No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options?
by Joseph Murray
on
Jun 17, 2007 at 2:07:26 pm
If Color doesn't do firewire out (yet?) how does one judge color? I understand that judging off the 23" CD isn't ideal but if there is no other option, what setup and gamma is closest to ntsc ..2.2? (I posted this on the Apple discussions forum also)
Joe Murray
DGA Dir./IA600 DP
http://www.boxerfilms.net/boxer.html
Re: No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options? by tcurren on Jun 17, 2007 at 2:35:50 pm
If you're going to play colorist, you need the tools. Get an AJA Kona 3 card ($3,200 approx), the ATI 1900 card ($400) , an external waveform monitor ($7K and up) and an evaluation grade monitor (are you sitting? $25K and up for the real thing, or $4.5K for the JVC stand in) .
Re: No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options? by walter biscardi on Jun 17, 2007 at 2:42:12 pm
[tcurren]"
If you're going to play colorist, you need the tools. Get an AJA Kona 3 card ($3,200 approx), the ATI 1900 card ($400) , an external waveform monitor ($7K and up) and an evaluation grade monitor (are you sitting? $25K and up for the real thing, or $4.5K for the JVC stand in) ."
Yep, couldn't say it any better.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
http://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.
All Things Apple Podcast! http://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Re: No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options? by Joseph Murray on Jun 17, 2007 at 3:59:50 pm
Thanks for the reply. I do have the 8 core with a Sony PVM but that is being fed thru a DV deck via firewire. I was curious if there was a ballpark answer as far as getting the 23" Cinema Display closer to the NTSC average.
Please allow me to stray off topic a bit but your response got me thinking. I know, trouble.
I'm in the last stages of a 90 min. concert DVD shot with DVX, cut in FCP, a little help in After Effects and Motion, ediited and finished in my house and it's all so very, very cool. I guess I'm a bit of an evangelist for this new workflow. As a matter of fact, Shoot mag. ran an article a week or two ago on a spot I shot on film but was completely finished on my desktop (it was something I piggybacked on a legit commercial production for my reel). This particular project has been a labor of love for a great artist, who's also a friend. I confss to feeling a bit sad seeing it come to an end having worked on it for well over a year. The budget, excluding my time which I won't even begin to calculate is approx. $11K. When you suggest that the only way to solve a legit prob. is by spending money, I must disagree. This project wouldn't have been possible going thru conventional production and post production processes for no other reason than cost. That's the beauty of this new technology. Where so many projects were never realised solely due to financial restrictions it's now possible to produce work that is technically acceptable without dollars getting in the way (of course aesthetics results are something completely different and judged ultimately in the eye of the beholder, no?).
But, if one has the will to take on a project and learns the necessary skills, anything is possible. I've directed/dp'ed hundreds (thousands?) of high to medium budget national and international televison commercials as well as served as 2nd unit DP/Director on features such as Young Indy, Star Wars and many other films and have spent literally years (as well as the necessary high dollars) sitting in CC suites at Riot, Co. 3, The Mill and their like, not only as a client, but 20 years ago, as an install and operational engineer and colorist in my youth at One Pass in San Fran, Image Transform LA, etc). I'm not at all disparaging the artistry that is created in those dark rooms and greatly appreciate the technology which supports that vision. I'm a huge advocate for the DP/Colorist relationship having championed the "New Cinematography" workflow from it's onset and knowing how even the "look" imparted on my dailies "colored" the whole project. But in this case, and I suspect many others, the idea of spending an extra 20K to 30K for hardware isn't in the cards.
To sum up, it's a brand new day andyou can create great work with any medium if it's properly utilised. I'm totally blown away at some of the stuff I see that is produced with the basic tools..camera and computer..that's it. As Wiliam Fraker, one my greatest career influences once said to me, we work in a business of compromise and with this in mind there is always a way to achieve a technically and aesthetically fulfilling solution with the tools at hand.
Soooo, to conclude...will setting the monitor gamma to 2.2 nudge it closer to NTSC? Any other settings to look at? :-)
Whew!...my sincere apologies for the long post...it's a quiet, early morn here in Ca. and with coffee at hand I'm waxing eloquent...I certainly don't mean to be devisive or argumentative and greatly appreciate the expertise and knowledge I've gained from these forums..thanks.
