / not industry progressive) relationships in place are what will slow this process.
Personally, I would prefer getting the "best work" on a solid system, regardless of how much or little it took to build it. And unlike technologies, say like camera lenses which will never have an increase in quality with a decrease in price, doing color work will increasingly get cheaper and easier to do or to have access to.
So it goes back to how good the artist can use the tools...
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Andrew Kimery on Sep 12, 2009 at 10:43:17 pm
Where is it going? The same place editing, gfx design, desktop publishing, music production, etc., has gone. The high-end will still exist but will be smaller, the middle will expand, and a low-end will pop up that didn't exist before. People at the high-end will b*tch mainly because their comfy place at the top of the food chain is no longer secure. The middle will explode as talented people add color correction to their boutique shop or just setup a home office to work from. The low-end will service the grinders and ask such rudimentary questions on internet forums that more experienced users will be driven to drinking.
Pretty much everyone has access to pencil and paper yet that doesn't prevent professional writers from making a living. Just something to keep in mind when Apple adds iColor to the iLife suite. ;)
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Rick Turners on Sep 12, 2009 at 10:50:14 pm
I agree, at the end of the day its all about whose creating the best product.
It's still a major investment to create a quality color suite that when your clients (producer and director) walk in to start working don't get up and run. (kids toys laying around). Grading suites are much more extensive then editing suites.
Facilities are much better suited for professionals,
(I'm thinking producers and company owners coming in to preview the film in your house while your kid runs around)
Although a lot of great editors work from home.
This wasn't territory for colorists before. (due to the products mentioned by Walter and the how-to's floating around the net)
Inevitably there will be more colorists which means more competition and a drop in the value of colorists, but just as editing has somewhat leveled off, so will grading.
I say they start selling Tangent Wave's at the apple store,
then we'll all really be screwed. :)
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 13, 2009 at 12:57:53 am
[Rick Turners]"Grading suites are much more extensive then editing suites. "
Now THAT I would disagree with. You need a quality monitor, a good desk, proper lighting and Apple Color software with the proper computer setup with proper video card.. (Since we're in the Apple color suite)
If you want a proper edit suite, you require Final Cut Studio, proper computer setup with proper video card, lots of RAM (we have minimum 8GB max 16GB) lots and lots of high speed storage (we have 40TB), hiqh quality monitor, high quality audio monitors, VTRs to support the formats you plan to edit, a lot of plug-ins to support the effects the client likes, you really should have Photoshop and After Effects to support the graphics requirements, your editing console, client monitor, etc......
An offline editing system just requires an iMac or MacBook Pro. To set up a properly equipped HD edit suite costs a lot more than an Apple Color suite (again, we're talking Color here, not a hardware based system) Even if you set up a system with a JL Cooper panel, you're still talking a LOT less than an HD suite set up for finishing a project like the ones we have here.
The only "Color Centric" hardware I have purchased are the FSI monitors to ensure we're seeing proper color. Everything else I had already in support of the HD suites.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 13, 2009 at 1:27:35 am
The only part of the equation that I think this current crop of pros is missing is that the requirements to do both HD Editing and Color is less than what most people consider "appropriate" today:
Distilled to its essentials, you need:
1) A room that is appropriate (flat grey, dark, etc.)
2) A computer that can run Color and FCP; preferably with a GFX card optimized for it and at least 4 GB of RAM; so this could be an iMac.
3) A good monitor that you trust, which means you should have compared it to others in your setup; this might not need to be run off of a popular card via SDI--depending on what you are grading and what OS you are on.
4) A fast enough storage to handle your media type. If you trust ProRes, this can be a RAID 0 firewire 800 drive--so no major expense here.
5) Some sort of I/O if you need to go to/come from tape
6) A control surface if you are doing serious work
Obviously, if you online something to tape at high quality like HDSR at 4:4:4, there could be a lot more necessary. And this is nothing close to DI suite. But soon enough, this will change too...
If only some vendor would give me free stuff so I could swear that it was necessary and beyond what I outlined, but I don't think that is the case...
