Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

A Nice Plus

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

VIEW ALL   •   PRINT
Share on Facebook
Jim GibertiA Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:02:23 pm

I'm surprised I haven't seen this discussed, or maybe I've just missed it, but there's something really big about fcpx that was a real and constant issue in all precious fcps - remotely reliable output from your timeline to any and all flavors of compression.

The whole ColorSync management thing works like a charm. I've set up several Compressor templates for different flavors of: client approval, HD and SD broadcast, web, etc. and everything comes out of Compressor looking exactly as it does in X.

Given the gamma nightmare that has been fcp/compressor/QT, this is really nice.
I've had a chance to see a couple of new projects on air during this weekend's football games and they look perfect from skin tones to blacks.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Steve ConnorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:12:13 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I'm surprised I haven't seen this discussed, or maybe I've just missed it, but there's something really big about fcpx that was a real and constant issue in all precious fcps - remotely reliable output from your timeline to any and all flavors of compression."

This forum very rarely discusses the good points of FCPX, but you're right it's nice not having to compensate for the QT issues

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:13:02 pm

It's for consumers, after all.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:17:24 pm

Seriously though, I can't tell you how many frustrating hours I've spent , after getting a good good corrected edit, trying to fudge it with filters and settings at compression - just to go through it again and again and still been pissed when I saw it on air.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:25:00 pm

[Jim Giberti] "just to go through it again and again and still been pissed when I saw it on air."

I hear you. It's a great thing that something like this has finally been figured out.

Wasn't the Color Sync management one of the top four "features" explained at the SuperNAB Explosion?

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37:36 pm

Exactly why I'm surprised it hasn't gotten attention.
It was a major problem and they really fixed it.

If you output for broadcast or any critical medium, it's one big reason to edit in X rather than 7.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Shane RossRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:41:22 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I can't tell you how many frustrating hours I've spent , after getting a good good corrected edit, trying to fudge it with filters and settings at compression - just to go through it again and again and still been pissed when I saw it on air."

Well, no matter what you view your footage on in your bay...computer monitor, external broadcast monitor, it will never look like that again. Because it is compressed for when it goes to air, so that will take a gamma hit. And depending on the TV you are using to watch it...it will look different.

But what I don't get is...you are using your COMPUTER DISPLAY to color correct to? Sure, I get using FCX for this. It's a consumer app and meant to ensure that what you see on the computer display will be what you see when you compress for the web. The same look. But using it to judge BROADCAST colors?

And are you telling me you used FCP 7 and your computer display to judge color for on air spots? No wonder they didn't look the same. Totally different color space.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:46:35 pm

[Shane Ross] "Well, no matter what you view your footage on in your bay...computer monitor, external broadcast monitor, it will never look like that again. Because it is compressed for when it goes to air, so that will take a gamma hit. And depending on the TV you are using to watch it...it will look different."

Well of course, but it needs to leave your studio as you produced it, not as the QT changed it.

That is a big difference with X.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52:02 pm

Personally I haven't found ColorSync to be any more or less accurate than FCP 7 and I haven't hit gamma issues with any less frequency. In fact, I've actually run into it more, using apps like Squeeze with FCP X than with FCP 7. Sorry to contradict. Just my own experiences at this end.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:53:22 am

That's strange Oliver.

The change is ground breaking on this end.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:44:54 am

Jim,

I'm glad it's working better for you, but the gamma issue is a QT playback issue more than anything else, so it really doesn't matter how it looks in FCP X. I've never had a problem with how I see things in FCP 7 and the output in broadcast, within the tolerances of display calibrations. Same for FCP X and Premiere Pro.

I recently had a spot done in FCP X which I cut in ProRes at an SD size. I simply could not get a proper looking conversion through Squeeze using the exported ProRes from FCPX. I was converting to H264 and WMV. If I took that file into FCP 7 and rendered an uncompressed version and exported it, that looked correct. By correct, I mean it looked the same as it did in FCP X. A direct H264 export using the share function or Compressor also looked fine. So ColorSync sort of works with some codecs and in a closed environment, but not universally. Some of this appears to be codec dependent.

Ultimately this has little if anything to do with any of the NLEs. The problem is QT as a player and decoder, most of the time, because QT is trying to second-guess the image in order to make it right for your display.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Ben ScottRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 9:33:16 am

i have done tests importing many files from many different codecs

this feature works, its again one of those things you worry is "consumer" but actually just works, bit like photoshop has done all those years using the same technology.

the monitoring to TV is coming, from what I have seen with DVD output the computer monitor display is far better than it had been (but yes it isnt broadcast monitoring) and is very close.

it will be interesting to see a proper video out in the new year

getting files out is with share and that is basically compressor, so no gamma shifts using export with quicktime compression horridness

it didnt in fcp7 that well

and most definitely isnt something you are going to find on an avid, especially on export. Try AMA if you need to get the video in reliably


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:04:19 pm

"and most definitely isnt something you are going to find on an avid, especially on export. Try AMA if you need to get the video in reliably"

Actually with version 6 software the ProRes workflow is now native, skipping QT. If you import ProRes files into Media Composer and compress to Avid ProRes MXF, then it's a "Fast Import". This means the file is copied and rewrapped from MOV to MXF. A subsequent export to ProRes QT using " same as source" is completely transparent with the original. So a roundtrip using either AMA or import is seamless. The one caveat is when the QT decoder is invoked, such as when frame rates don't match. In that case, the QT decoder decompresses the ProRes file and presents Avid with incorrect levels and you get a gamma shift.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:41:22 pm

I find the same problems when receiving Avid media as well, as I don't have an Avid to bring in/export the material.

That gamma shift is for real.