Joe Murray
DGA Dir./IA600 DP
http://www.boxerfilms.net/boxer.html
Re: No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options? by solie swan on Jun 17, 2007 at 4:21:45 pm
Joseph - love your dv rebel attitude - work hard and smart and don't limit your creativity and imagination just because you don't have a lot of money. To answer your question, if you go to file>preferences in Color, you can choose video output >Apple Firewire NTSC (I have not tried it so not sure what you will see but at least it is a place to start.) Good luck and have fun.
Re: No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options? by Joseph Murray on Jun 17, 2007 at 4:55:36 pm
I have an ATI x1900 in my 8 core at home in the Bay Area. I believe I can connect my Sony PVM to the output via an Apple DVI to Video Adapter? The problem is I'm in LA right now working on my older G5 quad, the only monitoring being a 23" CD and wondering if there are any tricks to approximate NTSC color.
Joe Murray
DGA Dir./IA600 DP
http://www.boxerfilms.net/boxer.html
Re: No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options? by tcurren on Jun 17, 2007 at 5:19:52 pm
[Joseph Murray]"the only monitoring being a 23" CD and wondering if there are any tricks to approximate NTSC color."
Getting an LCD to work as a reference monitor for NTSC isn't easy. Hence the high cost for the "reference" grade LCDs.
For starters, do you have an LCD with an even light source behind it (not uneven bulbs)? Can you ensure that light source is at 6500 Kelvin (or more accurately, 6504)? Can you get a real black out of it, in other words, if you put up SMPTE bars, can you dial your screen down to the point where only the right most PLUGE (black bars at the bottom) is barely visible?
If the answer to any of these questions is no (trust me, it is) then you'll never match an NTSC reference grade monitor. Can you color corrrect on your LCD? Sure. Will you have any idea what it is going to look like anywhere else? No!
I have good reference grade monitors, I still don't trust them completely. I only trust my scopes since monitors can drift and our eyes drift all day. The scopes never lie.
Good luck on your low cost approach. Nothing wrong with that. But don't be surprised if it gets rejected by your intended market, you can always go back and pay someone with the gear and the experience to do it right at that point.
Lest you think I'm being a snob, I'm a proponent of doing things as cheaply as possible... WHILE maintaining quality.
You have worked on this project for a while it seems, pity to cheap out out on one of the most important stages. Are you doing your own sound mix also?
Re: No Firewire Out:Monitoring Options? by walter biscardi on Jun 17, 2007 at 7:30:04 pm
[Uli Plank]"I'd get a X1900 and attach a hardware-calibrated screen from Quato ( www.quato.de ) as the second screen. The one for boredcast ist about 3,500
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by tcurren on Jun 17, 2007 at 5:24:14 pm
[msacci]"Once again not saying the other guys are wrong but the blank you must spend major $ if you want to use color is not the answer any more."
It's always been the answer, and there have always been programs that don't use it. Just watch reality TV shows on cable, green people followed by purple people, etc. Can you turn out dreck from your computer? Yes. Is that what you want to do?
If your budgets don't allow for doing it right, I understand. But don't use that as an excuse to lower the bar to the point where a lack of quality is accceptable. Unavoidable, yes, acceptable, no!
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by msacci on Jun 17, 2007 at 5:53:04 pm
Terence,
What I trying to say is that I'm rising the level for a certain level of users, not trying to lower it for the real pros. The new world is going to bring in a lot of different levels of users. This is no longer a tool for "colorist" it is now in the hands of the masses. To tell someone that is doing a project for a year and has a budget of $11K to spend $60K on equipment is not reality. For me to say spending $2K and stick with the software scores and you can do the same level of job as the big guys is not reality either. But the way the traditional guys are coming out with blanket statements of you have to have X is like several years back the video guys that told people you cannot use DV to shoot movies, commercials and the like. Of course we can see where they are not as good but that is not my point.
My point is if someone is shooting on DV, HDV or even HVX200s at DVCProHD this tool gives them a chance to do "higher" end color correcting then what they had available 2 months ago. But I reject the idea that you cannot do a "good" job with store bought Sony TVs and internal scopes. In a side by side test with a real colorist they would pale in comparision but there should be no green or purple people. Your line of thinking in the production world would equate to you saying you should never shoot any footage with anything other than a Viper or film camera. DV will be grainy and so on.