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 13, 2009 at 1:37:07 am
[Shawn Larkin]"2) A computer that can run Color and FCP; preferably with a GFX card optimized for it and at least 4 GB of RAM; so this could be an iMac. "
Not if you really want to run Color on a day to day basis. The iMac is not what you want to run Color. Training yes, Pro work, no.
[Shawn Larkin]"If only some vendor would give me free stuff so I could swear that it was necessary and beyond what I outlined, but I don't think that is the case..."
That WOULD be nice. We need to find some vendors like that around here. If you know of any, send them my way.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 13, 2009 at 6:40:19 pm
The obvious limitations of running Color on an iMac is the lack of expansion used for I/O and Monitoring.
My point wasn't that you should use an iMac. But you COULD USE an iMac with the ATI Graphics Card Option and additional display and use The Dreamcolor or a real broadcast monitor that has HDMI input for a monitor and the AJA IO HD for I/O and a spanned set of drives in RAID 0 for storage and whatever control surface you like. And this would work up to the limitations of ProRes HD (not 4:4:4).
Obviously, this is not the preferred way of doing things. And you would have to build this system and test it against a system built "the right way." So clearly there are tons of limitations when you work this way.
But that doesn't mean you couldn't both adapt to this kind of rig--which I am sure there are people out there creating these kind of experimental setups today--AND do good work on it. It only needs to be tested to be sure your monitor fits within the specs that you need.
Since this is "unproven" territory, I would have to see it myself. But technologies like HDMI or Express 34 (for laptops) are continually offering cheaper alternatives to accomplish the same "high end" goals. Recently Blackmagic Design, Aja, and Matrox have all ramped up HDMI support for deep color and have some offerings that work for both laptops and towers.
It's not like the pushing "high end" features into prosumer products is going away anytime soon. From a quality standpoint, even if an engineer argues that it is technically "bad" to not do X, Y, Z--Does it really matter if the difference in picture quality is almost undistinguishable?
Look at it this way:
Your broadcast FSI monitors are only 8 bit; I understand that they do a good 10 bit to 8 bit conversation in the monitor, but you are getting the same 16,777,216 colors on that monitor that you are getting on any regular lcd computer display.
So what matters is the build quality of your display, it's contrast/black levels, and hue accuracy.
Now I have sat in a big lab in LA where the colorist said that the 50 inch Plasma they use for clients was 99% accurate to his Sony Monitor and that he could swear by it.
So does the theory of "how it should be done" or "why this monitor is better than that one" matter if the end result is that tough to differentiate?
Would you be hesitant of using an iMac if it had proper I/O and you didn't have to jump through hoops to make it work?
Is it a client/appearances thing?
I mean, as long as you can verify that what you are seeing will look the same/just as good on a "proper setup" then why hesitate to use an iMac?
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 13, 2009 at 6:59:02 pm
[Shawn Larkin]"Look at it this way:
Your broadcast FSI monitors are only 8 bit; I understand that they do a good 10 bit to 8 bit conversation in the monitor, but you are getting the same 16,777,216 colors on that monitor that you are getting on any regular lcd computer display. "
comparing an LCD Broadcast panel and a computer panel are comparing apples and oranges. And I mean any LCD Broadcast Monitor, not just FSI. Not even remotely the same as they are both set up to do different tasks and both have completely different electronics and processing in order to perform their specific tasks. It's not secret that many of the LCD displays use the similar Samsung panels but it's the electronics and particular specs set by each manufacturer that makes the difference. You can do a search for Bram Desmet in this forum as I believe he does a nice job explaining the the differences. You can also go on their website and look at the 8 bit vs. 10 bit video discussion to learn more.
[Shawn Larkin]"Would you be hesitant of using an iMac if it had proper I/O and you didn't have to jump through hoops to make it work?
Is it a client/appearances thing? "
If the client doesn't mind waiting 2 to 8 times as long for renders, then sure. But you can't put nearly the quality of the Graphics Card into the iMac as you can the Towers. And how do you propose to run RED 4k or Dual Link HD through an iMac?