Adobe has come a long way fixing gamma shifts, but some of that had to do with an AJA QT Component that would cause a boost on renders.

Snow Leopard has helped a little bit, I still find inconsistencies (and like Oliver said, it's usually codec/container specific)but if Color Sync is truly working with FCPX, that's great. Now, Apple somehow has to convince the rest of the world to use it. Ha!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:57:38 pm

"I find the same problems when receiving Avid media as well, as I don't have an Avid to bring in/export the material. "

With MC6, you have native, licensed ProRes support. In the pre-MC6 versions, Avid DNxHD QT exports (same as source, rec601/709) convert reasonably seamlessly into ProRes using Compressor. Just make sure you get your Avid files that way and that you have the free Avid QT codecs installed in your system. There will be a minor level difference, but it's not the huge gamma shift we are discussing.

The reason is because Apple does not open the encoding specs, so everyone has to reverse engineer passing their levels from a non-QT codec over to QT. The actual encoding is done by the closed QT engine. That's what you get with a proprietary format without any official standardization.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:42:16 pm

[Oliver Peters] "With MC6, you have native, licensed ProRes support. In the pre-MC6 versions, Avid DNxHD QT exports (same as source, rec601/709) convert reasonably seamlessly into ProRes using Compressor. Just make sure you get your Avid files that way and that you have the free Avid QT codecs installed in your system. There will be a minor level difference, but it's not the huge gamma shift we are discussing.

The reason is because Apple does not open the encoding specs, so everyone has to reverse engineer passing their levels from a non-QT codec over to QT. The actual encoding is done by the closed QT engine. That's what you get with a proprietary format without any official standardization."


If only I could request such an easy thing. Sometimes the file is passed around so much, I have no contact with the originator. I do what I can.

As far as the QT problems, yes. I hope AV Foundation will clear some of this up. QT and it's limitations could go away as far as I'm concerned. Avid has no open platform to provide an MXF without buying their software. They went the other way and started accepting native QT and rewrap.

There's a LOT that could be done to try and standardize this mess by all parties.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:18:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "There's a LOT that could be done to try and standardize this mess by all parties."

The great thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from...

Avid uses an open codec, but an inaccessible container. Apple uses an open container, but an inaccessible codec.

A truly universal lightly-compressed HD format would be huge.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01:35 am

[Walter Soyka] "A truly universal lightly-compressed HD format would be huge."

In the days of yore, codecs separated NLEs. Media100 had a great one for the time, and was compressed SD.

These days, a lot of people have 10+ bit 422 Iframe HD codecs in acquisition and post. It's not that we would need a universal codec (Cineform is/was close) but access to encode/decode of codec and container for everyone would be nice, and then to have it work.

It's a tall order as no one wants to surrender their IP for free.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Shane RossRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 10:55:34 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Well of course, but it needs to leave your studio as you produced it, not as the QT changed it."

It does leave my studio as I produced it. I output to tape...it looks exactly how it does on my external monitor. I output to ProRes HQ Quicktime. I bring that into FCP, it looks exactly the same on the external monitors. Output to monitor from AJA TV...looks the same. It looks different when I open it on my computer monitor...but that's not how it will be seen by most people. They will watch it on a TV.

[Jim Giberti] "That is a big difference with X."

So you are color correcting for air using your computer display? Since X doesn't output to a broadcast monitor. And it looks exactly the same as when you DO output it to a broadcast monitor? Or are you only judging what you see in the viewer with what you see when you open it up in QT? Because neither is the proper way to judge broadcast colors.

(Yes, I'm being snooty and elitist. One has to be when one does stuff for air)

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Mark BeinRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10:57 pm

[Shane Ross] "that's not how it will be seen by most people. They will watch it on a TV."

What kind of TV?
Plasma, TN-LCD, IPS-LCD, VA-LCD, RGB-LED backlit LCD, color-tube?

Too bad one has to produce for consumers - they never use proper
professional equipment.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Shane RossRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:15:45 pm

[Mark Bein] "What kind of TV?
Plasma, TN-LCD, IPS-LCD, VA-LCD, RGB-LED backlit LCD, color-tube?"


That's right...what will they be using? That's why we color correct to a properly calibrated broadcast monitor, so that we get the colors to be what they SHOULD be. Then it is up to the consumer to have their TVs set right.

And a computer display isn't a broadcast monitor. An HDTV connected to an IO device is a better solution.

But FCX doesn't allow external monitoring...PROPER monitoring... (yet)

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29:12 pm

[Shane Ross] "So you are color correcting for air using your computer display? Since X doesn't output to a broadcast monitor. And it looks exactly the same as when you DO output it to a broadcast monitor? Or are you only judging what you see in the viewer with what you see when you open it up in QT? Because neither is the proper way to judge broadcast colors.

(Yes, I'm being snooty and elitist. One has to be when one does stuff for air)
"


Shane you can be as snooty as you like, but it ain't gonna impress me.

The majority of my work is done for broadcast and has been for 20 years, nationally and regionally.
I've signed checks for monthly studio costs that exceed most people's annual budgets.
I've built some of the most high profile film and recording studios in my part of the world.

I have broadcast monitors on set, in the field and of course in all my rooms.

There's no such thing as broadcast monitoring from the FCP X timeline right now though, as I assume you know.

Every spot we send to broadcast, in every market, is sent digitally and compressed for the engineering standards of those networks/groups (Cable Vision can be different from NBC NY can be...)

I don't use tape anymore, unless de-archiving or doing documentary work.

Similar to my experience as a music producer, you learn over years of producing, editing and mixing for CDs and DVDs, radio and TV and projection, what works in different media and how to adjust and allow for those differences. You don't just use monitors you understand the difference between how NS10's sound versus Genelecs with the same material in a different studio. You understand the gamma settings your DP needs for CCing and how to tweak compression for any medium.