Also there is a lot of video work out here that is not for broadcast. I'm not trying to pick a fight but I tend to believe there is going to be a lot of butting heads between old and new school on this every issue.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by tcurren on Jun 17, 2007 at 6:07:28 pm
In your line of argument, I could say I have a cheap camera and I want to shoot a movie. I don't really need lights do I? I can't afford them
Could I shoot it? Yes. But I would be limited to daylight, mismatched unbalanced existing light and scenes that are too dark to use.
For each step of the production process, there is a minimum level of gear that is required to achieve a decent end product. Skimping on the monitoring for color correction, is like skimping on the lights, or using a cheap handheld Radio Shack mic for sound. Much harder to fix it later than do it right the first time.
Yes, you can use the internal scopes and suffer the slowdown in workflow.
Yes, you can use firewire out looped through your camera to a cheap TV. But you'll have no idea what your finished product will look like anywhere else.
Yes you can avoid buying the ATI 1900. Trust me, Color doesn't work right without it.
Everyone gets to choose where to skimp, my point is that monitoring for color correction is not a wise place to do that. Neither is a cheap mic for that matter.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by msacci on Jun 17, 2007 at 6:30:49 pm
You just don't get what I'm trying to say. I not telling people that they don't need any of this stuff. All I'm saying not everyone can afford the highend stuff. For them the question how to do the best with what they can afford.
l am saying is you CAN color correct a DV project without spending $20-60K on equipment and you can do a good job in the process. Not as good as a guy that has been doing it for 20 years with all the best equipement and talent.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by tcurren on Jun 17, 2007 at 6:44:30 pm
And you don't hear what I'm saying. You say that you can't do as good a job as the guy with 60K of equipment because you don't have the experience he has. Those are two entirely different arguments.
The experienced guy is going to be just as limited as you are on substandard equipment. If you think a master carpenter can build a house efficiently with a plastic hammer, you are mistaken.
Given the same gear of acceptable quality, the experienced guy has the advantage that he has already made all the mistakes and figured out how to fix them while you haven't even hit them yet.
My point is that without the minimum acceptable tool, you are pissing upwind. Without a standard, which is the whole point of "reference" monitors, you have no idea what you are going to get as an end result.
I never said you can't color correct on any thing that will show video. I'm just pointing out that you have no real reference so why waste your time.
However, you are always welcome to build a house with a plastic hammer if you please. :-)
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by Joseph Murray on Jun 17, 2007 at 7:41:46 pm
Wow, I didn't mean to start a heated discussion. Maybe that's not a bad thing. Btw, I do have an ATI card in 8 core computer but I'm working on the progect this weekend on an 18month old G5. I was simply wondering if I could tweak the monitor here to get closer.
But this discussion seems to have hit a nerve and I'd like to adress that. Terrence, I understand where you are coming from regarding the quality of the tools we use. Your citing the proliferation of green and magenta faces re current in poorly executed reality tv is correct. But fundamental errors such as those could be rectified using the simple color corrector that resides within most basic editting programs. That is wholly atributable to a lack of vison or taste on the producers of thaose programs. As I mentioned earlier, the great majority of my work is done on 35mm film of which I've exposed millions of feet over a 20+ year career. I mainly work on commercials that range from the low to high six figures and occasionally seven figures, athough that 7 figure budget seems to be going away as the efficacy of the television commercial is re-evaluated. I've shot 65mm Vista on occasion. I whole heartedly appreciate the well crafted high end image.
