-
Best way to monitor with FCPX–what’s your take
-
[Michael Hadley] “It’s a head spinner.”
I am very happy with the quality that comes out of fcpx. I don’t know how it’s done or if it’s a placebo effect, perhaps it’s the floating point processing, but I think that fcpx has a very good render or processing engine in it. I agree that overall, especially with the built in cc tools from fcp7 vs fcpx, everything comes out a bit “cleaner” in fcpx. And yes, the color sync and qt issues seem to have been subsided in fcpx.
You will use what you want to use. The ACD method will maybe get you close enough, it’s up to you to decide. Just know that it’s not a true video signal you are watching there and while the colors might be close, the full gamma isn’t.
I prefer to keep everything in a basband pipeline when monitoring, and so far it’s served me well. I guess I’m old school in that regard. It is also practical as I can’t route a dvi signal around the office for viewing or laying off to file/tape.
I am looking forward to the Aja TTap as it is super cheap and easy to hook a thunderbolt based computer to an SDI or hdmi video monitor.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I am very happy with the quality that comes out of fcpx. I don’t know how it’s done or if it’s a placebo effect, perhaps it’s the floating point processing, but I think that fcpx has a very good render or processing engine in it. I agree that overall, especially with the built in cc tools from fcp7 vs fcpx, everything comes out a bit “cleaner” in fcpx. And yes, the color sync and qt issues seem to have been subsided in fcpx.”
Placebo 😉 Actually I agree. I wouldn’t say that quality is cleaner in X than 7, though processing is better. Definitely the results of blow-ups and color correction are better.
Like most here, I’ll swear up and down by the need for a broadcast monitor; however, I’m the first to violate that rule on my home system. But that’s because I know what to expect and how what I see on my displays translates to different display systems. I will also “proof” my output using different systems if I have any questions, as I have access to other facilities with calibrated monitoring environments. If you are doing work primarily for the internet, then what you see on your display is probably more valid than a broadcast monitor anyway. In the end, the encoder and the media player will do more to mess with the color and gamma than the differences you see between your desktop and a broadcast monitor.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Actually I agree. I wouldn’t say that quality is cleaner in X than 7”
I guess I find the 3way cc falls apart a lot faster than the color board. I find the “exposure” control to be pretty damn good in FCPX, and I also like the shape masks and the inside/outside control. While a lot of “pros” clown the color board, I find it to be very useful and the quality to be better than what I typically could get with FCP 3 way cc, even if the interface isn’t what would be expected in a professional application. I get good quality out of FCPX, so I’m over it. Someone posted what the color board should really look like (with the complimentary colors on the bottom) and then all of sudden, it makes sense for the stringent and for science. https://fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/9927-how-i-think-the-fcp-x-color-board-should-actually-look-roughly
I, too, at home do not have a broadcast monitor, but then I don’t master anything from home, it’s always at work. For pure editing (and not evaluation) using the computer monitor is fine for me.
[Oliver Peters] “In the end, the encoder and the media player will do more to mess with the color and gamma than the differences you see between your desktop and a broadcast monitor.”
Exactly, especially when you send it to other websites who do their own retranscode. I have zero control over that. I do have control over what happens in this shop, so I guess I want it as good as can be, and my confidence is through a known calibrated source which is a baseband video device and a video monitor.
I don’t have confidence in what my GPU is spitting out, but this was an interesting read posted by Franz B: https://provideocoalition.com/index.php/atepper/story/hp_dreamcolor_mac_connectivity_amp_functionality_update_2012a/
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess I find the 3way cc falls apart a lot faster than the color board”
Agreed.
[Jeremy Garchow] “even if the interface isn’t what would be expected in a professional application”
I agree about the quality. My biggest beef is that the level of precision on the controls for color (hue/tint) is too coarse.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Someone posted what the color board should really look like (with the complimentary colors on the bottom) “
I think this is wrong. The color/hue/tint portion of the board is based on the same concepts as split toning, not 3-way-style color balance wheels. Look at Lightroom. Up for adding a color, down for reducing that color.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I think this is wrong. The color/hue/tint portion of the board is based on the same concepts as split toning, not 3-way-style color balance wheels. Look at Lightroom. Up for adding a color, down for reducing that color.”
I am actually all for the color board. I think it makes logical sense, but I am obviously a weirdo when it comes to FCPX, and apparently editing in general, if I read enough things on the internet about Apple and FCPX. I don’t want to call you a weirdo, but perhaps you say “weird” things when you talk positively about X? 😉
[Oliver Peters] “I agree about the quality. My biggest beef is that the level of precision on the controls for color (hue/tint) is too coarse.”
It’s true, but at least you can now “write in” the numbers.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” I don’t want to call you a weirdo, but perhaps you say “weird” things when you talk positively about X? ;)”
Actually some of my local colleagues think that supporting FCP X is tantamount to putting all professional editors out of business. 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Actually some of my local colleagues think that supporting FCP X is tantamount to putting all professional editors out of business. ;-)”
I know you’ve mentioned that before. Do they still feel that way?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Do they still feel that way?”
Yes. In this market, most folks are staying with 7 (so far) or making plans to move to PProCS6.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Yes. In this market, most folks are staying with 7 (so far) or making plans to move to PProCS6.”
NLE choice aside, how does FCPX threaten their livelihood? It can’t be cost or functionality, right?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “NLE choice aside, how does FCPX threaten their livelihood? It can’t be cost or functionality, right?”
I presume their sentiment is along the lines of the “race to the bottom”. If you promote a tool that supposedly anyone can use and it’s cheap, then the skills you bring to the table aren’t valued. I don’t agree with that necessarily, but I guess they pine for the days when high cost of entry and complex tools “kept out the riff-raff” 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up