That's what I mean by knowing how things look or sound when they leave my studio.
I don't know of any producer that thinks differently.

With the previous gamma issues with FCP and QT that was simply not like anything else I've encountered professionally.

This is now different. The implementation of ColorSync in FCPX works exceptionally well for our professional needs.

I hope this helps clarify my point for you.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Lance BachelderRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 9, 2011 at 12:44:21 am

Nice post Jim. Are you using the built-in color tools in X or plug-ins or sending out for timing? I actually really like the new colot tools in X and find it so much more fun to use than 3-wheel style correctors. And no I'm not a consumer, been doing this for 25 years now... :)

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:31:19 pm

[Shane Ross] "And are you telling me you used FCP 7 and your computer display to judge color for on air spots? No wonder they didn't look the same. Totally different color space."

That's the point of using Color Sync -- to translate correctly between color spaces, which FCP7 could not do.

After Effects, for example, does color management brilliantly.

Any color management system will be limited by the display device. A well-calibrated monitor which contains the entire gamut of the intended color space (Rec. 709 for Jim, I'd assume) will show accurate color. This may not be practical with soft calibration on an 8-bit panel, but a hardware calibrator on a deep color monitor should work nicely. Of course, it wouldn't help with judging field issues.

That said, I still use my FSI.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Shane RossRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:38:01 pm

OH...so Color Sync allows what you see in FCP to closely resemble what you WOULD see on the broadcast monitor, if you could? I can see that as being useful.

And the QT export doesn't shift gamma? Because that is what the issue was, wasn't it? I mean, what I saw in my FCP Canvas was better looking than the QT export...the QT export looked washed out. Have they fixed that? So if I have FCP 7 in Lion, the QT and the FCP interface will look different, but FCX and QT will look right? Does it make FCX look bad, to match the QT? Or make QT look better? Because we always had to check FCP COLOR COMPATIBILITY with the QT export in order to get it to look right.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:48:26 pm

[Shane Ross] "And the QT export doesn't shift gamma? Because that is what the issue was, wasn't it? I mean, what I saw in my FCP Canvas was better looking than the QT export...the QT export looked washed out. Have they fixed that? So if I have FCP 7 in Lion, the QT and the FCP interface will look different, but FCX and QT will look right? Does it make FCX look bad, to match the QT? Or make QT look better? Because we always had to check FCP COLOR COMPATIBILITY with the QT export in order to get it to look right"

No offense Shane but can I assume that you have no experience with FCP X except on the forum?

I assumed you would understand the value of correct color management had you experienced it in X. versus the lack of such with all previous versions of FCP.

As I said in my original post, what I see in my studio, in my viewer, is what I see on broadcast monitors, is what I see when I see our work on network TV, is what I see on clients websites - of course allowing for given variables.

It's totally different from what you experience in FCP 7, hence the title of my thread.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Shane RossRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:57:50 pm

[Jim Giberti] "No offense Shane but can I assume that you have no experience with FCP X except on the forum?"

Oh, none taken! No, I do have experience with it. I downloaded the demo, and tried for 3 days to cut a show promo. But gave up due to the sheer stupidity of how it worked. I didn't understand how it did things. Nothing made sense. The skimmer annoyed me, single viewer annoyed me, not saving my IN and OUT points, not being able to SEE my source footage properly. And most off, the lack of tracks. Sorry, I'm a track based editor and will be for as long as NLEs support it. It makes sense. Apple changed something that didn't need changing.

ANYWAY...that's besides the point. I did use it. I hated it. And I never ever in all my 15+ years of editing judged the quality of my footage from what I saw in the Viewer/Canvas/Preview/Program monitors. Not one NLE I use shows an accurate image. It isn't designed to. It is designed to allow me to see what I am cutting. And resolution lowers so that I get smoother playback. If I wanted to see how things really looked, I needed the external monitor.

But I do see the total need to have what you see in the NLE match your QT exports. Because QT exports aren't broadcast quality...they are web and computer based, so completely different. I get that. I just don't get using the image you see on the computer display (and the FCX interface) as a guide to what your image will look on TV. Because computer displays and TVs have different color spaces.

[Jim Giberti] "As I said in my original post, what I see in my studio, in my viewer, is what I see on broadcast monitors,"

How do you know? Because FCX doesn't allow for external broadcast monitoring. So how do you know what you see in FCX is what you see on your broadcast monitor? If it does match...that's cool! Neat trick. I guess I need to know how you are comparing the shots in order for my head to wrap around it.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:18:10 am

[Shane Ross] "But I do see the total need to have what you see in the NLE match your QT exports. Because QT exports aren't broadcast quality...they are web and computer based, so completely different. I get that. I just don't get using the image you see on the computer display (and the FCX interface) as a guide to what your image will look on TV. Because computer displays and TVs have different color spaces."

RGB/YUV is not reversible with 8-bit processing because you can't encode values below black (0), above white (255), or fractional values (like 123.4567), leading to clipping and quantization.

However, the RGB/YUV transformation is mathematically reversible when using floating point RGB calculation as FCPX does.

With a profiled monitor, ColorSync will translate from the intended theoretical color space (Rec 709) to the actual physical display space. I have read that the iMac displays are very close to Rec. 709, but I don't have any first-hand information there (nor on with what precision ColorSync itself operates).

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:25:00 am

[Shane Ross] "monitors,"

How do you know? Because FCX doesn't allow for external broadcast monitoring. So how do you know what you see in FCX is what you see on your broadcast monitor? If it does match...that's cool! Neat trick. I guess I need to know how you are comparing the shots in order for my head to wrap around it.
"


I seem to not be explaining myself to you clearly Shane.

