FORUMS: list search recent posts

Learning to love FCP X

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Dylan Haley
Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:19:47 am

Ever since FCP X was released I have been cutting my shows on Avid MC 6 and FCP legacy versions. Initially I felt professionally abandoned by apple, but I'm starting to come around now that I'm finally saving some big hours in post, for the first time in years. As you all know, you can't find many positive comments in the pro community on fcp x, but I thought this link I came across might help others in my situation:

http://www.onlinevideo.net/2011/12/learning-to-love-final-cut-pro-x/

I'm still cutting on Avid and Legacy FCP, but I'm over the curve on FCP X and I'm starting to like it. I just delivered my first professional show cut entirely on FCP X.

Anyone else having this same journey?

Cheers.

~Dylan Haley
DP, Ampersand Studios


Return to posts index

Ben Scott
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:23:37 am

i find many things are significantly faster or at very least something I don't need to think about like I did in the past.

transcoding and linking media is the main timesaver and not needing to patch.

some things I have found buggy (skimmer that flies off screen when zoomed in) or not to my liking (color board for colour balance)

but I can see how much easier things could become once the broadcast monitoring out arrives, lets hope getting out to tape is just as easy as whats been released so far


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:43:42 am

[Ben Scott] " I can see how much easier things could become once the broadcast monitoring out arrives..."
Hi
Why do I keep getting this sinking feeling that what Apple means by 'broadcast monitoring' may not be at all what people in this forum mean by the words...?

...that what they mean is that OSX 10.7 will be upgraded to 10-bit API capability - so we'll be able to connect 10-bit Colorsync LCD computer monitors to our Radeon graphics cards to get 10-bit monitoring capability with Colorsync accuracy (= broadcast)!

Please tell me I'm wrong ;-(



Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:03:01 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Please tell me I'm wrong ;-("

i'm pretty sure you are wrong

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


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:19:23 pm

This would be awesome! But please include normal output over a videocard as well.

Building support into OSX would have all kinds of benifits for other apps in both cases.

My experience with FCPX has been head-bashing in my testings. More will come when we actually have true broadcast output howvever.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:57:53 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Please tell me I'm wrong ;-("

I think you're wrong, but if you're right, it's pretty much the nail in the coffin for us.

I can't run client monitors off of your proposed setup.


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:00:22 pm

[Paul Dickin]OSX 10.7 will be upgraded to 10-bit API capability - so we'll be able to connect 10-bit Colorsync LCD computer monitors to our Radeon graphics cards to get 10-bit monitoring capability with Colorsync accuracy (= broadcast)!

I think you might be wrong as well, but only because I don't see a reason Apple would fool with this considering that 10.7 is more than likely going to be the end of OSX, with everything merging to the iOS platform and more iPad/iPhone like devices.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:37:29 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Why do I keep getting this sinking feeling that what Apple means by 'broadcast monitoring' may not be at all what people in this forum mean by the words...?"

While no one knows, I have the sinking feeling that there is an element of truth to what you suspect. Most people I talk to are expecting to be able to get the signal out through existing hardware like K3's DeckLink, etc. What I'm afraid of is that their definition of "Broadcast Monitoring" will be through Thunderbolt only, and that will require everyone to buy dumbed down hardware in order to use it...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:43:17 pm

[Mitch Ives] " will be through Thunderbolt only, and that will require everyone to buy dumbed down hardware in order to use it..."

How so? if you have a Thunderbolt expansion Chassis and a Kona card, is that dumbed down?

The AJA ioXT is far from dumbed down, and it's Thunderbolt.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Mitch Ives
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:28:28 pm

Jeremy,

Let's keep this in context, shall we? First, you talk about these expansion cages as though they exist. They do not, as of yet. Furthermore, please point out a single external card cage that has ever worked well? Yes, none of them have in the past. They were a complete PITA. Will the Thunderbolt version be better. Probably... but we'll have to wait and see what tradeoffs are involved, won't we?

As for the Io, I've had them since the beginning (version 1). They are a nice device but have had issues maintaining continuous connections and can suffer from IO bottlenecks. None of this has occurred with the card based products. Show me one person who prefers any IO product over a Kona3, and I'll show you someone that doesn't have a K3. K3's are like anvils... you can pound on them all day without any issues. Premiere had the good sense to realize that and so has Avid. The one thing Apple had as an exclusive is now gone. The real question is will they even be able to match Premiere and MC6 and support one. Personally, I think it would be a brilliant stroke of genius if FCPX supported the K3 inside the machine. That would take care of the whole "Broadcast Monitoring" issue wouldn't it? I'd bet that a whole raft of people would convert to FCPX if that happened.