But if I understand what you are saying I would reply that we disagree on a fundamental point. I hold a strong belief that we utilise the tools available to us. There will always be another piece of kit that could be utilised in creating a film but the final quality of the results aren't limited by the technology or budget. I compromise something on every project as the budget is the budget and I strongly believe that the project doesn't suffer for that. It's incumbant on me to make it work. The outcome of a project is limited by our vision and the application of the technology we have access to. For example, I have Leicas and Hassleblads and 4x5 to 8x10 still cameras but I've created some of my favorite images on a $15.00 Holga. Another example; I wouldn't try and shoot a high end car spot on DV if it calls for glossy, elegant and dynamic cinematography. However, if grit and texture and "edgy-ness" is necessary to make an emotional point then DV might be the appropriate call. What really matters here is learning to utilise the tools to hit the correct responsive chord. I did a Converese spot on 24p DV that wouldn't have worked as well captured on 35mm unless the image was severly degraded and treated. I for one, love the noise and grit in the DVX footage. For the concert DVD that initiated this discussion it is wholly appropriate. Dave Alvin has won Grammys and is very well respected and is a gritty down to earth guy. I was able to employ friends who are well estaplished DP's in their own right as camera operators who lent their personal vision and style to the shooting. the finished film has a life and a veracity that HD or 35mm wouldn't hav. I'm not saying it's better, or worse, it's just different and the limitations, i.e. noise/grain, etc. are what gives it the correct attitude in this particular case. Could I impose on my friends and ask for a CC on a Spirit? Yes, but I want to finish on my system and make the most out of it that I can using my taste amd instincts and educating myself in the process. I know that the technology is there so that I present a finished film that has integrity, both technically and aesthetically. It's up to me to learn all that i can in order to get the most out of it.
Hardware isn't the solution to the problem. It never has been. Go see "Once". Very little lighting as the budget wouldn't allow it. Does the film suffer? No way. The DP shot beautiful avilable light and night images which feel appropriate for the story. He used his skills and his amazing eye to make the most of what was available to him. Someone of lesser talent wouyld have missed the mark.
The solution is always artistic pre-visualisation, creative and appropriate solutions and matering the technology at your disposal. I think that this next generation of young film-makers are amazing because they are primarily focused on vision and posess a very highly developed technical accumen...they are auteurs in the true sense of the word. These new and highly accesible are breaking down the doors and opening all the windows.
I consider myself to have a fairly educated eye but what keeps me going is the certain knowledge that no matter how much I shoot I will never arrive at a place of true mastery...there's always something more to learn as a cinematographer. Cheers.
Joe Murray
DGA Dir./IA600 DP
http://www.boxerfilms.net/boxer.html
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by tcurren on Jun 17, 2007 at 10:17:13 pm
[Joseph Murray]"Dave Alvin has won Grammys and is very well respected and is a gritty down to earth guy. I was able to employ friends who are well estaplished DP's in their own right as camera operators who lent their personal vision and style to the shooting."
Did they by any chance ever use light meters? If not, how did they determine their proper exposure? How could you ever match another lighting setup in a different location without the use of some way of comparing the two?
This is my point. I had a DP come in to "calibrate" his laptop monitor so he could tweak stills from the film he is shooting to give me a look I could match. The problem was We couldn't get his monitor anywhere near the broadcast monitor. His blacks were particularly bad.
You know why we tried this? On his last film he did this with the telecine house in Spain and they "matched" his look. So I received HDCAM SR masters with crushed blacks.
My point, and the one some of you seem to be missing, is that you need some standard to guage results by. That is the point of scopes and "reference" grade monitors.
Sure, you can make your project look great on your computer monitor. If your audience will only watch it on your computer monitor, you are golden.
What if by chance it goes somewhere else? Have any idea what it will look like? The old argument that grandma's set in Peoria is green and washed out anyway doesn't hold. If we stay with the SMPTE specs when we correct our shows, at least they will all be consistently green and washed out on her set.
This isn't a heated argument. I know what it means to have a standard of judgement. Just like a Pantone chart, grey scale, a ruler, etc. These things keep us on the same page. Using a dictionary doesn't mean you have to write things only one way, it means that we all have the same understanding of certain words so we can communicate. Apparently I'm not doing a very good job of that here.
It appears that you folks are confusing low cost film making with a lack of a need for a standard on which to align images.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by msacci on Jun 18, 2007 at 2:32:11 am
Terence,
You are doing a good job explaining it, but you live what I expect is a big budget world. There are a lot us that don't. If I had to wait until I could afford a $10K scope and $5K monitor before color correcting my HD footage I would never do it. I can achieve a level of success with software scopes and a SD TV and LCD HD monitor. It is a success because my client is happy with the product they pay me for. Everyone that watches it seems to like it also. Trust me no green or purple people. I also know that a more talented colorist could do a better job but they would not do it for the budget I have. I don't disagree with you, I'm just living in a different world with different exception, hopefully the same goal, to do the best job we can with the resources with have and make money at it.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by tcurren on Jun 18, 2007 at 3:55:01 am
The funny part is what we consider "high budget" these days. It wasn't that long ago that a color correction bay cost upwards of half a million dollars. Now we talk about 15K worth of scopes and monitors as a high budget world. Scary.
