Anyone like the color board?

[Andy Neil]

I actually agree with your assessment, Simon. But to be the lone voice of what…naivete perhaps? I actually like the color board. I don’t think it’s better than the color wheel, but I can use it fine, and the capabilities and results of FCPX’s color correction are better than FCP 7 in my opinion.

I wonder if the issue was a space issue in the design? Not enough room in the inspector for 3 color wheels? Personally, I would have like to see a color workspace. Avid has the idea of workspaces where you can design your UI for different functions. So you have a Record workspace where the Record Tool is visible, and the audio meters are larger, but the timeline is gone, because you only use this workspace for digitizing.

What if FCPX had a coloring workspace? Then they could have a big color wheel window next to the viewer. The event browser would go away because it’s not needed there. And you could quickly go from clip to clip in your timeline and make changes to color. I would use the hell out of that kind of interface.

Andy

https://www.timesavertutorials.com

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Andy Neil] “the capabilities and results of FCPX’s color correction are better than FCP 7 in my opinion”

I’d agree – I think we are seeing the benefits of floating point here from the look of the results.

[Andy Neil] “What if FCPX had a coloring workspace?”

Quite – in the early days of FCPX before we actually knew what it was going to look and feel like, there was a fairly common presumption that as they were supposedly bundling color grading and audio sweetening (aka Color and Soundtrack Pro) into the single app, that we would have “Rooms” that would switch the UI to something fully appropriate to the job in hand.

It’s a shame that what we currently have is, as you say, so very badly organized in terms of screen real estate – in fact, nothing actually feels like it’s got the space it needs. I really don’t feel that enough care was put into designing a space-efficient UI this time around, especially when it’s meant to be able to function as a single screen environment.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com

[Bill Davis]

Walter,

You’re surely not implying that the colorist should be given access to the EDIT decisions?

That doesn’t seem workable.

Under that idea, won’t sending the same project to 10 desks where each can potentially affect work on 5 areas within the project lead to 50 possible iterations?

Sounds like a bit of a logistical nightmare.

I must be misunderstanding this.

It does show a bit of the necessity of deciding early whether a video project should be seen as a thing done by an “author” – or a thing done by a team of people and how that’s NOT the same thing.

Interestingly, this same battle is being waged silently in BANKING of all places.

I sit on the board of directors for a charity. I was acting treasurer for a while, so I had my SSN linked to the charity accounts. Those accounts were at Wells Fargo, but I don’t personally bank there. My 96 year old mother, however does bank at Wells Fargo, and I hold power of attorney over her finances.

I’m at the drive-in teller a few months back and am informed that unless my mother’s account is electronically linked to a savings account, there will be new “fees” applied. I don’t want the fees so I agree to open a new savings account for her with auto-transfer between checking and savings to avoid the fees.

So imagine my astonishment when I went into on-line banking one day for the CHARITY – an my mothers freeking electronic banking screens pop up as part of the charities financial display!

I learned that in the modern era bank accounts attach to a PERSON, not to an entity. And there’s no way to avoid that. The password allow access not just to a SINGLE account, but to any and everything linked to that person’s ID, even if you never intended to make such access possible.

Had to re-think my entire view of what “accounts” and “passwords” functionally mean in the electronic era.

In video, individual creation of assets – and group access to assets – are likely to have the same issues.

(And guard your passwords strictly and ALWAYS. They might be linked to stuff you never imagined they would be via the pervasive tentacles of the interwebs!)

“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

[Bill Davis]

I actually agree with this view.

But as Phil Hodgetts reminded me in our last conversation, part of the problem with FCP-X is that most developers could barely even BEGIN working on their plug-ins until the radical new code base was locked. And that only happened 3 months ago. He opined that after they get a chance to understand and work with it for a while, the universe of plug-ins and even full-blown third party applications will start to grow rapidly.

If that’s the case, FCP-X in a year (might) get much better in a mission critical area like color correction.

I put (might) in parens above because this is clearly SPECULATION and I’m a bit bored with of the same 3 guys coming after me every time I post a speculation and requiring me to defend it as if I conceived it as holy writ. : )

“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

[Chris Harlan]

[Bill Davis] “Walter,

You’re surely not implying that the colorist should be given access to the EDIT decisions?

That doesn’t seem workable.