Does this mean I don't like the Thunderbolt concept. Not at all. A laptop with an external TB device would be handy, but that doesn't mean that it'll be superior, does it?

TB is like firewire. The theoretical spec and they real world performance don't match. TB says up to 10... so far it's 6 realistically. I try to keep a big picture view. The DisplayPort guys are screaming that DisplayPort had a throughput of 20, and are unhappy to see TB throttle them to 10. The truth is, we haven't had a chance to see what performance issues exist when there is a display (or multiple displays), an IoXT, and a RAID all attached at once. Will things continue at full speed or slow down like every other daisy-chain technology? Yes it's all exciting, but we operate in the real world, not the theoretical world don't we... so a healthy wait and see attitude is probably a well advised choice.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 7:05:30 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Let's keep this in context, shall we?"

Absolutely. Let's keep exploring the truth.

[Mitch Ives] "First, you talk about these expansion cages as though they exist. They do not, as of yet. "

And neither does monitoring in FCPX, so can't we all jump to our own conclusions at this point? In context?

Magma has announced one as well as Sonnet. Who knows who else is going to release one, maybe the capture card companies themselves, who knows?

[Mitch Ives] "Furthermore, please point out a single external card cage that has ever worked well? Yes, none of them have in the past. They were a complete PITA. Will the Thunderbolt version be better. Probably... but we'll have to wait and see what tradeoffs are involved, won't we?"

Yes, we will. I will say that with a release of current Kona drivers, in the very bottom of the release notes, they say that all Kona cards are now "Thunderbolt aware". So, there's some real context.

[Mitch Ives] "They are a nice device but have had issues maintaining continuous connections and can suffer from IO bottlenecks."

You mean like 400 or 800 mbsit/sec firewire? You do understand the Thunderbolt is a PCIe protocol, correct? This isn't firewire anymore, it is spec'd @ 10Gb/sec.

[Mitch Ives] "Show me one person who prefers any IO product over a Kona3, and I'll show you someone that doesn't have a K3."

I cannot take my K3 on set, but I can my ioHD or Express. Have you worked with an ioExpress that runs on PCIe? Do you find it "bottlenecks"? Contextually, I would be able to being a K3 on set and run it from a MacBook Pro in a thunderbolt cage. I have no idea if this is going to work or not, but again, I have higher hopes than "Apple is going to force us to buy a thunderbolt display". If that's the case, they really don't want us. That's fine, I'll move on.

[Mitch Ives] "Premiere had the good sense to realize that and so has Avid. The one thing Apple had as an exclusive is now gone. The real question is will they even be able to match Premiere and MC6 and support one. Personally, I think it would be a brilliant stroke of genius if FCPX supported the K3 inside the machine. That would take care of the whole "Broadcast Monitoring" issue wouldn't it? I'd bet that a whole raft of people would convert to FCPX if that happened."

I think people would start to take X more seriously if it had broadcast out, yes. To me, broadcast out is baseband video, not a Thunderbolt display. So far, Apple has set told us what's coming with FCPX, and delivered on those prmoises. They wouldn't say broadcast out if they meant a thunderbolt display setup to "broadcast colors". I know that Apple has created a huge swath of uncertainty, but they haven't lied quite yet.

[Mitch Ives] "Does this mean I don't like the Thunderbolt concept. Not at all. A laptop with an external TB device would be handy, but that doesn't mean that it'll be superior, does it?"

It's not superior to full lane PCIe. Thunderbolt is 4x PCIe for now + Display port.

Have you taken a good look at the ioXT specs? It bests a Kona 3 in certain respects (but certainly not the Kona 3G). It does a lot of things in a very small package.

[Mitch Ives] "TB is like firewire. The theoretical spec and they real world performance don't match. TB says up to 10... so far it's 6 realistically. "

That's Gigabits. Firewire was megabits. Even if it's 6 Gigabits, that's a huge wad of data. It could certainly handle compressed 444 video and above.

[Mitch Ives] "Will things continue at full speed or slow down like every other daisy-chain technology? Yes it's all exciting, but we operate in the real world, not the theoretical world don't we... so a healthy wait and see attitude is probably a well advised choice."

OK, then we can all agree to wait and see what Apple means instead of saying we are all going to die?


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:47:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, we will. I will say that with a release of current Kona drivers, in the very bottom of the release notes, they say that all Kona cards are now "Thunderbolt aware". So, there's some real context."