I own the creative agency and the production studios, I have a media dept and AE's that work with the different network and cable/satellite providers that control broadcast schedules. So I know when new work is airing on what shows and we monitor our work on air as part of our job.
We have relationships with the engineers that handle our material to insure it looks good to them on their end. I insist on that for every spot that goes to air.

I have carefully calibrated monitors with years of experience with how they match my average broadcast output (ie the phosphors on a perfectly calibrated JVC 17" CRT always shifts slightly green compared to the connected, correctly calibrated 30" Apple screen).
I have a lot of experience with a lot of gear in a lot of studios. that's how I know what my work looks like and how I can tell the difference between the train wreck of FCP legacy and Quick Time and FCP X and ColorSync.

That's pretty important when all of our work, whether it's NBC or local cable, is delivered as .h264s


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Shane RossRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:30:18 am

Gotcha.

I'll shush now.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:49:45 pm

[Shane Ross] "OH...so Color Sync allows what you see in FCP to closely resemble what you WOULD see on the broadcast monitor, if you could? I can see that as being useful."

Yes, subject to the calibration and physical limitations of your display.



[Shane Ross] "And the QT export doesn't shift gamma? Because that is what the issue was, wasn't it? I mean, what I saw in my FCP Canvas was better looking than the QT export...the QT export looked washed out. Have they fixed that? So if I have FCP 7 in Lion, the QT and the FCP interface will look different, but FCX and QT will look right? Does it make FCX look bad, to match the QT? Or make QT look better? Because we always had to check FCP COLOR COMPATIBILITY with the QT export in order to get it to look right."

I'll leave the specifics of how well FCPX's output is working to Jim and the others, but both gamma and color space handling using QuickTime APIs was an absolute nightmare. QuickTime Player itself is sort of half-color managed, making guesses about what space and gamma it should use for movies based on their codecs and gamma flags.

I think it's pretty telling that Adobe's Media Core gets more consistent color out of QuickTime media than applications that use QuickTime APIs directly do.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:57:34 pm

[Walter Soyka] "That's the point of using Color Sync -- to translate correctly between color spaces, which FCP7 could not do."

If you read the Glue Tools docs for their Alexa LogC to 709 filters, they say that fcs3 won't show accurate colors (the whole suite) due to Color Sync issues (it also sounds like if you are using this without viewing on external hardware).

They also say they hope FCPX and motion 5 finally fix it. From Jim's perspective, it sounds like they are on the way.

Still, external monitoring is a huge need in FCPX. If color sync locks down the accuracy everywhere, that's fine by us, right? (Except for you, Shane. Please disregard anything I say about X.)

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Shane RossRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:59:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "(Except for you, Shane. Please disregard anything I say about X.)"

I can't poke fun at you anymore for being the only trusted broadcast professional I know who actually likes FCX? Man...fine, I'll ignore you.

:)

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:52:20 am

[Walter Soyka] "Of course, it wouldn't help with judging field issues.
"


This really is the 800 lb gorilla Walter.

I'm increasingly frustrated (not quite the language I used yesterday) delivering SD content of all our HD content.

I know we're lucky in relative terms that we're at a point where virtually all our work is captured HD, and we can maintain that throughout. Even a corporate piece we're just finishing, that would have been bumped down to DVD, is now going out on thumb drives. I'm loving living in an all QT environment now that I can trust it.

I know I'm spoiled. Some of the stations we deal with (typical in local network affiliates) even though they broadcast in HD, still haven't upgraded their local output, so we send that work 480 letter boxed, and field issues still rear their ugly heads.

It's a whole new world and evolving station/group at a time. Some trusted stations will take our straight 1080p work and handle the 480 transfer for the SD affiliates for us.

I can't wait till things get standardized.

Yeah.
Sure.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:01:50 am

[Jim Giberti] "I know I'm spoiled. Some of the stations we deal with (typical in local network affiliates) even though they broadcast in HD, still haven't upgraded their local output, so we send that work 480 letter boxed, and field issues still rear their ugly heads.
"


A huge amount of International distribution is still that way as well.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Robert BrownRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:30:04 am

[Walter Soyka] "After Effects, for example, does color management brilliantly.
"


Really? I never got AE's CM. Maybe I should read more about it but I just leave it off. Nuke is my favorite as everything gets converted to linear on the way in with viewing LUTs to compensate for your what you computer monitors will do to it. Then it gets converted to whatever space you need on the way out.

I'd like a good explanation of how AE does it as I really like AE but it seems whenever I turn on Color Management, something goes wrong somewhere and doesn't look right. Nuke has individual control over input, monitoring and output which to me makes a lot of sense. With AE I'm never quite sure what it is doing to what.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:19:28 am

[Robert Brown] "Really? I never got AE's CM. Maybe I should read more about it but I just leave it off. Nuke is my favorite as everything gets converted to linear on the way in with viewing LUTs to compensate for your what you computer monitors will do to it. Then it gets converted to whatever space you need on the way out."

AE's color management system works with ICC profiles, converting all incoming footage to a common space for processing, then optionally converting them to separate profiles for display and render.

Imported items are assigned a color profile through Interpret Footage (as in Nuke's Read node). These are translated into the project's user-defined working space, set in the Project Settings (which may optionally be linearized as in Nuke). For display, the resulting composited image can be converted for viewing using the display's native profile, or other profiles can can be simulated on the display (like Nuke's viewer LUT). On output, a comp may be rendered in the working space (by default) or converted to a separate output space in the output module's Color Management tab (like Nuke's Write node).