No, the iMac is a good machine for editing in FCP and general work. Motion Graphics and Color belong on a Tower if you want to do both of these tasks professionally. Yes, I think a client walking in and seeing you proposing to work on an iMac and he/she is paying you would definitely send a bad signal to them, it would to me.
[Shawn Larkin]"I mean, as long as you can verify that what you are seeing will look the same/just as good on a "proper setup" then why hesitate to use an iMac?"
If you have done any research on Color you will know that the graphics card affects the quality / appearance of the renders. So the iMac is not a proper color grading machine, nor is it designed to be. For home projects and to learn Color, have at it. For professional color grading, you need a tower.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 4:34:00 pm
I have done a lot of research on this prosumer stuff as a side project; all my own work is done professionally on solid hardware. I don't condone using an iMac. But I also don't know if what all the pros swear by is necessarily true. I think the proof is in the pudding. And until I see a side by side comparison, it's all speculation right now. And the many that swear by a certain set of hardware, might change there mind if we compared results.
comparing an LCD Broadcast panel and a computer panel are comparing apples and oranges. And I mean any LCD Broadcast Monitor, not just FSI
I stated that there is obvious differences here; form signal processing to display technology there are few similarities. But it is true that if still have the same 8 bpc possibility from either monitor. The magic bullet here is if you see that same thing on your FSI as on your Dreamcolor or other display option. I know that you the current consensus is that you can't see the same thing directly hooking up a monitor via DVI or Display Port because of the difference between color signals and spaces and technologies. But there are "work arounds" and I there may very well be an option that surprises us all. If not now, perhaps in the near future.
For renders in Color, yes, you would have to wait. But for image quality, you might get the same result/quality for the ATI card that fits in the iMac as in the Pro Tower. I don't know, but I would love to test this.
But for GFX and Compositing, I know plenty of shops and people that use the 24" iMacs with ATI cards and get by fine. It's just more of an After Effects / RAM preview thing as opposed to high end composting disk-based thing (Flame).
Surely everyone on this forum can agree that if there is a will there is a way. And at the end of the day, the tools--whether overpriced or home brewed--should be in the background to support the end result.
Obviously, from a client side, you have to have a solid/proven solution to stay in business.
I just think that we all might be surprised at how good the quality is from some of the unproven / yet to tested technologies in the marketplace. And I am sure the use of these will grow and change the industry.
Someone might even be SUCCESSFULLY grading a masterwork on an iMac today...
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Stuart Ferreyra on Sep 14, 2009 at 5:06:56 pm
I don't think any of us could expect a prosumer or pro client paying a decent dollar for work doing on an iMac or a less than expected configuration. Sure the job can be done, even on my lil sisters netbook, but only as long as there is no deadline or demanding processing power needed.
Stuart Ferreyra
Timecode Multimedia President / Colorist / Post Supervisor
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Richard Herd on Sep 14, 2009 at 6:09:40 pm
[Shawn Larkin]"The landscape of filmmaking is radically shifting as technology is radically shifting in relation. What was once inaccessible to the journeyman outside of the industry and more or less left to people with access and high end tools, is now democratized."
That sounds nice on the web, as a manifesto, but it isn't actually true. We're still waiting for some results from the Camera Assessment Series. Also 8-bit linear camera marketing departments have completely overstated what their cameras can do.
Regardless of the techno-mumbojumo, some people ought never make a movie For example, yesterday, I sat through some of this "democracy" and it was not good. It was embarrassingly bad, too many folks rushing into production without a story.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 6:37:33 pm
Obviously, with more access and less standards being enforced, you get an increase in bad work.
But that doesn't mean you should write off the technology and make use of them--hell exploit them--while everyone else says "that's not the way to do it." You just need to test them first and know your workflow.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Richard Herd on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:16:18 pm
With all due respect, Mr. Larkin, I'm not certain I understand what you're posting about. Sorry, if I've added any confusion. I just want to be clear, though: I'm in favor of anyone using their iMac to do whatever they want to do with it. But I want those people to know they will not get the same results as they see at their local cinema. Hopefully, though, they will be inspired to put down their color manual and read a well-regarded script, figuring out the "magic" that made it so well-regarded. Then make their movie! :-)
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Alan Okey on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:19:50 pm
[Richard Herd]"Regardless of the techno-mumbojumo, some people ought never make a movie For example, yesterday, I sat through some of this "democracy" and it was not good. It was embarrassingly bad, too many folks rushing into production without a story."