What exactly do you think that means? Not challenging, just asking. Do you think it means they will recognize a TB RAID... that it was designed to be in a card cage? I'm talking to a lot of people and nobody knows what they means. Maybe you do?

[Jeremy Garchow] You mean like 400 or 800 mbsit/sec firewire? You do understand the Thunderbolt is a PCIe protocol, correct? This isn't firewire anymore, it is spec'd @ 10Gb/sec.

Of course I do. Do we need to be insulting?

[Jeremy Garchow] I cannot take my K3 on set, but I can my ioHD or Express. Have you worked with an ioExpress that runs on PCIe? Do you find it "bottlenecks"? Contextually, I would be able to being a K3 on set and run it from a MacBook Pro in a thunderbolt cage. I have no idea if this is going to work or not, but again, I have higher hopes than "Apple is going to force us to buy a thunderbolt display". If that's the case, they really don't want us. That's fine, I'll move on.

Sure you could, and yes I have. I understand your point, and I agree with you on what your preference is and how important this is to Apple... you... me and others.

[Jeremy Garchow] To me, broadcast out is baseband video, not a Thunderbolt display. So far, Apple has set told us what's coming with FCPX, and delivered on those prmoises. They wouldn't say broadcast out if they meant a thunderbolt display setup to "broadcast colors". I know that Apple has created a huge swath of uncertainty, but they haven't lied quite yet.

You nailed it Jeremy on the baseband video comment. Hopefully the fact that we agree won't be too disappointing for you. With regard to Apple, I'm keeping an open mind. "Early 2012" is a big opportunity for Apple. If the Multicam is killer and they actually provide baseband video to existing pro hardware, they will have a much larger fan base for FCPX.

[Jeremy Garchow] Have you taken a good look at the ioXT specs? It bests a Kona 3 in certain respects (but certainly not the Kona 3G). It does a lot of things in a very small package.

Yes, it's an interesting product, but I still prefer the K3. Believe me, I'm not unfamiliar with the advantages of something more portable and versatile.

[Jeremy Garchow] That's Gigabits. Firewire was megabits. Even if it's 6 Gigabits, that's a huge wad of data. It could certainly handle compressed 444 video and above.

Jeez, there you go again. I'll wait and see if it handles 444... I'm too experienced to believe that specs and real world performance are the same thing. Remember, according to specs, the Bumble Bee lacks sufficient wing span to support flight.

[[Jeremy Garchow] OK, then we can all agree to wait and see what Apple means instead of saying we are all going to die?"

Who said that? My post started with "Nobody knows...". Besides, you make it sound like we have a choice in terms of waiting. FWIW, I am waiting... I haven't switched to Premiere or MC6. At the same time, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid either...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:14:27 pm

[Mitch Ives] "that it was designed to be in a card cage? I'm talking to a lot of people and nobody knows what they means. Maybe you do?"

Yeah, it's vague. I think it's that the cards will be recognized over thunderbolt, which seems to mean that a Kona card will be able to work in some sort of thunderbolt setup. Since we all know that a kona card can't fit in an iMac or a MBP, and MacPros already support Kona's, what's left to surmise? That Kona cards will somehow have to live outside the confines of a computer and connected via thunderbolt. Right?

There's no reason a Kona card needs to recognize a TB raid as far as I know.

[Mitch Ives] "Of course I do. Do we need to be insulting?"

Didn't mean to insult. Just saying there's a huge difference between firewire and thunderbolt. Huge. The ioXT supports dual link 1080p60 video, the ioHD simply cannot push that data through fast enough. The ioXT is quite literally a 4x PCIe device and I just wanted to point that out. Thunderbolt is also by it's very nature designed to be extended outside of the computer (there's controller chips involved with thunderbolt) while PCIe was not necessarily desgined for this cause. This means that a thunderbolt cage should (in theory) work a bit better.

[Mitch Ives] "Hopefully the fact that we agree won't be too disappointing for you."

This made me laugh. Thank you. There's a lot of speculation out there, and a lot of fear, and FUD and rightfully so. When I see something that doesn't add up, I post. Apple simply saying that displayport is going to be good enough doesn't add up and I'll tell you my opinion why. Sorry if it comes across as gruff, but I like to connect the dots. There's enough to be uncertain about, right?

[Mitch Ives] "Jeez, there you go again. I'll wait and see if it handles 444... I'm too experienced to believe that specs and real world performance are the same thing. Remember, according to specs, the Bumble Bee lacks sufficient wing span to support flight."

If it couldn't do it, AJA would be very honest about it. They aren't going to say that the ioXT can handle 444 when it won't. What would the advantage be for them in that regard to blatantly lie about the products they sell?