Adobe published a white paper on Color management workflow in After Effects CS4 [link] which also applies to CS5 and CS5.5.

Any more questions, stop by the AE forum. Color management comes up from time to time, and maybe we could help you get more comfortable with it.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 8, 2011 at 4:11:14 pm

I found a great piece of software that lets you use your broadcast monitor to grade FCPX edits, it's called Resolve, FCPX can send XML to it and apparently some professionals use it :)

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Christian SchumacherRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 8, 2011 at 5:40:33 pm

[Steve Connor] "I found a great piece of software that lets you use your broadcast monitor to grade FCPX edits, it's called Resolve, FCPX can send XML to it and apparently some professionals use it :)"

It should be noted that it's a piece of software that requires a specific piece of hardware to do that monitoring.
And it's called Blackmagic.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 11:36:48 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I'm surprised I haven't seen this discussed, or maybe I've just missed it, but there's something really big about fcpx that was a real and constant issue in all precious fcps - remotely reliable output from your timeline to any and all flavors of compression."

There were four features I was really excited about, because I thought they'd let me use FCPX for finishing: resolution independence, ColorSync, linear compositing, and floating point processing.

FCPX 10.0 didn't have a lot of promise for me, but 10.0.1 was a step in the right direction. I'm curious to see what the next version brings.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Daniel FromeRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:17:22 am

Hi Jim, thanks for bringing attention to this. I have plenty of memories of exporting h264 quicktime files out to the network for rough cut approval, only to have them blast the "dull colors" (we were working in animation, so color shifts were 100x more noticeable than on live action).

If I might ask a further question: If a computer without FCPX watches your h264 outputs, is the color still properly calibrated for them? I ask this because I found that many quicktime movies actually did contain the proper color information -- it was quicktime that seemingly didn't interpret it properly.

For example, we could watch a 1080p quicktime movie in VLC player and get a more accurate view than if we viewed it in Quicktime 7. This indicated to me that the problem wasn't necessary the exported file, but the "player."

My question is 'how did they fix it' I suppose: since it seems like the weak link is equally the quicktime playback engine... which would still inherit these issues on the client machine? Hopefully I'm asking this clearly enough...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:04:06 am

[Daniel Frome] "
If I might ask a further question: If a computer without FCPX watches your h264 outputs, is the color still properly calibrated for them? I ask this because I found that many quicktime movies actually did contain the proper color information -- it was quicktime that seemingly didn't interpret it properly. "


Hey Daniel, I'll give it my best. For one, finally using a native 2.2 gamma gets us all in the same relative space - Mac PC monitor wise. So while our work will always be subject to the vagaries of individual monitor quality and calibration (or lack thereof) it's just nice to have the issues reduced with native gamma. What's great about X and what shocked me when I put out our first masters just a few weeks ago, was how accurate the movie was and honestly how much better the image looked on the same Apple 27" monitor.

Just a quick caveat. Our workflow is to export from X as Pro Res master and then use that to drop on compressor for .h264 480, 720 and 1080 for a typical project.


[Daniel Frome] "For example, we could watch a 1080p quicktime movie in VLC player and get a more accurate view than if we viewed it in Quicktime 7. This indicated to me that the problem wasn't necessary the exported file, but the "player."
"


No doubt about it, Apple lost it with FCP and Quick Time. And for some unfathomable reason it got worse with QT 10.

I remember when I was in my first recording studio session, I couldn't understand why the producer/engineer kept listening to these tiny little 4'x4" cubes when there was a wall of really expensive monitors in the control room.

That was my first lesson in mixing for the "common denominator" or at least that's what I call it. Those little Auratones, that I then saw in studio after studio as I grew, were the way to make sure that your final output would sound great even on the cheapest speakers in the worst aural environments...and retain the bass. That's why we all have them...and NS10's (really sonically deficient speakers, but they are in every studio, so we all have reference).

That's when I realized how subjective all of what we produced was and how to compensate for it as best as possible.

Sorry to digress but it's how I immediately perceived monitoring for film and video when I became a producer in this world.

So the whole QT gamma mess threw any reliable "absolute" reference out the window. Worse for me in the last few years was the growing importance (now pretty much exclusive) of delivering compressed broadcast files.


[Daniel Frome] "
My question is 'how did they fix it' I suppose: since it seems like the weak link is equally the quicktime playback engine... which would still inherit these issues on the client machine? Hopefully I'm asking this clearly enoug"


I'm not smart enough to speak to the technology, just that ColorSync is something that I'm familiar with as a designer, but that has meant nothing with FCP until X. Now it manages the content within your workflow and keeps it beautifully consistent right through multiple variations of Compressor output.

And again, working with a native 2.2 gamma makes it much likelier to look the way you want on web based content as well.

The combination of the two has made all the work we've done in X much easier.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:12:52 am

[Jim Giberti] "I remember when I was in my first recording studio session, I couldn't understand why the producer/engineer kept listening to these tiny little 4'x4" cubes when there was a wall of really expensive monitors in the control room.

That was my first lesson in mixing for the "common denominator" or at least that's what I call it. Those little Auratones, that I then saw in studio after studio as I grew, were the way to make sure that your final output would sound great even on the cheapest speakers in the worst aural environments...and retain the bass. That's why we all have them...and NS10's (really sonically deficient speakers, but they are in every studio, so we all have reference).

That's when I realized how subjective all of what we produced was and how to compensate for it as best as possible."



What would you do when the mix is right on the reference speakers, but wrong on the cheap ones?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim GibertiRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:02:25 am

[Walter Soyka] "What would you do when the mix is right on the reference speakers, but wrong on the cheap ones?
"


We'd do different mixes for the given media. For instance for a piece of music that's going direct to radio you know that they're going to have lock box limiting at the stations, so you don't master with the same dynamic range that you will for the same piece going to CD.