I could hug you after reading this. This is so accurate, it's hysterical. How many times have you been paid to work on a project in which some very technically capable people have been involved, but the core project stinks? It's like the elephant in the corner that no one dares to address. You just can't polish a turd, but that's exactly what post artists are asked to do a great deal of the time.
It doesn't matter if you shoot on the RED, do all of your compositing and effects at float bit depth, grade in a DaVinci suite, master at 2K or 4K 4:4:4 RGB, etc. If the script and acting stink, so will the final project, regardless of how pretty it all looks.
It's amazing how blind so many well-meaning producers and directors are when it comes to being critical of their own work. In my experience, if they even bother to solicit opinions about their project, they do it when it's already way too late. They claim to want honest feedback, but they're not ready to scrap all of their work and go back to the drawing board, fix the script, hire good actors and reshoot the whole thing. Most of the time, that's exactly what's called for.
This is especially true of the indie film world. I think it's important to understand that for a lot of these people, their reason for working on a film is not about the artistic merits of the final product, it's about the experience and the camaraderie of working with people on something, anything. It's a social hobby. Christopher Guest and company nailed this brilliantly in "For Your Consideration." There's a touching, sad quality to the scenario of a bunch of people with limited talent but endless enthusiasm working on a project and never really being able to see it through the eyes of an outsider and realize it's a turkey.
I shouldn't complain. There's actually a fair amount of money to be made polishing turds. It might not be the kind of work that ends up in your demo reel, but it helps to pay for the next piece of gear that you'll need in order to work on that next big job, hopefully something that will end up in your reel.
I don't mean to sound condescending. I'm not a gifted writer or director, and I'm not saying that it's easy to make great art. Nor am I making millions as a brilliant editor/colorist/compositor etc., but I like to think that I at least have the ability to look at something critically and honestly and admit it when it sucks.
To be fair, we all have to start somewhere. If I hadn't honed my skills by polishing some turds along the way, it would have taken me a lot longer to attain the same degree of practical experience in the long run. There are a lot more turds out there than diamonds, and many people aren't lucky enough or advanced enough in their careers to be able to turn down work. I guess it's good to have a reference for the lows as well as the highs in order to put everything into perspective. One just hopes that the proportion of turds to diamonds shifts towards the latter as one progresses in a chosen career path.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:31:10 pm
[Alan Okey]"It's amazing how blind so many well-meaning producers and directors are when it comes to being critical of their own work. In my experience, if they even bother to solicit opinions about their project, they do it when it's already way too late. They claim to want honest feedback, but they're not ready to scrap all of their work and go back to the drawing board, fix the script, hire good actors and reshoot the whole thing. Most of the time, that's exactly what's called for. "
Yep, because as you say, it's already too late. They blew the budget but forgot to create a good story first. THEN they do a screening and say "well what do you think?" When they should have been asking for feedback on the STORY first.
This is why I love the Pixar movies so much. You can tell they really put the STORY first and the animation second. Who else can do a movie with almost 22 minutes with zero dialogue and still explain a story so well?
Just like anything else we do from shooting to editing to now color, it all comes down to the people doing the work. Good stories in the hands of good writers lead to good scripts. THEN you can worry about the technical side of things.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Richard Herd on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:35:15 pm
[Alan Okey]"I think it's important to understand that for a lot of these people, their reason for working on a film is not about the artistic merits of the final product, it's about the experience and the camaraderie of working with people on something, anything. It's a social hobby."
Yep.
Working for fun...accomplishing nothing...here's a bit I made on that theme:
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 6:26:40 pm
From what I understand, the CDL is not quite there yet. I hope it will work cross-platform. I wonder how you deal with tracking secondaries or more advanced corrections than lift, gamma, gain.
However, on a final note:
It's ironic that lots of the guys that embraced the Final Touch > Free Color App (via FCS) model, are not willing to at least test using non-standard hardware (and software) configurations as an alternative to the obvious, more expensive solutions.