[Mitch Ives] "Who said that? My post started with "Nobody knows...". Besides, you make it sound like we have a choice in terms of waiting. FWIW, I am waiting... I haven't switched to Premiere or MC6. At the same time, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid either..."

We don't have a choice to wait? I'm waiting. I've been waiting for something new for a long time. I am still using FCS3 every day.

You are right, nobody knows, but there's certain things that can be inferred. Displayport as a video distribution device is not one of them in a professional video application.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "This made me laugh. Thank you. There's a lot of speculation out there, and a lot of fear, and FUD and rightfully so. When I see something that doesn't add up, I post. Apple simply saying that displayport is going to be good enough doesn't add up and I'll tell you my opinion why. Sorry if it comes across as gruff, but I like to connect the dots. There's enough to be uncertain about, right?

Not at all... I like honest debate. Nobody has all the answers.


[Jeremy Garchow] We don't have a choice to wait? I'm waiting. I've been waiting for something new for a long time. I am still using FCS3 every day.

You are right, nobody knows, but there's certain things that can be inferred. Displayport as a video distribution device is not one of them in a professional video application."


Same here... using FCS3 a lot. Like a lot in FCPX, just wish it was farther along in development...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:44:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think people would start to take X more seriously if it had broadcast out, yes. To me, broadcast out is baseband video, not a Thunderbolt display. So far, Apple has set told us what's coming with FCPX, and delivered on those prmoises. They wouldn't say broadcast out if they meant a thunderbolt display setup to "broadcast colors". I know that Apple has created a huge swath of uncertainty, but they haven't lied quite yet."
Hi
Has there been a more recent definition as to what's coming than this?

“The professional [editor] is critical to Apple, and it’s a customer we don’t want to lose,” said Richard Townhill, Apple’s director of pro video product marketing, in a conversation with Macworld.... called the June 10.0 release “the first foundation stone in a building that’s going to be assembled over the next ten years,” with Tuesday’s updates providing the next brick...

And, in an unorthodox move for Apple, he revealed a glimpse of future features to come: Townhill noted that while there are still things professionals desire that have yet to make it into FCPX—like multicam editing and support for broadcast video monitoring—Apple is “fully committed” to delivering these in an update in 2012.


That's why I query whether he meant 'baseband video out'.



Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:21:50 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Hi
Has there been a more recent definition as to what's coming than this?"


What do you mean?

[Paul Dickin] "That's why I query whether he meant 'baseband video out'."

Last time I checked, my cableTV isn't delivered over displayport. There is no solid definition, but I think we can connect a few dots, no?


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 10:28:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "...my cableTV isn't delivered over displayport. There is no solid definition, but I think we can connect a few dots, no?"

[Steve Jobs] "...you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life."

[Steve Jobs] "I'd like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use... with iCloud... I finally cracked it."

Hi
Apple knows something about your TV that maybe you haven't realised yet. No?
That's where the (so far undiscernable) dots are headed?

Congratualations (also to your good lady) :-)
My daughter's similarly expectant. :-)



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 10:51:11 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Hi
Apple knows something about your TV that maybe you haven't realised yet. No?"


That it's connected to iTunes? Yeah, I'm sure. If iTunes can deliver 1080p ProRes 422 via HDSDI, let's do it.

[Paul Dickin] "That's where the (so far undiscernable) dots are headed?"

Maybe. Perhaps it's something more like this:





[Paul Dickin] "Congratualations (also to your good lady) :-)
My daughter's similarly expectant. :-)"


Thanks so much, and congrats back at ya!

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 7:35:18 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Why do I keep getting this sinking feeling that what Apple means by 'broadcast monitoring' may not be at all what people in this forum mean by the words...?"

1. Because Apple isn't telling.
2. Because you've been burned by Apple before.
3. Because they claim "broadcast quality" - and that seems to leave possibly just enough semantic wiggle room.
4. Because broadcast video seems to be an afterthought to AV Foundation.
5. Because it might end up that you're holding it wrong.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:32:05 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "5. Because it might end up that you're holding it wrong."

Best line of the week.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:51:18 pm

[Ben Scott] "but I can see how much easier things could become once the broadcast monitoring out arrives, lets hope getting out to tape is just as easy as whats been released so far"

Just for kicks, let's break this down.

"Broadcast monitoring" was created by engineers to address the grim realities of a pretty terrible system of shoehorning color information into a sliver of the broadcast television signal. It's the "NTSC actually stands for "never twice the same color" deal.

Now we're in a different era.