As I said before, you can use software scopes, but don't try to make a regualr LCD be a reference monitor. If you can pick up a used PVM, do it. If not, try to scrape together the dough for a JVC or even the Panasonic broadcast LCDs. If that's way out of the budget, please consider renting a reference grade monitor for the time you are color correcting. It will be worth it in knowing what your projects are going to look like elsewhere.
PS: I sweat every pnny I spend also. It's a constant challenge to justify quality vs. cost ratios with the ever decreasing budgets. At the end of the day, if it ain't done right, it ain't done.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by Uli Plank on Jun 18, 2007 at 7:18:51 am
Just one comment (at the risk of being sarcastic): go to one of the megastores and look at the same program one some of the flats sold to Joey Beercan as the latest 'must-have'. Then walk out silently sobbing and forget CC forever.
To soothe yourself, go to a cinema and watch a well-crafted movie as long as they exist.
I suppose the 20th century will be known to history as the century, when engineers and artists in the US, Japan or Europe were aiming at quality. The 21st will be known as the century when mass production went to China...
Well, maybe only the first half. Then some wealthy Chinese will expect quality again while the old world will work in their sweatshops for their masses.
Regards,
Uli
Author of "DVDs gestalten und produzieren", a book on professional DVD-authoring in German.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by walter biscardi on Jun 18, 2007 at 10:30:39 am
[tcurren]"The funny part is what we consider "high budget" these days. It wasn't that long ago that a color correction bay cost upwards of half a million dollars. Now we talk about 15K worth of scopes and monitors as a high budget world. Scary."
Yeah, just like when I say my $25,000 Panasonic DVCPro HD deck is "cheap" most people I know completely freak out. I tell them to compare that to an HDCAM SR deck or running an on-line linear suite.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
http://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.
All Things Apple Podcast! http://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by celia100 on Jun 20, 2007 at 6:01:45 pm
I think that while it would be nice to have the $60k to outfit a proper post finishing suite, the reality of that for most users is non-existent and I think that we'll see one of two things happen.
1) The price of all that gear will come down to remain competitive.
2) New gear will hit the market for much less money to fill the demand.
either way, Color is a HUGE step up from the 3-way color corrector and plenty of people were using that without broadcast gear.
Remember what Final Cut Pro did when it first the market. Back then there were people saying "You have to have RAID, and you have to have this and that and Avid and so forth", but it spawned an entire generation of indie filmmaking because the tools were affordable. A large amount of work is being broadcast over the web, which IS a computer color space. Additionally, I think we (being the technical people we are) tend to over think the color of a scene. After using just the basic rooms in Color for a few weeks (after months of coloring with Scratch - an abysmal program IMO) I've achieved excellent results (color-wise... file management and EDL and all that headaches are another issue) that will be perfectly fine. While feature films are an artform (and ones with budgets), there is an artform for the non-correction, for the DV, for the raw footage out there. I mean, look at all this reality TV!
And to answer your point above, YES! I could make a movie with a cheap crappy DV cam and no lights. And as long as it had a good story, people will tune in to watch.
But for all you naysayers out there and this whole debate about color, let us not forget the age old Acronym: Never The Same Color (NTSC) ;)
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by walter biscardi on Jun 17, 2007 at 7:32:33 pm
[msacci]"Video capture card (also playback card) I have the Kona3, The lower end Kona card would be fine, you just lose HD upconvert, you also maybe fine with a Blackmagic card. This will get your video back on the Sony for SD monitoring. For the cheapest LCD HD monitoring I have the Decklink HD Link to take the HD SDI from the Kona card to a 23" ACD so I get a pixel for pixel image on that monitor. This step is probably not needed by you.
So all you really need is the video capture card and you have stepped up your game."
That's a HUGE part of the equation right there, which I've been saying for quite some time. You really don't want to use Color with the computer monitors, you really need some sort of external display via a video card to use the app well.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
http://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.
All Things Apple Podcast! http://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by glenn chan on Jun 17, 2007 at 9:34:17 pm
Joe,
To keep things in perspective:
In the real world, there isn't really such thing as accurate color. The color of objects depends on the light hitting it. You never get the same light hitting the object... it might be very warm during golden hour or very blue during overcast days. So accurate color is really a guess (and our brain seems to make pretty good guesses). (Metamerism is another reason why there isn't accurate color- you can google that.) So there is a certain degree of color inaccuracy you can get away with. Current video systems do that all the time (e.g. film, video cameras aren't perfectly color accurate).
