-
Internal colour depth for FCP
im considering moving back to macs from PCs and FCP would be one of the main reasons.
However i’d be doing a fair amount of grading and compositing. PP2.0 claims 32bit linear colour space, which is ideal for me as compositing in anything less usually isn’t suitable. (Previously it would have been AE with eLin)
So what’s the deal with FCP internally? I’ve not been able to find a definative answer to this?
I’d probably end up with the shake route too (which i haven’t really seen properly since the SGI days) but if basic, but quality compositing could be done within FCP that would be a huge boon. Are there some good resources to plugins etc,. for use within FCP like this?
I presume that for intermediate codecs there are options beyond the built in – i.e. in PP you could use cineform as an intermediate but they claim they won’t have a mac version because FCP is closed architecturally yet aren’t there codecs like blackmagic/aja for doing higher 4:4:4 work?
thanks a million in advance for any info
cheers
paul -
11 Replies
-
No NLE is really any good for high end compositing. FCP claims 32bit also, but I don’t think there’s any way for any plugin to access more than 8bit RGB from the video. Shake is 32bit float, and very good for high end compositing. Motion can also run in 32bit float and plugins can deal with that depth also.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Graeme,
Thanks for that information. Does this mean all of the colour corrections are done in 8bit too (unless the built in fx don’t suffer from the same 8bit limitation)? So these QT codecs that say they offer 10bit perhaps don’t really, other than going in/out?
I presume the workflow with motion is fairly seemless, so that might offer a nice solution. Better than using AE or shake which i presume is not ‘live’ on the timeline.
Maybe the PPro2.0/cineform and AE7 combo on the PC is actually a pretty good bet, FCP might be a little behind in that regard (unless 6 changes that). Aside from the UI and apple design (for which i am a complete sucker) i wonder what the major benefits of FCP are. Mainly the editing interface? I’d been trying to find some in depth reviews comparing the two but im not sure there’re many people out there who spend equal time in both to offer an unbiased opinion.
anyway, thanks for the reply
paul -
Well, in built filters are meant to be compatible with higher bit depths, but there’s no Apple documentation on this. AE filters are, however, limited to 8bit RGB.
The Apple HDV implementation is actually rather good, if it supports your camera and fps. You don’t need an intermediate, which is nice.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
I feel your pain. I do lots of compositing and color correction, and my clients are asking why haven’t you moved to final cut? Answer is I can do all that I can do in my old app. I am even ebarassed to tell any one what I do most of ther effects in. I still use an old Speed Razor system for most of my final comps. Why? Versatility and color depth. I have begun testing the new PP2.0 with Xena HS, and it is preforming surprisingly well. I even have a FCP 4.5 setup, but I am continuallly disappointed in the simplest things. I will be waiting for the extreme version to see what that comes with. True 32 bit float, and sub-pixel rendering, please!!!
Kevin
-
For highend projects in FCP, I try not to render anything in FCP. I export footage to Combustion for color correction because I like its tools better than anything in AE, but that may be because I haven’t’ tried the right AE color corrector. My workflow works pretty well for spots, but I’m sure the renders in combustion would get cumbersome for long format. I’ve been too dissappointed with render quality in FCP to trust it with anything critical, but it looks great playing back 10 bit files I render in AE or combustion.
Joe Murray
-
Joe, when you say you’ve been dissapointed with render quality what kind of issues do you have with it?
I find it interesting that here on a FCP list there’s been some valuable, sensible comments about why it might not be the right move. It’s very much appreciated because obviously moving platforms is not something i can test and go back if i don’t like.
Certainly the adobe stuff right now seems slightly ahead (for what i need and bearing in mind that’s what i know too) which means im very interested in FCP v6 and what that might bring. I assume there’s no info anywhere – i’ve not found anything anyway.
i think part of me just wants to go back to macs (i have a 128k mac, still working, in a cupboard here) after travelling originally from mac to sgi to pc. But not if im not really going to gain. Plus with the last of the G5 era it might make sense to let the dust settle on the intel stuff.
thanks again
paul -
The problems I have with FCP’s rendering are primarily related to anti-aliasing with text and graphics, and the artifacts it creates around some alpha channels in 10 bit timelines. Yes, there’s a workaround for this last one…render your sequence with 8 bit settings, but if you’re doing 10 bit uncompressed you want that level of quality, not 8 bit.
Also, FCP’s rendering engine has trouble with some colors, like rich reds in a graphic, and with scaling certain graphics, the antialiasing gets messed up when a graphic is scaled down. If I do the same things in combustion or After Effects, render to 10 bit and then play back within FCP, these issues go away.
I would not assume that Premiere’s quality is better than FCP. My eye is trained by years of working with highend systems like Discreet Smoke and Fire, and I would not expect a software NLE to go head to head with these systems on quality. Could be different with Premiere, but I’d want to prove it with some tests.
Good luck with your decision. FCP is a great tool, but don’t expect it to be your only tool for color and compositing.
Joe Murray
-
Joe, are you finding scaling issues in FCP5? I thought the filtering in that was quite nice.
Issues with reds are codec related, I’d think. The apps you talk about are all RGB, which means they’d have to translate to get out to video. FCP for the most part works in Y’CbCr space. Actually, the codecs in FCP are not bad – they just look it, but when played back from tape they tend to be great. FCP just doesn’t do filtering for playback on the computer.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
FCP 5 has improved scaling a good bit, but it’s still not as good as a real compositing program. It’s certainly good enough for lots of projects, just not all of them. And the problems I have with certain colors aren’t just on the computer monitor; I use an SDI feed to a Sony PVM 20L5 and see the issue there.
I’m not an expert when it comes to codec science, but I see a difference. FCP’s codecs look really great with footage. With certain colors and most graphics with alpha channels (because of the unpredictable bug with green and pink artifacts), I still rely on compositing programs.
Joe Murray
-
SDI out of a decklink or Kona? I know both do strange things to DVCProHD which a deck doesn’t, so it could be something similar? Must admit I’ve not seen issues on uncompressed here, and yes, 10bit is totally buggy – you never quite know what it’s going to do 🙂
G
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up