FCP-X HW I/O-support: a hypothesis

[Peter Blumenstock]

So… why would they release FCP X now then. With Lion available next month.The four weeks hardly make a difference. And if if that was the case any sensible company would simply say that that’s the case. There is no reason to keep it quiet. Think about it. It isn’t coming, It never will. Move on.

[Steve Connor]

If it was that simple they would have waited for Lion before they released or they would make that information public. It would be great if you are right though

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried “Search Posts”? Enlightenment may be there.

[Misha Aranyshev]

Well iPad and iPhone don’t have either PCI slots or FireWire so why to write the code supporting Video I/O?

[Clayton Burkhart]

Colorsync for FCPX precludes any notion of i/o or independent monitoring.

It is an RGB based application of the software and would not take into account that i/o solutions are meant to completely bypass the very same graphics card which implements that calibrated workflow.

Clearly with it’s integration Apple assumes that it’s public is interested in computer screen viewing (read iMac), not professional monitoring, which is YUV.

[Chris Kenny]

[Clayton Burkhart] “Colorsync for FCPX precludes any notion of i/o or independent monitoring.

It is an RGB based application of the software and would not take into account that i/o solutions are meant to completely bypass the very same graphics card which implements that calibrated workflow.”

This makes no sense. There is no technical reason why using ColorSync for on-screen display precludes raw output through a video interface.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Colin Mcfadden]

This is relatively accurate.

[Clayton Burkhart]

B

[Chris Kenny] “This makes no sense. There is no technical reason why using ColorSync for on-screen display precludes raw output through a video interface.”

No, what makes no sense is Colorsync for video output, because Colorsync is an RGB system which an I/O system bypasses.

So if you expect to actually USE Colorsync for video, that by it’s very nature precludes YUV.

This does not mean of course that you cannot HAVE video output at the same time, it only means that Colorsync in reality will have little or no relation to your true YUV video image.

The reason that I have pointed this out is to show that Apple has almost exclusively concerned itself with the individual who creates WEB content (which is RGB), not the video professional who creates for television, film, etc. (which is YUV).

I see this error all the time by people who actually believe that if they calibrate their screen with a puck for all their photoshop style applications they will actually be getting a calibrated video monitor for color correction and grading.

[Chris Kenny]

[Clayton Burkhart] “No, what makes no sense is Colorsync for video output, because Colorsync is an RGB system which an I/O system bypasses.

So if you expect to actually USE Colorsync for video, that by it’s very nature precludes YUV.

This does not mean of course that you cannot HAVE video output at the same time, it only means that Colorsync in reality will have little or no relation to your true YUV video image.

The reason that I have pointed this out is to show that Apple has almost exclusively concerned itself with the individual who creates WEB content which is RGB, not the video professional who creates for television, film, etc.
“

Anything that can be represented in YUV can be represented in RGB. There’s no quality penalty for conversion if you do so in a sufficiently precise color space… and FCP X’s engine uses high-precision floating-point processing. You know what other app processes everything in a linear floating-point RGB color space? DaVinci Resolve. Would you like to argue that’s also not capable of accurate color output? Because my experience screening stuff I’ve graded with it in DI theaters says otherwise.

YUV, in the modern world, is best thought of as an internal implementation detail of some deliverable formats. With the precision of floating point, there’s no reason it needs to have anything in particular to do with how processing actually occurs.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Clayton Burkhart]

[Chris Kenny] “Anything that can be represented in YUV can be represented in RGB. There’s no quality penalty for conversion if you do so in a sufficiently precise color space… and FCP X’s engine uses high-precision floating-point processing. You know what other app processes everything in a linear floating-point RGB color space? DaVinci Resolve. Would you like to argue that’s also not capable of accurate color output? Because my experience screening stuff I’ve graded with it in DI theaters says otherwise.

YUV, in the modern world, is best thought of as an internal implementation detail of some deliverable formats. With the precision of floating point, there’s no reason it needs to have anything in particular to do with how processing actually occurs.”

If this was actually true then of course you would have no need for expensive i/o cards. You could simply hook up your expensive grading screen by way of thunderbolt or DVI and off you go with Colorsync.

In which case Apple would be entirely justified in not having to provide that i/o connectivity which everyone is complaining is missing.

[Chris Kenny]

[Clayton Burkhart] “If this was actually true then of course you would have no need for expensive i/o cards. You could simply hook up your expensive grading screen by way of thunderbolt and off you go with Colorsync.

In which case Apple would be entirely justified in not having to provide that i/o connectivity which everyone is complaining is missing.”

There are two issues with that currently. First, OS X doesn’t provide 10-bit output from GPUs. Secondly, many GPUs can’t natively sync at some of the refresh rates required for video.

But there are potential solutions to for both of these problems visible in the future. The requirement to use special hardware just to perform video monitoring is something that could very well go away in the next five years. FCP X’s ColorSync support could probably eliminate it for a significant fraction of users today. Mind you, I haven’t done tests yet, but theoretically a video I/O interface and an external broadcast monitor should no longer be necessary just to get generally accurate color in FCP X, assuming you have a good quality computer display that has been profiled for ColorSync.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.