You want to get the hottest level that reflects your musical intent rather than let the stations squash it and hear it literally pump and breath. I remember when I sold my first piece of original music, the engineer that mixed/mastered it was the same studio owner that had produced my first album demos. I ended up hiring him as my first engineer.

When we'd get close to a mix that we liked on a commercial cut, he'd burn a test cassette, we'd go out to his Volvo and take a drive, with the windows down "you have to assume that they're listening in the summer and it's 90 out" kind of thing and listen at different levels and conditions.

Engineers are anal. The best ones.
We'd take notes and then go back to the studio and make tweaks to the mix.

I'm a firm believer in the "no one views or hears anything in the ideal, professional environment in which it was produced" kind of nihilist producer. In my personal studio I have a 27" Apple, 42" HDMI, JVC CRT and a $400 Sony desk top monitors, NS10's, JBL Studio 12's, Auratones, a Sony 5.1 surround system, expensive and cheap headphones...and a Volvo parked behind my chair.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Christian SchumacherRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:49:12 am

Given the myriad of digital aquisitions of today's enviroment, I'd say "one size does not fit all" as FCPX has displayed problems in this regard as well. Granted I had those in 10.1 but for instance there's a third party app that deals with this problem. It's FCPX compatible. YMMV.

Gamma Shift Detector
Detects gamma shifts between source and destination media. It will tell you if the shift directly affects the pixels in the image or if it is just a mismatch in metadata.


http://www.digitalrebellion.com/promedia/


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Rafael AmadorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 9:24:14 am

[Walter Soyka] "However, the RGB/YUV transformation is mathematically reversible when using floating point RGB calculation as FCPX does. "
As FCPX does.
To simply tweak your luma on any YUV stuff you need to go RGB.
Some time ago people would have said "overkills".
Apple haven't fixed the Gamma issue, just skipped.
When changed the native gamma in SL to 2.2, they left FC canvas boosting the gamma to 2.2 The result is FC canvas applying twice the gamma correction. The picture won't much with a player that can do the same and only QT Pro with "FC Color Compatibility" abled can do it.
Anyway, being aware of all those potholes I haven't had any gamma problem with FC7.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:07:51 pm

[Rafael Amador] "As FCPX does.
To simply tweak your luma on any YUV stuff you need to go RGB.
Some time ago people would have said "overkills"."


Sure, luma adjustments are mathematically easier in YUV than RGB.

However, here's a counterexample: compositing is traditionally done in RGB. Performing the same composite math on two images in YUV may yield different results than on the same images in RGB. For blend modes to yield the "correct" expected results, they must be processed in RGB.

That said, these are computer problems, not user problems. Users care how the image looks, and users care about having all the tools they need to adjust the image. Users do not care how an image's colors are encoded.

The key is that with sufficient precision, RGB and YUV can be converted back and forth without clipping or rounding errors, so developers are free to use whichever color encoding is most convenient for a particular processing algorithm without incurring any quality loss. On modern systems, the speed penalty for converting RGB/YUV is negligible.

FCPX is not alone in processing in RGB, either: it joins apps like After Effects, Color, Flame, Fusion, Nuke, Resolve, SCRATCH, Shake, and Smoke.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rafael AmadorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:08:27 pm

I fully agree with you Walter, but I think that the chance of rendering in both color spaces that would have been a real plus for FCPX. Although just 8b in RGB, FC have it.
A kind of 3w-CC or Pro Amp for basic correction or legalizing would have been fine.

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX is not alone in processing in RGB, either: it joins apps like After Effects, Color, Flame, Fusion, Nuke, Resolve, SCRATCH, Shake, and Smoke."
Being no one of them NLEs.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:41:33 pm

[Rafael Amador] "I think that the chance of rendering in both color spaces that would have been a real plus for FCPX. Although just 8b in RGB, FC have it."

I guess my point is that with floating point RGB processing, it doesn't matter how you render at all; where necessary, the RGB/YUV transforms are built into the effects. The editor doesn't have to worry about encoding or precision. If you want to make a luma adjustment in an effect, you can. It doesn't matter to you if the computer stores the images in RGB and translates them back and forth to YUV for processing, because it's all lossless.

I know that you know what you're doing, so you're able to understand why you might want to render in YUV or RGB with FCP7 and are able to choose accordingly. Not everyone was.

I think this was one of the good simplifications that FCPX made over FCP8. A dual-system rendering engine requires dual-system effects, many of which will just do a YUV/RGB transform themselves and then follow a single processing path. FCP was a mess, offering some YUV effects and some RGB effects. Because the RGB processing was 8-bit, it was easy to get clipping or rounding errors if you didn't know the mechanics behind what you were doing.

Doing all processing in floating point RGB makes it simpler for users, simpler for developers, and doesn't affect the image at all.

There's a lot I'm not fond of in FCPX, but I think this engineering decision was sound.


[Walter Soyka] "FCPX is not alone in processing in RGB, either: it joins apps like After Effects, Color, Flame, Fusion, Nuke, Resolve, SCRATCH, Shake, and Smoke."

[Rafael Amador] "Being no one of them NLEs."

Well, Smoke is an NLE (among other things), but this raises an interesting question: where does a modern NLE end, and a coloring, compositing, or effects app begin? FCPX does all of these things, too.

I think that its new imaging engine is probably the single most important improvement over FCP7. But then again, I'm biased. I do graphics work, so I'm more into the grading/compositing/effects/finishing side and less into the editorial than a lot of folks here.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:00:12 pm

I'm with you, Walter. As the world (ever so slowly, some faster than others) moves to 444 RGB acquisition, 32bit RGB makes a lot of sense.