And I mean really test and try them and know for sure what works and what doesn't before firing off blanket statements about the way to do this or that.
For clients, obviously you can't be testing an iMac/Frankenstein Color workstation and offer this as a tested service without knowing what you are getting into. My point was never really iMac specific; that was just an example.
But I bet there are some shops OR will be some shops that jump on these technologies sooner and do these kind of configurations once they know what they are good for AND they will get away with it.
If this were to rapidly accelerate the decline of the last crop of guys that bought into building Color Workstations with more expensive hardware solutions, then well...
That's the way it goes. That is the leveling effect of all technology advances.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 14, 2009 at 6:42:22 pm
[Shawn Larkin]"It's ironic that lots of the guys that embraced the Final Touch > Free Color App (via FCS) model, are not willing to at least test using non-standard hardware (and software) configurations as an alternative to the obvious, more expensive solutions.
And I mean really test and try them and know for sure what works and what doesn't before firing off blanket statements about the way to do this or that. "
You're absolutely certain none of us have tested the workflow on MacBook Pros and iMacs? Perhaps you should consider your statement before firing off a blanket statement about what we do and do not test.....
Yes, I have tested and used Color on an iMac and a MacBook Pro for training purposes. This works just fine. I would never charge a client money for working on one of those however as they are simply too slow to work with when you get into a normal project, say 1,000 edits for a 1 hour episodic show. Rendering on the iMac is abysmal compared to a Mac Pro. Rendering on the MacBook Pro I found to be worse, probably because the darn thing gets so hot and any computer performance lags when they get hot.
[Shawn Larkin]"If this were to rapidly accelerate the decline of the last crop of guys that bought into building Color Workstations with more expensive hardware solutions, then well...
"
That's precisely what Final Touch / Color HAS done already. You don't need a $1 million dollar daVinci room to color grade a blockbuster feature film. You can do this for $30,000 or less.
But again, there is a difference between a professional color grade system and a computer system. The iMac is simply not something I would ever recommend anyone do professional color grade with. The FSI is the lowest priced color grade monitor I recommend, some others recommend some other products that are even cheaper.
The lowest common denominator always comes back to the operator. If a good operator actually thought they could get away with an iMac, they would. But good colorists know that's not the case at this point in time.
Now if you could point all of us to that free hardware you alluded to in an earlier post, well then we could all afford to outfit our suites with the best stuff and not have to pay for it.....
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:29:16 pm
Thanks for the reply Walter.
I get that there are a lot of smart people looking for the cheapest/best way to get the job done.
We have new MBPs and iMacs and Towers at my work and I have NOT done comprehensive testing of each piece of gear. But I did fire up Color on our new 24" iMacs and 17" MBPs and rendered out a few tests and compared to Towers with ATI. Was shocked to see no difference in quality. This leads me to believe for short form work; you could use these solutions reliably if you are sure the monitoring is good (again something I need to test) Yes, render times would suck and the systems might get hot and produce errors--again more testing needed to understand the limitations.
Where in any house's pipeline this stuff fits is TBD. I admittedly don't know how Color is optimized for rendering across multiple cores in a MacPro vs iMac OR how the ATI GFX Card performs in an iMac vs a Tower. And we all know that the nVidia's in MBP are not optimal...
However, it's exactly like you say:
The lowest common denominator always comes back to the operator. If a good operator actually thought they could get away with an iMac, they would.
However, the second part of your statement...
But good colorists know that's not the case at this point in time.
... I guess I'll have to figure out on my own.
The thing that opened my eyes is when I was looking at a 50 inch Plasma connected over HDMI and a Sony Broadcast Monitor (don't know which one) with a Colorist in a totally spec'd out room--Quantel IQ box in the background--And we both agreed that the Plasma looked damn close to the monitor.
So The Matroxs and the BMD and Aja all seem to adding HDMI deep color to "prosumer stuff." This is converging. And there are other technologies that have emerged or will emerge.