Most video is never broadcast. But sometime it is — and when it is, it's often critical that color accuracy is maintained.

So I think the real question is that as we move towards a "post-NTSC video world" (and computers ARE post NTSC since they could care less about dumbing down a digital video signal in order to conform to an arbitrary broadcast standard) will new tools become possible that insure not so much "broadcast compatibility" but color information accuracy - luminance information accuracy - and even resolution information accuracy within a file as it's passed around and manipulated between acquisition and viewing.

As I understand it, the migration from legacy Quicktime to AV foundation and Core Vdeo is already helping in that. The fundamental math is better (floating point and all) as I understand it. And the very fact that once you have a fully digitized signal (and nearly all acquisition has already moved there) error correction is not just possible, but widespread - then it may turn out that the old "holy grail" of maintaining arbitrary broadcast standards simply fade away.

And not because the accuracy part of the equation isn't important - but because it universally comes along for the ride with good digitization and file handling — sorta like fat comes with hamburger — inescapably part of the deal.

Just thinking out loud.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:59:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "Just thinking out loud."

Except I can't string or patch a DVI/Thunderbolt/displayport signal in to the machine room for dubs (digital ones, not necessarily tape), or to other monitors for clients, or to other computers for capture.

This theory falls down very fast. if Apple doesn't give us baseband video out, then it's truly game over for a lot of people.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 12:34:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Except I can't string or patch a DVI/Thunderbolt/displayport signal in to the machine room for dubs (digital ones, not necessarily tape), or to other monitors for clients, or to other computers for capture.

This theory falls down very fast. if Apple doesn't give us baseband video out, then it's truly game over for a lot of people.

Jeremy
"


Jeremy,

I feel your pain. It's the result of many people doing important work being stuck in situations where they are surrounded with gear that requires adherence to standards that are rapidly changing.

For years I've had to purchase and maintain expensive "Q" phosphor color accurate Sony monitors for my studio - and now I have literally no way to drive them to make the same kind of broadcast judgements I could in the past. And it sucks.

It reminds me of many years back when I migrated from analog to DVCAM. All the knowledge (and gear) I relied on for tasks like not "crushing" my blacks and keeping colors legal - ended up getting tossed out as I realized that the analog pedestal levels that were so critical for everything weren't being digitized in the same way anymore.

The bad thing was that my Waveform monitor lost it's place in my desktop rack (replaced by the same capability in FCP.) But the good thing is that even on lowly DVCAM - my black levels went from dull grey to ACTUAL black on the screen - RELIABLY!

If the QT to AV foundation keeps evolving - and we learn when to trust that our pictures are what we need them to be (and that they are maintained downstream) then what's the point of worrying about WHY that is happening?

It's like a new highway being opened that no longer forces you to drive through a town.

If the point is just to reach the right place, how much does the path we take really matter.

(I guess I still stop in Blythe on my rare Arizona to California drives - but more from nostalgia than need. And so it goes.)

One hand taketh away - and the other hand giveth.

Story of so much of life!

BTW, my real hope is that someone invents a BETTER process than WFM/VS - that lets us somehow "visualize" how our colors and luminance levels work in the new digital space. And prehaps a set of "drag and drop conforms" that simultaneously insure that the output files look precisely like the camera files (or a corrected versions that you trust) and that their levels are legal and appropriate for their intended use. Wouldn't that be a nice improvement over twisting potentiometers to get the glowing dots back in the little squares on a thing that might not be working right since the tubes aren't fully warmed up yet?

; )

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:33:19 am

[Bill Davis] "If the QT to AV foundation keeps evolving - and we learn when to trust that our pictures are what we need them to be (and that they are maintained downstream) then what's the point of worrying about WHY that is happening?"

That's the thing, though, Bill. We have been a tapeless shop when tapeless was seen as a kludge. We hardly ever deliver tape anymore, and when we do, we send to a local dub house for trafficking.

A modern piece of machine room gear is the KiPro. I use it a lot. It provides one click 29.97 masters in hd and sd from our 24p timelines with proper interlacing and tc. I then take those files and make the proper tapeless deliverable. I can't do this with displayport. The interlacing is wrong, the colors not true. I am all for ColorSync, believe me. It's exciting.

But Thunderbolt is displayport and pcie, none of those send a proper video signal on their own, the data is just packaged up and sent down the pipe. As aja, decklink and marox have all shown, they have thunderbolt products that deliver baseband video. Apple is thinking long term here, with fcpx, but if I can't get a singnal to our rather modern client plasma display, then they don't want us. It's OK, there's others that do. I just can't bring myself to believe that apple will get rid of external monitoring. I, of course, could be wrong, and my fcpx posts will go down in infamy. I'm ok with that. I'm willing to give it a shot.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:09:55 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "but if I can't get a singnal to our rather modern client plasma display, then they don't want us."