2- QC reports I've seen are extremely nitpicky (title safe warnings/comments if anything touches 10%), but they don't ever comment on color accuracy issues.
3- Here are some things you can do for better monitoring:
A- Match the white point of all the light sources in your room. Your eye will kind of "auto white balance" to whatever you're looking at... you don't want that white balance to drift around (since a freeze frame will look different depending on what you've been looking at).
The test for this is easy... just display a black&white image on your monitors. Let your white balance settle in on one light source, and then flick your eyes at another light source (i.e. overhead lighting, other monitors). Does it appear white?
Block out sunlight, and get rid of incandescent lights. Fluorescent lights with a color temp of 6500 of reasonably high CRI should be close to your computer monitors. (And you can set their white point in colorsync somewhere.)
While you're at it, check that the black and white image truly appears black and white.
B- Don't grade in the dark. If the white balance is slowly drifting over the length of the entire program, you won't spot that. (Though some colorists do grade in a completely dark suite so that begs the question... how accurate does your monitoring really need to be).
C- Don't use a consumer TV. They tend to do wacky image processing, which can screw you up. Like crappy de-interlacing and scaling (any image scaling will cause artifacts).
D- The Rec. 601 and 709 standards were established when the CRT was the reference monitor and don't specify what the CRT's transfer curve is (gamma is an approximation of the transfer curve). Ideally they would specify what the ideal transfer curve is but this hasn't happened yet. Most broadcast-grade LCDs seem to use a gamma of 2.22, while a grade-1 CRT has a gamma of roughly 2.35. So hopefully this discrepancy works itself out. But it doesn't seem to matter too much.
E- Make sure contrast isn't increased (OS X unfortunately allows you to do this). Command, apple, cloverleaf, shift + < or > is the shortcut I think (this is likely wrong; just check the keyboard shortcuts under preferences).
F- Check that dark scenes and black levels won't be screwed up. Some users' systems will brighten up dark images. Power DVD on the PC does this (it can also do a split screen to show you original versus so-called ""enhanced"").
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by tcurren on Jun 17, 2007 at 10:21:03 pm
[glenn chan]"(Though some colorists do grade in a completely dark suite so that begs the question... how accurate does your monitoring really need to be)."
Hence the need for scopes. In a long dy of Color Correcting, your eyes will drift. I often find myself doubting the picture as time goes on and I continue to trust the scopes. The next day, with fresh eyes, I will see that they were right.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by Uli Plank on Jun 18, 2007 at 7:07:36 am
For broadcast work, I'd say the lowest cost approach would be getting an AJA or BlackMagic and a second-hand reference monitor in SD (those cards support downscaling).
You don't always need full resolution for CC, better to be able to check the colors than looking at a bad consumer LCD to see HD. But make sure you know someone who can check and re-calibrate that second-hand tube!
Regards,
Uli
Author of "DVDs gestalten und produzieren", a book on professional DVD-authoring in German.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by Jaymags on Jun 18, 2007 at 1:44:00 pm
Fascinating debate fellow bovines...
I agree that a reference is important, but also see that 'cutting one's cloth' accordingly is also a viable option. I recently cut a low budget feature for a friend - total budget around 30k sterling - and he onlined and CCd (including magic bullet) in a suite with no scopes but with a decent monitor. Overall they did a pretty good job, with one or two exceptions - but the important point was that it was a thousand times better than had they not done it.
There's a saying this side of the pond - 'You can't polish a t*rd' - which is true... but modern low-end equipment can, given the right creative input from the back end, produce wonderful quality. As a professional I welcome that, but also recognise the potential for eroding standards that this revolution inevitably brings. If a job won't let me use the full complement of tools because of budgetary issues, I'll bring my full professional knowledge to bear on the job and see what can be achieved - as long as you're honest about the pro's and con's to the client then I think there is no harm in that.
As an aside - I have an on-screen SD waveform/vectorscope - which I'm planning to use alongside my setup (going to be either Kona3 or IoHD) for monitoring downconverted HD. Any gotchas? Will the downconverted HD signal fed to the 'scopes be useful for correction purposes? Better/worse than the internal 'scopes?