I'm sure there will be another wave of smart guys--at home or in a company--that exploit the next technologies and help take jobs away from the higher end guys.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Arthur Puig on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:11:41 pm
I'm working as a colorist for a post house in Los Angeles, and I'm glad Color can give me the flexibility to take jobs as a freelancer, not only that, I know if I ever get laid off I have a source of income. I still invested a lot of money on my equipment (HD monitor, Kona, control panels, RAID, scopes, etc) but nothing compared to a full post house.
Still, I'd say that the big difference, and I'm talking about professional colorist that can work at home, and post houses, will be the theater screen. Clients just love to sit down and watch their movies on a dark theater with a big screen. They don't care what system you're using, as long as it looks the way they want. Now, I left real time rendering aside, because right now it is a big deal with at-home colorists, but I assume in the near future it will be a normal thing to be able to run real time color grading with audio.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:18:45 pm
[Arthur Puig]"I'm working as a colorist for a post house in Los Angeles, and I'm glad Color can give me the flexibility to take jobs as a freelancer, not only that, I know if I ever get laid off I have a source of income."
Absolutely and that's a great use of an iMac or MacBook Pro, to learn and better yourself on Color so you can step into a Color suite anywhere.
[Arthur Puig]"Still, I'd say that the big difference, and I'm talking about professional colorist that can work at home, and post houses, will be the theater screen. Clients just love to sit down and watch their movies on a dark theater with a big screen. "
Quite honestly, with a big enough finished basement or add-on to your house, this is even easily achievable at home. Diligent research into projectors and screens will get you a solution at home under $5,000 for a big screen projector that is accurate for color grading. I've seen this very system in operation elsewhere and it's just gorgeous.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Richard Herd on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:24:29 pm
Altogether, what is the cost estimate, including construction:
$60,000, all to code with sound proofing? That's still a quarter of the price of an entry level daVinci, when I asked a rep in 2006, when I was this close to starting up.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 7:39:17 pm
So if you want to go to the Big Screen, you must have a good projector and all the overhead that getting full range RGB from disk to screen entails. I get that.
But for episodic small screen work, you might be able to get away with AND do a job with less than most of the shops are using today.
I didn't know that this was about Content and not Form/Technology.
I responded to the post on "The Future of Color Correction." And I also mentioned how the two will be advanced as operators have better access to the tools and get things outside of traditional CC--like compositing, which will aid in the FX room.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 14, 2009 at 8:36:31 pm
[Shawn Larkin]"So if you want to go to the Big Screen, you must have a good projector and all the overhead that getting full range RGB from disk to screen entails. I get that.
But for episodic small screen work, you might be able to get away with AND do a job with less than most of the shops are using today. "
No, small screen, episodic work requires accurate color monitoring. You don't get that from and iMac or MacBook Pro. At least not in HD. And small screens aren't so small anymore when 50 to 65" is the average sized screen being sold these days. The audience at home can see bad color much larger.
For HD color enhancement, you can't get around the fact that you require accurate, high definition monitoring. The easiest way to do this is through a Mac Pro or G5 tower.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Loren White on Sep 14, 2009 at 8:55:52 pm
big clients will always expect to have a theater to walk into.. at a facility, not a house (bedroom colorist).. with a receptionist and a colorist with an extensive resume.
There will always be the high end..
That being said, when I use Lustre, sure, there is a much more expensive monitoring setup and expensive leather couches, but realistically am delivering the same level of artistry to my lower end friends on my Apple Color setup.
(although I do like the responsiveness of Lustre much, much more.)
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by walter biscardi on Sep 14, 2009 at 9:17:51 pm
[Loren White]"(although I do like the responsiveness of Lustre much, much more.) "
I think most of us would..... :-)
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards.
Owner, Biscardi Creative Media featuring HD Post Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 9:31:12 pm
Loren said it: He uses the "high end" and the "low end" professionally. I believe he uses an MXO--which I have never used and can't say works/doesn't--BUT there you have it.
And you could use an IO HD > HDMI > monitor OR MXO > 23" Cinema Display OR GFX Card/Snow Leopard (which solves the 1.8/2.2 Gamma problem) > Dreamcolor on an iMac if you could prove that it looked right. Again, must be tested.