Under that idea, won’t sending the same project to 10 desks where each can potentially affect work on 5 areas within the project lead to 50 possible iterations?

Sounds like a bit of a logistical nightmare.
“

Bill, I’m pretty certain that Walter isn’t suggesting such a thing without a tight control of access or privileges. My guess is that you are aware of that as well.

Or maybe I’m misunderstanding.

[Walter Soyka]

[Bill Davis] “Walter, You’re surely not implying that the colorist should be given access to the EDIT decisions?”

Of course not.

Since we’re engaging in some “wouldn’t it be nice if” on this forum, I’m asking this: wouldn’t it be nice if you could eliminate the need for conform when moving an edit from one desk to another?

I’m suggesting the colorist should be able to open the editor’s timeline natively in the coloring app, without having to conform. A coloring app wouldn’t have editorial tools, and the colorist would grade, not alter the edit.

When the grade was finished, the colorist would pass the project and new render files back to the editor. When the editor opened the project, it could reconnect to the new render files (while retaining a link to the original media).

On collaborative projects (or on projects where one operator moves among applications) there is one and only one edit that ties them all together, yet today’s workflows dictate that one timeline must be recreated separately from the NLE in the color app, in the DAW, and possibly in the finishing app. If you must make a change after picture lock, you have to re-conform everywhere.

I’m suggesting that one timeline which the NLE creates and the other apps can read and contribute to could be a powerful workflow.

I had initially hoped that a shared data model would be the direction FCPX would take: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/1538

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

[Jim Giberti]

As my wife, who’s an Adobe expert in design and web but no FCP experience, said: I can see Apple adding the option of color wheel control or color board control in future upgrades.

[Andy Lewis]

So that’s three better alternatives suggested in a handful of forum posts:

1. A “rooms” model, with a specialised toolset and UI for each task.
2. Better use of space in a single-screen app, with colour wheels instead of the… whatever it is.
3. Full interoperability between software so using Resolve or anything else would be completely painless (admittedly this one is not within apple’s power to solve alone).

My order of preference: 3,1,2

[Aindreas Gallagher]

jumping in with my usual balls –

[Simon Ubsdell] “nothing actually feels like it’s got the space it needs. I really don’t feel that enough care was put into designing a space-efficient UI this time around, especially when it’s meant to be able to function as a single screen environment.”

yesss. I’m genuinely sort of crazy on this point – the application feels incredibly screen tight sometimes? I’m not ranting on this, there really is some super whatnot deep capacity, although I rant about the event stuff, the fact that its actually there is impressive whatever and etc.
still – the kung fu required to get everything into a monolithic single window feels full to bursting?

but say we would like to invoke a source monitor – for a variety of purposes – or expose fuller colour, or effect timeline environments –

what is the way out of this as a single window interface without tabs?

I do like those rooms tho, he said simplistically, I will have.. a tracking colour room, annnd a tracks room and, what the hell, an audio post room.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8QXU8TwjmQ&feature=related

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Jeremy Garchow]

The lack of workspace customization does seem weird. I really want to be able to move the scopes (and also have more scope keyboard shortcuts so I can open right to parade).

Since that link went straight to one of my posts, I guess I’ll say something, although I’m a bit gun shy as I feel like I’ll have to defend what I see is the good in something when it’s obvious everything needs work. And I’m OK with FCPX needing work. Systems aren’t built overnight. Anyway,

The actual board is just ok, I think it should be an option, wheels if you want. Truly, I’d use both. I also think the board was made as it allows you to move the pucks with the keyboard and a rectangular shape makes more sense to plot with right angle controls. As Simon mentioned, a control surface would fix that (hey how about an iPad?). Sorry, couldn’t resist. Using a mouse, I sometimes find it precise, sometimes it’s a bunch of guessing. What I do like: the masks, the inside/outside control of the masks and the keying, although I’d love true drawable bezier masks across the whole app (or just wrap Motion right in to FCP).

I do seem to get great results out of it, so that’s something, I guess.

The whole of FCPX is extremely keyboard driven, I like it a lot, it just needs some more precision. Mapping the keypad enter key to control-p is great. I and i of course copied all of my jkl mark in/out, go to in/out to my keypad as well.

Today, was messing with the layout of putting the viewer on the second display. It wasn’t quite ideal, but kind of interesting. I’m with Aindreas, bring on that rumored FCP Extreme.