But is the problem FCP-X (or legacy for that matter) or the fact that nearly every "plasma display" I've ever encountered has colorometry that might as well have been set by a 60's hippy high on LSD?

Don't tell me you've never walked into a sports bar with five different "high end" plasma screens, only to notice that each of them displays the same broadcast signal (presumptively from the same distribution amp) WAY differently.

That's the real world we're trying to live in. One that also, I might add, increasingly specifies - that broadcast files be delivered as "first to last frame of video - no bars - no tone."

Look I was trained in the era where blue gun and color bar adjustment was step one before you ever trusted any picture anywhere.

I'm just saying that world is going away. I don't like it any more than anyone else. But it's reality.

And sorry, but I can see where the wind is blowing. If color processing doesn't become more "automatic" and less a function of something you export to "monitor X" to judge, the system is going to fail. Because fewer and fewer people in the jobs up and down the real world of end to end broadcast can tell you the difference between PLUGE and plum pudding.

More bad change? Yes. More lowering of standards? Also yes. But it's the market talking - right or wrong.

I'm migrating three of my clients libraries to Vimeo Pro right now. These are companies who've been doing traditional broadcast commercial work for years. What happens when they get more hits on their web channel than they do on the local NBC affiliate? They're smart enough to understand that in a world moving to PULL from PUSH - they have to change. So do we all.

That work requires internal standards that are as much WEB consistent as they are broadcast safe. And X has the basic tools build in to accommodate that. The harsh truth is that if enough people truly need the kind of export monitoring that you (and many other pros here do - than someone will fill that need. Possibly Apple, but equally possibly someone else like BlackMagic or InVidia, or maybe the folks at B&H for all I know (someone who's making enough money at least to keep their doors open and look for new opportunities - its sure not likely to be Kodak or HP!)

That's the reality I see out there, like it or not. I don't know if you have kids at home, but measure the amount of time they spend on-line verses watching broadcast TV or going to the movies.

That's the really scary shift.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:30:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "Don't tell me you've never walked into a sports bar with five different "high end" plasma screens, only to notice that each of them displays the same broadcast signal (presumptively from the same distribution amp) WAY differently. "

Absolutely. And it's usually a composite signal sent to an HD monitor and the picture is highly compromised.

As much as it would be fun, we don't work in sports bar. We have an HDSDI signal that gets routed to an HDMI converter. The plasma screen looks awesome. It does not accept display port. It's really that simple. If Apple thinks that we need displayport everywhere (which I don't think they do) they are wrong. We need HDSDI or HDMI at the very least. I have no doubt that FCPX will allow professional monitoring with the next release.

I am not talking about accuracy here, I am talking about video signal distribution which is totally different and simply can't be done with today's displayport tech. Apple is smart and they know this.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:41:14 am

[Bill Davis] "BTW, my real hope is that someone invents a BETTER process than WFM/VS - that lets us somehow "visualize" how our colors and luminance levels work in the new digital space. And prehaps a set of "drag and drop conforms" that simultaneously insure that the output files look precisely like the camera files (or a corrected versions that you trust) and that their levels are legal and appropriate for their intended use."

By the way, pro media tools does some of this:

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:14:38 am

[Bill Davis] ""Broadcast monitoring" was created by engineers to address the grim realities of a pretty terrible system of shoehorning color information into a sliver of the broadcast television signal. It's the "NTSC actually stands for "never twice the same color" deal.
"


Bill,

As I've been telling you for months now, Color is only a small part of the "broadcast monitoring" equation. Correct color is easy, it's insuring that fields in interlaced video are interpreted properly that absolutely requires proper output to a video monitor or TV. For some reason you keep ignoring that... You simply can't output to tape or deliver for broadcast with any degree of confidence without the ability to properly monitor a video signal, and it can't be done on a computer monitor.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:23:33 am

[David Roth Weiss] "Correct color is easy, it's insuring that fields in interlaced video are interpreted properly that absolutely requires proper output to a video monitor or TV."

David,

Repeat after me. Fields are critical if an only if broadcast is your holy grail. But it is increasingly NOT. Have someone pull you the latest Nelsons. The TV audience is continually shrinking. It peaked toward the end of the last century and has been in steady decline ever since.

Nobody cares about you "fields" on the internet. And that's where the eyeballs are migrating.