All the work around issues that have been brought up AND the fact that good content is a central starting place are, well, major considerations.
I never said this should be the model. I just will go this direction over time--that's an opinion and an honest response to the post started this weekend.
Additionally, I am sure colorists must evolve and get better and do more in order to compete in the marketplace and give producers and directors what they want. This is obvious.
Comfortably working in a room that is spec'd out at the high end and only knowing how to do CC with "the best" stuff just doesn't seem like a sustainable option for "the future of colorists/color correction."
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 10:39:57 pm
I can't imagine a client caring that you were running an iMac if you were working out of your home and you had set up everything cleanly and professionally and it all "just worked."
And in fact, I can see how you might extend this model to a shop if you know for sure it was reliable and you did some custom panels or desks that make the iMac and your additional gear fit in cleanly with the decor.
If it's all about the end result, then it shouldn't matter what you are working on. If it's a Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, an iMac, or your Atari 400 it should not matter if you can make sense of your workflow and you know your monitor is accurate. Perhaps, the render times and monitor workarounds just don't make sense right now for the daily grind of episodic TV. I don't know.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Richard Herd on Sep 14, 2009 at 10:46:03 pm
[Shawn Larkin]"
Comfortably working in a room that is spec'd out at the high end and only knowing how to do CC with "the best" stuff just doesn't seem like a sustainable option for "the future of colorists/color correction.""
Well, Mr. Larkin, you're just dis-factual.
There's two things being discussed simultaneously:
1. Monitors
2. Fast accurate rendering.
Fact accurate rendering is done via paging. Please look up paging files and cache. It's part of the computing reason why and how the Mac Pro is faster than the iMac. Computing power, processing huge amounts of camera data, is what defines the high end. Personally, I haven't yet worked with such stuff, because I can't figure where to store it. So I live with DVCPro-HD
Here's a practical example as I understand it, and I welcome fact checkers, wholeheartedly.
Dual Quad Core Mac Pro. 4 processors with L3 cache with 512 MB page files processing at 2.5 GHz.
iMac. 1 processor with L2 cache 256 MB page files processing at 2.5GHz.
Here's my calculation of the first cycle count:
Mac Pro: 512*3*4=6144 MB of data processed
iMac: 256*2*1=512 MB of data processed
That's only the first cycle, or 2.5GHz (~250,000,000,000)
Human beings can't process information this quickly, so we cannot perceive this small amount of time, but an hour (60*60*250,000,000,000 computer cycles) we can start to perceive the difference. When video codecs like DVCPRO HD are pretty small, yeah we can get away with training on small clips or even spot market :30 ads on an iMac.
But consider HDCAM is 1.5Gb/s. A 60 minute broadcast, whew!, that's a lot a data.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Arthur Puig on Sep 14, 2009 at 9:27:46 pm
I didn't follow all the iMac or MacBook Pro argument, but even as a at-home colorist, I would be embarrassed of having on of those on a paid session, it's disrespectful to the client.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Loren White on Sep 14, 2009 at 9:57:27 pm
Yeah, I would feel weird doing a project with an iMac and have someone pay for it.
I used an MXO for a bit with an ACD at home, which was good when I didn't have home client based sessions.. once people started coming over I stepped up to the MXO2 with an FSI.
Anything more then that would be over kill.. Most none colorists cant tell the difference between "this and that"... If it's delivering an exceptional final product (and the gear looks professional), great!
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 10:41:15 pm
I can't imagine a client caring that you were running an iMac if you were working out of your home and you had set up everything cleanly and professionally and it all "just worked."
And in fact, I can see how you might extend this model to a shop if you know for sure it was reliable and you did some custom panels or desks that make the iMac and your additional gear fit in cleanly with the decor.
If it's all about the end result, then it shouldn't matter what you are working on. If it's a Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, an iMac, or your Atari 400 it should not matter if you can make sense of your workflow and you know your monitor is accurate. Perhaps, the render times and monitor workarounds just don't make sense right now for the daily grind of episodic TV. I don't know.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Richard Herd on Sep 14, 2009 at 10:51:59 pm
We can be certain, that in five years, the computers will be faster and the data we send to them will be faster and bigger. Full Rez 8K.