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by tcurren on Jun 18, 2007 at 2:50:20 pm
[Jaymags]"I have an on-screen SD waveform/vectorscope - which I'm planning to use alongside my setup (going to be either Kona3 or IoHD) for monitoring downconverted HD. Any gotchas? Will the downconverted HD signal fed to the 'scopes be useful for correction purposes? Better/worse than the internal 'scopes?"
Actually, correcting for the SD output isn't a bad solution. If you are going to end up on SD anyway, this can even be better as you will be legal for SD.
If you are correcting for an HD output, you won't be seeing the full HD signal, so you may be over correcting the signal when you don't have to. I wouldn't do this for a film out job, but for everything else you can get away with it.
Yes, the external scopes are better. They are RT even while playing video. And most external scopes give much higher resolution views of the signal allowing you to see individual speculars (highlights).
BTW: How do you know what is coming out of the Kona card REALLY matches the internal scopes?
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by walter biscardi on Jun 18, 2007 at 2:59:48 pm
[tcurren]"
BTW: How do you know what is coming out of the Kona card REALLY matches the internal scopes?"
Because when we first tested Final Touch HD I borrowed a Tektronix WFM-700 Waveform monitor and it was identical to the Final Touch Scopes. That was enough for me.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
http://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.
All Things Apple Podcast! http://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by walter biscardi on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:18:00 am
[tcurren]"
But you don't know if anything has changed over time. That is why the external scope is the only way to be sure."
Honestly, we've delivered over 60 HD Broadcast episodes in the past three years and approaching 100 SD Broadcast masters this year alone and we don't own any external scopes. We've relied on FCP's scopes for everything and we've been fine with Quality Control for about 6 networks.
So talk about highend tools with a lower end budget. I can't see spending $10k+ on an HD Scope when the internal tools we have work so well for us. One day I'm sure we'll get a scope, but right now, I'm happier to spend that money on a new VTR or storage or monitors or anything other than a scope.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
http://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.
All Things Apple Podcast! http://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by Jason P on Jun 19, 2007 at 1:59:34 pm
[walter biscardi]"One day I'm sure we'll get a scope, but right now, I'm happier to spend that money on a new VTR or storage or monitors or anything other than a scope."
That's the rub Walter. For many, even most of us, budgetary realities mean that we need to prioritise.
Re: Highend tools - lower end budget by msacci on Jun 19, 2007 at 2:27:23 pm
It seems like Walter, Jason and myself are in the same boat. Doing a level of quality work with the tools that we can afford. Internal scope are at least consistent so when you understand them and their shortcomings you have a standard. The lack of effort to learn should not equal the lack of money being spend. Everyone still needs to put in the time to learn the tool set that is before him (or her).
I think the important things are:
- Always color correct, every project needs it.
- Always use (and learn to read) scopes (internal or external)
- get the best external monitor you can afford.
- put A LOT of time in to learning to use the tools, (whether it is Color, 3-way or Colorista) there is no substitute for time in a seat.
As you get better and can afford it get better monitoring tools.
And I will throw in - be honest with yourself and your clients as to the level of color correcting you are doing.
Hey! I have an idea! by becker on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:08:01 am
Why dont we rename this forum to:
Apple color : for highly experienced, wealthy, colorists only - no newbies allowed.
Really guys:
If you dont wanna give advice on how achieving something as well as possible, with the budget that the one asking the question has, why have this forum open to the public?
And to make it clear: I understand both "sides" here, but come on!
A lot of young boys and girls wanna learn - let them learn, as well as they can on substandard equipment, until they can afford the high-end stuff.
Re: Hey! I have an idea! by JP Owens on Jun 19, 2007 at 9:38:02 pm
"Why can't we just all get along"... good question.
Those of us who have made a significant personal investment both in finances and perhaps a decade or more (much more in my case) of building experience are seeing our "dues" go down the toilet. Maybe that's just the nature of business. Too bad if it happened before anyone could defray the first wave of investment. The application for doing colour correction is being packaged with an editing suite at no extra charge -- so most consumers of the software assume that they shouldn't have to pay anything more for getting it right.
Anyone can go out and buy a Cherry Sunburst Gibson "Les Paul" and pretend they're Jimmy Page. Maybe I'm one of them... and if I don't charge anything for my time, no one will complain, right? But not much of a business model.