As I noted in a post above, as a parent of a 19 year old, I've got a house full of teens hanging out here most of the time. They probably watch 1-2 hours of TV for every 8 hours they're on-line. If you think that's going to reverse itself. Fine. Keep your broadcast centric view.

I can't.

I'm trying to see where things are going. Even in my own life.

Believe it or not, I'm likely to watched more episodic TV via iTunes subscriptions while I'm working out on my treadmill than I watch in real-time anymore. Yes, there's a cost penalty - but it's one I happily pay since I get to avoid the constant shilling for crap I don't really need via commercials, and the story arcs are more engaging when you don't have to leave the show flow for 4 to 8 minutes 4-6 times an hour.

TV will be ONE player for a long time - but one among many. And if I, or Apple, let that be the sole determining factor - opportunities will be massively missed, IMO.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 10:44:50 am

[Bill Davis] "David,

Repeat after me. Fields are critical if an only if broadcast is your holy grail. But it is increasingly NOT."


Sorry Bill, but your position on this matter indicates that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of what professional finishing editors do for a living. And, you don't seem to know that finishing editors are in fact, more often than not, legally responsible for delivering a proper master that will pass quality control (QC) standards.

My job and my responsibility as a finishing editor, even if the primary goal at this time is only a video for Web distribution, requires that I also deliver a finished full-resolution master of known quality to my clients, in every case. There are no exceptions.

Delivering a completed master, with proper specs (including proper field order), is the only way to insure that a client can repurpose their video for any and all future needs, for years to come, and in perpetuity. And, the only way to achieve that end is to know that what I'm delivering will pass QC. The job requires proper monitoring of the video signal, and that simply cannot be accomplished in FCPX, at least not now.

What I'm telling you about this and have been telling you about this all along is both fact and science; it's not my opinion, and it's not open to debate, it's just reality. So, you can argue all you want, you can make all the silly analogies you want, and you can write all the specious rhetoric you want, but this is one discussion you cannot win.

Do you get it?

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 3:05:14 am

[Bill Davis] "And not because the accuracy part of the equation isn't important - but because it universally comes along for the ride with good digitization and file handling — sorta like fat comes with hamburger — inescapably part of the deal."

Consistency and accuracy aren't the same. Consistency means your color won't change unexpectedly through your workflow, and that comes from a good, color-managed pipeline. Accuracy means you know what your colors actually are, and that comes from a good, well-profiled monitor.

Color management is getting easier, in that it's being built into more of our tools.

Managing color is still hard, though. We used to just have to worry about NTSC video; now we have to worry about the many different combinations of hardware, software, and displays, with varying levels of support for specific profiles or color management.

FCPX with ColorSync is an important new feature, and one of my personal favorites, so I'm not trying to minimize it -- but color management starts at acquisition and ends with display, so this is still far from a solved problem.

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

Bill Davis
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:40:35 am

[Walter Soyka] "Accuracy means you know what your colors actually are, and that comes from a good, well-profiled monitor."

Well, to be more accurate, Walter, it "used to come exclusively from a good, well-profiled monitor."

I'm not convinced that is going to be the case for all the much longer. They've already proved they can build traditional VS and WFM scopes into software. I'd welcome some new tool that lets us dispense with the pixels on an external display and just gives us something that intelligently displays whites, blacks, skin tones color distribution,s and heck, why not throw focus maps and audio levels in as well --- and makes it all simpler to understand than the vectorscopes built for a bygone era.

You know, now that I think of it, my Marshall field monitors have edge detection for focus, and color exposure mapping algorithms that are killer useful in field production settings once you learn how to use them correctly — essentially making up for inconsistent pixel displays in their relatively inexpensive LCD screens.

It takes a simpler, more modern approach to the traditional process of picture judgement - and works great.

It would ROCK if the FCP engineers could come up with something similar for signal judging.

One thing I DO know is that I've already had about 3 pieces of very expensive Tektronics gear hauled off to the dump in the past 12 years of my career - and I'm decidedly NOT anxious to go through anything similar to that ever again!

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:32:54 pm

"[Walter Soyka] "Accuracy means you know what your colors actually are, and that comes from a good, well-profiled monitor."

[Bill Davis]"Well, to be more accurate, Walter, it "used to come exclusively from a good, well-profiled monitor." "

Bill, your statement is factually incorrect.

Please note I didn't say "broadcast monitor." ColorSync, like all color management systems, requires a known, profiled display in order to accurate show color. If you haven't profiled your computer monitor, you aren't letting the color management system do its job, and you aren't seeing accurate color.