Of course the computing interface will be a firewire cable you plug into the back of your skull and FCP edits and Apple Color grades by reading your wishes and desires.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 14, 2009 at 11:11:15 pm
Well, Mr. Larkin, you're just dis-factual.
Thanks for schooling me...
Your last post with the breakdown in cycles is pretty damn informative and helpful.
The irony here is that the people that work on 30 second spots would never use a shop that didn't have industry standard DaVinci or Lustre or Quantel tools even though an iMac might be good enough to pump out that 30 second spot in little time.
For 8K being the norm, hmmm maybe. I mean there already have a spec in place for Quad HD and I believe that includes Quad-Quad HD (4 x 4 x HD).
So you would need a pretty powerful iMac to push all that data :)
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Peter Wollsey on Sep 15, 2009 at 12:08:41 am
"No, small screen, episodic work requires accurate color monitoring. You don't get that from and iMac or MacBook Pro. At least not in HD."
Not entirely true.....
Matrox MXO2 gives you HD-SDI monitoring out with Color from a MacBook Pro with an express card slot. I have tested this and compared to a MacPro with a KONA 3 outputting to the same monitor and it looks the same.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by Shawn Larkin on Sep 15, 2009 at 3:03:53 am
Matrox MXO2 gives you HD-SDI monitoring out with Color from a MacBook Pro with an express card slot. I have tested this and compared to a MacPro with a KONA 3 outputting to the same monitor and it looks the same.
The proof is in the pudding.
I know what Peter is saying sounds too good to be true, but until these technologies are tested and compared against what is in use, it's illogical to just write them off.
Re: The future of colorists/color correction by juha vauhkonen on Sep 17, 2009 at 6:32:44 am
I've done color correcting jobs, few commercial programs with my iMac and a broadcast monitor. I'm not a colorist. I'm an editor who wants, and who has sometimes the chance to make some video footage look a little better.
As for question could you ask money for work done with this set up (an iMac)? The answer is yes, and I have. They were SD and HD programs and NOT done with Color, because I'm just learning Color and I realize that a tower Mac is basically a must for speedy Color work.
For colorists years of experience and a good eyes are important, but I believe most producers and clients want SPEED more than anything. The more "professional" (=costs a lot of money) the production is, the faster they want it, and it has to be pristine quality of course.
With my iMac setup I had a deadline, but it wasn't that tight that I couldn't cope with it. I knew what was realistic and what wasn't. I know what schedules are possible with iMac and FCP.
Working with iMac also makes is obvious that it's not made for full time professional color grading work. There are not that many connections, no optional GFX card possibilities, the machine is sluggish from time to time etc.
I believe the most impact with Apple's Color developments (and possibly other programs) is going to be in the mid-field of film and video industry, television shows etc. It makes cheaper solutions possible, but the quality standard should remain the same.
I don't believe color correcting possibilities with Color will make any more professional "colorists" than After Effects made any more professional effects guys, or the possibility to buy a camera made any more professional photographers.
There's always going to be a demand for creative professionals in any field, and there is going to be people that get the jobs and those who don't. There is no need for 5000 colorist if there are only jobs for 500, so to speak. Not enough work that pays enough.
Color might introduce certain people to color correcting world, but only few will stay and find their place making it a full time living, because it's an exotic job to begin with. So If wedding- ,web,- or corporate videos start to look better because of Color and part-time Color users, shouldn't that be a good thing?
OK, maybe in 5 years all the kids can edit and manipulate 2k or 4k video in their rooms, computers are faster, faster drives are cheaper and all that, but of course the the whole cinema / broadcast industry has gone forward too. It's not gonna stay at this level forever.
Maybe there's some 8k or 16k formats then, Ultra HD, 3D video, and again the only real time solutions for those formats are made by DaVinci, Lustre etc, and the demand for fast operating professional is always there.
There's always going to be top-of-the-line products for certain tasks, and those solutions and the people operating them cost a lot of money. In cinema or television, it's all about speed and power, always.