This level of X's "simplification" of a complex task is very welcome.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:21:45 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Given the gamma nightmare that has been fcp/compressor/QT, this is really nice."



I'm glad you posted this Jim, I noticed this right off.

I use a broadcast monitor in the field while I'm shooting, and when I bring the stuff in it looks pretty much the same as what I saw out there.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Christian SchumacherRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:46:40 pm

[tony west] "I use a broadcast monitor in the field while I'm shooting, and when I bring the stuff in it looks pretty much the same as what I saw out there."

The lucky FCPX users working with a controlled environment are happy, indeed. Acquire, cut, finish and deliver; That's what FCPX is for. The others who must rely on third parties to accomplish other things are the ones who always will be burned, and sadly are nowhere near Apple's radar. Much of the hate and love FCPX is getting today is based on this fact, and unfortunately, it won't change in the foreseeable future.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Steve ConnorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:48:18 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "it won't change in the foreseeable future.
"


How do you know this?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Christian SchumacherRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:05:44 pm

[Steve Connor] " [Christian Schumacher] "it won't change in the foreseeable future."

OK, I meant it shouldn't change in the foreseeable future. And is based on Apple's recent decisions to leave to third parties the workarounds to fully sustain FCPX in a collaborative workflow.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:04:33 pm

[Christian Schumacher] " The others who must rely on third parties to accomplish other things are the ones who always will be burned, and sadly are nowhere near Apple's radar. Much of the hate and love FCPX is getting today is based on this fact, and unfortunately, it won't change in the foreseeable future."

Not sure what this means here. Do you mind explaining?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Alexander JoyceRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 8, 2011 at 3:08:55 pm

Can't see anyone having mentioned it, but this is one of the better articles about the colour management in FCPX.

What is the secret to Final Cut Pro X’s color management?
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/09/fcp-x-color-management-secret/



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rafael AmadorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 9, 2011 at 2:54:57 am

[Walter Soyka] "Well, Smoke is an NLE (among other things), but this raises an interesting question: where does a modern NLE end, and a coloring, compositing, or effects app begin? FCPX does all of these things, too. "

I agree very much with most of what you say Walter, but in all those great applications that you mentioned there is a "node" or "filter" that allow you to work in YCbCr. This is one of the things that make them PRO.
Options for every one taste, please. Don't give me what Apple thing is the best for me; let me chose.

[Jeremy Garchow] "As the world (ever so slowly, some faster than others) moves to 444 RGB acquisition, 32bit RGB makes a lot of sense. "
That will keep reserved for the mega-bucks guys.
The video revolution has happen thanks to the streamlining of YCbCr codecs.
Possibilities for streamlining RGB stuff are much more limited.


[Jeremy Garchow] "This level of X's "simplification" of a complex task is very welcome."
Simplification is not good when the goal is to avoid knowledge and skills shortcomings.
In a Pro environment, presets are acceptable when they not deny the options for customization.
Apple may think that filmmakers, as artists, shouldn't care about the technology they are managing.
I do not agree. people is making all day long wrong choices when buying gear or when choosing export setting. Offering just high quality options to avoid those mistakes is not the way to go.
rafa

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 9, 2011 at 5:47:53 am

[Rafael Amador] "That will keep reserved for the mega-bucks guys.
The video revolution has happen thanks to the streamlining of YCbCr codecs.
Possibilities for streamlining RGB stuff are much more limited."


Bandwidth being the most limiting factor. YCrCb itself, is an efficiency.

[Rafael Amador] "Simplification is not good when the goal is to avoid knowledge and skills shortcomings."

How is X any worse than FCP7? I'd say it's at the very least, better. Do you disagree? There are only certain aspects that we as users can control. We are hit with limits all over the place to keep things moving, otherwise everything would grind to halt due to processing and uncompressed bandwidth constraints. if FCPX operates in a "lossless" space, we can at least have a bit of freedom in our limits. Perhaps only one hand is tied behind our backs?

[Rafael Amador] "In a Pro environment, presets are acceptable when they not deny the options for customization. "

Meaning what exactly? Are you recording raw and converting to DPX files or something similar from your YUV images? It all starts with the source. If you start with 8bit YUV, there are certain things you can do to spruce, but there's also a point of diminishing returns. Having a bunch of different processing modes in an application like FCPX would, in my opinion, not return much back to the user. Float will handle pretty much all the conversion you need. Do you disagree?

[Rafael Amador] "Offering just high quality options to avoid those mistakes is not the way to go."

So, let's say you are Apple, what is your alternative besides writing "don't buy the wrong gear and don't make the wrong choice!" in the manual? Are you saying they should give "lesser quality" options to teach a lesson? What is the way to go?

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Christian SchumacherRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 9, 2011 at 3:18:31 pm

Good info here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/4441


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 9, 2011 at 4:04:25 pm

I haven't read the whole thread but we all know that QT does a YUV to RGB conversion all the time, right? It's part of the program. 32bit RGB, in my little opinion is a logical move. It's not reserved for megabucks.

Raw yuv images are not pretty. It's an inherent efficiency and X voids the 8bit limitation.

I hope AVFoundation proves to be a step up.

Thanks for the link.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 9, 2011 at 5:32:55 pm

[Rafael Amador] "I agree very much with most of what you say Walter, but in all those great applications that you mentioned there is a "node" or "filter" that allow you to work in YCbCr. This is one of the things that make them PRO. Options for every one taste, please. Don't give me what Apple thing is the best for me; let me chose. "

I'm with you here -- applying channel effects within an RGB-YUV / YUV-RGB effects sandwich (that's a technical term) is a very powerful and flexible technique.

