-
FCPX Viewer image non-standard
I’ve been doing some comparisons lately between NLEs and with different displays, both Apple and non-Apple. What I’m seeing as a general rule, is that given the same source clip, the image in the FCPX viewer is the least correct of any of the various NLEs. Although these differences are subtle.
I compared FCPX, Avid MC, Premiere Pro, and Resolve. All are compared also via SDI out through a BMD card to a TV Logic broadcast display. They all look consistent on the SDI output, so I’m sure video processing is correct. Generally the FCPX levels look more elevated primarily due to different gamma (I think). Premiere Pro’s viewer image looks closest to what I see on the SDI monitor. Avid MC (set to Rec709 full range) looks a tad more contrasty. Finally Resolve looks a bit darker than the SDI out.
Given what I see – and if I had to go strictly by the image I see in the viewer – I would say that the Premiere Pro is the more accurate and closest to matching the SDI image. The FCPX is the one farthest out on the lighter side. Resolve is also farther out than I would like, but in the darker direction.
Anyone else made these sorts of comparisons and/or seeing the same sort of differences?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
30 Replies
-
[Oliver Peters] “Given what I see – and if I had to go strictly by the image I see in the viewer – I would say that the Premiere Pro is the more accurate and closest to matching the SDI image. The FCPX is the one farthest out on the lighter side. Resolve is also farther out than I would like, but in the darker direction.”
Kinda presumes that your rods and cones are working just like my rods and cones. Not sure if that’s consistently dependable or not.
What is pretty darn dependable? Scopes.
I consider everything else a variable worth spending money to get as close to standardized as reasonable, but not to overly obsess upon.
Partly that’s from walking into a sports bar years ago after a LONG editing sessions where I was trying really hard to perfect my distribution master – and on the 10 TVs in the bar – there were at least 4or 5 totally different picture looks displayed across them of the exact same signal! It’s better today, but is it any more “trustworthy?” Somebody likes their home Sony on Vivid – some of the subtleties of my work might be history. And so it goes.
No excuse not to get it as close to accurate as I can. But I think there are limits to what I can reasonably spend chasing that and to have my practice to remain as profitable as I’d prefer.
Plus, with so many gamma processing “adjustment points” at play in today’s digital systems, isn’t it easily possible to calibrate outputs enough to compensate?
Honestly asking.
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
-
Are you doing this test on 5k iMacs?
John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.
-
[Bill Davis] “Kinda presumes that your rods and cones are working just like my rods and cones. Not sure if that’s consistently dependable or not.”
Actually that has nothing to do with it. I can toggle between all NLEs on the same viewer parked on the same frame in the timeline and see differences.
[Bill Davis] “What is pretty darn dependable? Scopes. “
As I said the output is fine and matches. It’s just how the image is displayed in the viewer. Tell me if you can see a few points of gamma difference in the midrange of the image and know exactly what the difference is. This is certainly something you can see by eye.
[Bill Davis] “Plus, with so many gamma processing “adjustment points” at play in today’s digital systems, isn’t it easily possible to calibrate outputs enough to compensate? “
Well, of these 4, only Avid and Resolve have controls that change how the timeline image looks on the viewer. So with Pr and FCPX you have no way of know what standards (Standards? You must be joking!) the software designers are using relative to each’s signal to a display within the UI.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[John Davidson] “Are you doing this test on 5k iMacs?”
I don’t have access to one. So far my testing has been on a Dell 27″, Apple 27″, MacBook Pro Retina, and older Apple 20″ LCD screens. Obviously there are differences among these, but my main concern is the difference among NLEs on the same display, regardless of which one it is.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Probably the most accurate representation of how FCPX is designed to show video would be through the latest iMac screen. I don’t have the most recent 5k iMac, but I believe it’s a wide gamut display. I don’t know if wide gamut has an effect on the image you see in playback, but perhaps it does.
John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.
-
[John Davidson] “Probably the most accurate representation of how FCPX is designed to show video would be through the latest iMac screen. I don’t have the most recent 5k iMac, but I believe it’s a wide gamut display. I don’t know if wide gamut has an effect on the image you see in playback, but perhaps it does.”
FCPX is supposed to be color-managed, so the display shouldn’t make this kind of difference (assuming they are profiled).
Wide-gamut displays are a nightmare with unmanaged applications, which greatly exaggerate the saturation of an image. Color management addresses this issue.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[John Davidson] “the most accurate representation of how FCPX is designed to show video would be through the latest iMac screen. I don’t have the most recent 5k iMac”
I don’t have access to one, but maybe someone who has one and both FCPX and PrProCC could comment. I’d be happy to supply the test clip I’ve been using for comparison.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “Wide-gamut displays are a nightmare with unmanaged applications, which greatly exaggerate the saturation of an image”
The main difference I’m seeing looks like a gamma difference.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I have the latest 5K iMac. I can load the clip into FCPX and Premiere CC and take screen shots for you if you want.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
Personally I tend to adjust both brightness, sat and contrast down on my Dell displays. I find it distracting to have bright monitors in my face when looking past to a 65″ screen to grade. It is fed by a Decklink SDI and I have calibrated it so that is the only monitor that I trust or really fuss over. Also I have Daylight leds behind the main monitor shining on my grey painted walls so it locks the eye on for color and relative brightness.
I can only compare Pr & Resolve in my setup and they both look similar on the Dell. I don’t expect anyone to use the computer screen to make any important judgements. VLC and Quicktime also look different on the same display so I get used to not being alarmed.
I also am used to my Dell laptop so if I am comparing my work to other internet content it does serve as a relative reference although it too is less bright and contrasty.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up