Measurement systems like Marshall's false color filter for judging exposure are indeed very useful. Working with color is part science, but also part art. Measurement tools are critical for the objective part of the job, but accurately seeing the final image is critical for the subjective part, and you need to profile your monitor to see accurate color.

Simple as that.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 15, 2011 at 5:10:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "You know, now that I think of it, my Marshall field monitors have edge detection for focus, and color exposure mapping algorithms that are killer useful in field production settings once you learn how to use them correctly — essentially making up for inconsistent pixel displays in their relatively inexpensive LCD screens."

By the way, Bill, if you really like the false color filter and would like to use it in FCPX, it's pretty straightforward to replicate as an FCPX effect with Motion.

You need a Levels filter with Black In somewhere below 0 (perhaps -0.1) and a White In equally above 1 (perhaps 1.1). This will scale superblacks and superwhites into a usuable range for the next step.

Next, apply a Gradient Colorize filter. This effect can map from any of the source images channels (we'll use luminance) to a user-defined gradient.

Create a gradient similar to Marshall's (they've got an image of the false color key here [link]). Remember that the position values of each color on the gradient should be scaled to correspond with the correct luminance values. You could set it up visually if you created a test image with a luminance ramp broken down as you see on the false color key.

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

Bill Davis
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:10:00 pm

[Walter Soyka] "By the way, Bill, if you really like the false color filter and would like to use it in FCPX, it's pretty straightforward to replicate as an FCPX effect with Motion."

Walter,

I didn't see this when you originally posted it. (the penalty of a very active group is that interesting stuff gets pushed down too rapidly many times!)

Anyway, I really appreciate the time you took to tell me about this. I'm archiving your comment to return to when I have more time.

I'm trying my best to find more time to learn Motion as many of my clients seem to want the kind of "kinetic type" projects that it encourages - but as with many things, I'm learning more about my personal limitations than I'd like to confront. (Formal art classes rather than music study might have helped me long ago - but water under the bridge!)

I am enjoying learning the Motion interface. The power of drag and drop "behaviors" is truly enticing. And it's my first real foray into 3d space. It reminds me of my parallel study of still photography concepts after so many years of video making — I can see that I'll likely never develop the true deep competence that separates the pro from the amateur — but I'm having fun learning the basics.

Your generous techniques post will help me explore even more.

Thank you for that, sincerely.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:18:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "I really appreciate the time you took to tell me about this. I'm archiving your comment to return to when I have more time."

You're welcome!


[Bill Davis] "I'm trying my best to find more time to learn Motion as many of my clients seem to want the kind of "kinetic type" projects that it encourages - but as with many things, I'm learning more about my personal limitations than I'd like to confront. (Formal art classes rather than music study might have helped me long ago - but water under the bridge!) I am enjoying learning the Motion interface. The power of drag and drop "behaviors" is truly enticing. And it's my first real foray into 3d space. It reminds me of my parallel study of still photography concepts after so many years of video making — I can see that I'll likely never develop the true deep competence that separates the pro from the amateur — but I'm having fun learning the basics."

Be careful -- it's easy to get sucked in. I used to be a creative editor, then I started dabbling in graphics... now I primarily design, animate, and finish. I suspect that this difference in perspective accounts for some of our differences in opinion on FCPX and the industry.

Maybe if motion design really catches your fancy, I'll see you on the After Effects forum sometime.

Cheers,

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

Don Scioli
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:10:01 pm

No, sorry, it's gotten worse. I spent an entire afternoon with that piece of S@#$t trying to retime a HD clip from from 100% speed to 3 % speed for export back to FCP7. First it wouldn't render, then it repeatably crashed, over and over on the same clip, so tried another approach, it crashed again.

So no, I thought I could use it for very specific things, like optical flow retiming, but it is not primetime ready.


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:33:10 pm

[Don Scioli] "S@#$t"

stunt?
stint?
smelt?
sport?
split?
spurt?
stout?
skirt?
scent?
shaft? (maybe)
shift?
sheet?

Of course!

Sheet!

You spent the entire afternoon with that piece of sheet.

Glad I finally got this. It was driving me crazy. Really tripped me up with a 5 letter word. I couldn't get the 4 letter version out of my head.

Although, I think it's okay to say sheet. Isn't it?

Perhaps I've played too much Sporcle.


Return to posts index

Don Scioli
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 14, 2011 at 8:42:33 pm

Sorry, I added an extra # , guess I was still frustrated from my latest FCPX encounter...what I meant to say was "piece of s@#t".


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Learning to love FCP X
on Dec 15, 2011 at 11:42:34 am

Thanks for clarifying.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]