Unfortunately, you're right that it doesn't seem to be an option for effects in FCPX -- Motion still doesn't seem to have a native RGB/YUV transform filter, and the PHYX freebie surprisingly isn't reversible.

Maybe Simon will happen upon this post and chime in if he knows another way.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rafael AmadorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 10, 2011 at 3:48:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "How is X any worse than FCP7? I'd say it's at the very least, better. Do you disagree?"
I do not disagree.
My point is that Apple, to attract "artists" or unskilled users, eliminate options that could be easily available.

As an example: You mentioned few days ago you were using "x264".
If Apple would be supporting "x264", Apple wouldn't be offering the option that you find in the free component just to don't scare potential users.

Would you accept PR444 as the sole intermediate codec for FCPX just to simplify?

Is great that FCPX is able to render 32bFP RGB, but let me work in 8bYUV when I'm making a draft export.
Its makes no sense pre-rendering in 32bFP. You go there for a final export. People don't set AE to 32b till they export.

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, let's say you are Apple, what is your alternative besides writing "don't buy the wrong gear and don't make the wrong choice!" in the manual? Are you saying they should give "lesser quality" options to teach a lesson? What is the way to go?"
Nothing about teaching lessons.
Don't we scalable codecs on exporting where we can chose bit-rate, bit-depth, key frames and number os passes?
We have options in conversion, we have options in compression, why not in rendering?
Don't force everybody to wear mittens because some people don't know how to put gloves on.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 10, 2011 at 6:07:19 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Its makes no sense pre-rendering in 32bFP. You go there for a final export. People don't set AE to 32b till they export."

Many operations will yield drastically different results in floating point versus 8-bit or 16-bit RGB because float doesn't clip. You can work in 8-bit and render in 16-bit and the results will be more or less the same (just rendered with greater precision and less banding), but if you work in 8-bit and render in float, you could be in for a big surprise with the look of your final render.


[Rafael Amador] "Is great that FCPX is able to render 32bFP RGB, but let me work in 8bYUV when I'm making a draft export."

I'm trying to understand what it is that you really want with 8bYUV. At first I thought you wanted the ability to directly manipulate luminance and chrominance channels (which you can still do in other RGB-based apps, though not FCPX). Do you want to be able to compromise quality for speed?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 10, 2011 at 6:25:22 pm

[Rafael Amador] "My point is that Apple, to attract "artists" or unskilled users, eliminate options that could be easily available."

So, in your opinion, you'd want a YUV<->RGB transform in an NLE? What would you do with it?

[Rafael Amador] "As an example: You mentioned few days ago you were using "x264".
If Apple would be supporting "x264", Apple wouldn't be offering the option that you find in the free component just to don't scare potential users. "


Then it's a good thing that x264 is out there for people who "need" it. As a business decision, Apple would probably do more harm than good in releasing all at control to every user they have. It would probably cause more problems than they would have time to support.

[Rafael Amador] "Would you accept PR444 as the sole intermediate codec for FCPX just to simplify?"

No, I do need lower bandwidth sometimes, and 422 is fine for most of my work. X only offers 10bit timeline codecs. I'm ok with that, even when working 8 bit.

[Rafael Amador] "Is great that FCPX is able to render 32bFP RGB, but let me work in 8bYUV when I'm making a draft export.
Its makes no sense pre-rendering in 32bFP. You go there for a final export. People don't set AE to 32b till they export."


If working draft, then using the Share menu goes much faster, even when your timeline is not rendered. If you need/want more control, then render and export a QT movie. I turn auto rendering off in X, and I highly doubt those previews are processed in float until render. Wokring in draft in X to me means, no rendering at all until I want to. 32bit in AE is sloooowwww, I do work in 16bit, regularly though.

[Rafael Amador] "Don't we scalable codecs on exporting where we can chose bit-rate, bit-depth, key frames and number os passes?"

Depends on what you are delivering I guess, and what the standard calls for. The only place I can think that this would be helpful is delivering for the web. Most other deliverables are standardized for a reason. If a station wants 100 or 50 or 35 mb/sec in a certain wrapper/codec, then that's what I deliver and there's a plethora of free or for pay tools that let me get there. A 1000 mb AVC-Intra wont help me as no one would be able to read it. I'm just glad that steps have been taken to minimize the mess that was QuickTime. It's a good thing and needed to be simplified in my opinion. If AVFoundation offers a cleaner decode and subsequent pass off to 32bit RGB rendering, I'm all for it, and if it's easy, I'm OK with that too. It allows the utmost in quality through the edit. If you need to clamp the quality, you can do that from a high quality master out of the NLE.

If you want and need that granular control, you'd have to work in an agnostic NLE like Premiere and buy a third party codec that may or may not be around in 3 years. Having everything completely open is a double edged sword, in my opinion.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 11, 2011 at 2:56:34 am

By they way, maybe you want this, Rafa:

http://www.dvgarage.com/conduit-64bit-beta

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rafael AmadorRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 11, 2011 at 11:04:30 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "By they way, maybe you want this, Rafa:

http://www.dvgarage.com/conduit-64bit-beta"

Thanks Jeremy, I'll have a look.
I learnt of Conduit for FCP too late otherwise i would have tried with it (now is too late).
I love compositing with Nodes. I keep working with SHAKE.
rafa

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: A Nice Plus
by on Dec 11, 2011 at 4:00:58 pm

[Rafael Amador] "I learnt of Conduit for FCP too late otherwise i would have tried with it (now is too late).
I love compositing with Nodes. I keep working with SHAKE."


It also has transform nodes. The 64 bit beta for FCPX has a trial. It still works in 32bit float, though.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

VIEW ALL   •   PRINT
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]