But really, the way things are going.... why bother sorting out whether anything will look good on broadcast? I wanna set up my $18,000 e-Cinema DCM23 so that it looks like a cel phone display!
But truly.... maybe a LUT is the way to go to re-define the values cross-platform... Ie LCD/CRT. Maybe that will be the only constructive thing I can offer today.
Re: Hey! I have an idea! by msacci on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:24 pm
There is always going to be a need for top talent but not every project can afford top talent. There is a difference between charging nothing and charging less. Everyone is not worth the same rate. I hire freelance cameramen all the time, rates ranges from $300 to $800 for a 10 hour day. Somethings require the $800 guy but there are somethings that the $300 guy is just fine. As a producer my job is knowing when each is needed. Problems arise when you hire the $300 guy to do a $800 guys job, you lose a lot more than $500.
But this is not new, it has just moved into the CC world now. It happen a couple years back in production when people thought they could replace a video mobile unit with a couple of DVX100s. Well, you cannot but if you are good and creative you can produce something that is good all the way around, you just cannot get the same level of quality but once again you can get quality.
How do you think the people doing music videos feel. There are people charging $5000 to produce some. But we all change and try to figure out how to keep making a living.
Re: Hey! I have an idea! by tcurren on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:07:46 pm
[becker]"Why dont we rename this forum to:
Apple color : for highly experienced, wealthy, colorists only - no newbies allowed."
Works for me! (Hey, if you're gonna be sarcastic, so am I)
[becker]"A lot of young boys and girls wanna learn - let them learn, as well as they can on substandard equipment, until they can afford the high-end stuff."
Can you learn to paint in the dark? The original poster was asking if he can make an LCD look like a CRT, I said no and have shown the reasons why. It has led down this loooonnnggg path.
Bottom line, there IS a minimum cost for doing it right. Sorry.
Re: Hey! I have an idea! by walter biscardi on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:12:39 pm
[becker]"Why dont we rename this forum to:
Apple color : for highly experienced, wealthy, colorists only - no newbies allowed."
There is a price to be paid for doing color grading the right way. Color is a very precise, professional application. As noted above, the original post was regarding LCD displays and you can't do true grading with LCD.
[becker]"If you dont wanna give advice on how achieving something as well as possible, with the budget that the one asking the question has, why have this forum open to the public?"
I believe we have all answered the question. There comes a point where price does matter when choosing a quality color grading display. We give professional answers on these forums. It's not always what you want to hear.
[becker]"A lot of young boys and girls wanna learn - let them learn, as well as they can on substandard equipment, until they can afford the high-end stuff."
They can learn all they want, but if you grade on substandard equipment and then try to show your wares to a professional house to get a job, you might end up looking a little silly. Yes, play with it all you want and learn it, but without a proper grading monitor, you can never be completely sure of your results.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
http://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.
All Things Apple Podcast! http://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Re: Hey! I have an idea! by msacci on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:21:31 pm
Since I'm kind of responsible for the "other-side" of the decision I do want to say there is not room for disrespect especially for those we have so much to learn from. We don't have to agree with everything to learn from someone. In the end everyone needs to make their own choices and hearing both sides helps one to get a clear picture. :-)
Re: Hey! I have an idea! by Russell Lasson on Jun 20, 2007 at 1:12:23 am
[msacci]"hearing both sides helps one to get a clear picture. :-)"
Definitely. With editing, people are always trying to get "the best quality possible" with prosumer cameras. Whenever I hear that I always think, "If you need the best quality possible, then why didn't you shoot on a professional camera?" I know, because they couldn't afford it.
I totally respect where the pros are coming from. There really are minimum system requirements for accurate color grading and it is more than just opening Color. And it's not cheap, but it's required.
Newbies on the other hand don't have the equipment and don't want to drop $15-$30k to buy it. That's more than some of them make in a year doing film. They've been using FCP's CC tools and now have Color and want to start playing around.
To the Pros: Be nice to the newbies. After all, they are newbies.
To the Newbies: Respect the pros. After all, they are pros and know what they're talking about.
Pros are going to do their thing and Newbies are going to do theirs.
I don't know where I was really going with this, but I hope we can stop having these super long discussions about it and just get on with life like the rest of the forums do.
