-
FCPX and color correction tools
-
I’m a DP and I do some editing, and color correcting. I’ve color corrected with the color board, with Color Finale and now Chromatic in FCPX . I can make all of them work for me, but some work better than others.
What is missing for me in the color board is a control more granular than ‘Low Mid High” when targeting areas to correct. Either Chromatic or Color Finale will display a graph where I can grab the line graphing Luma or a color and give it a tug in a direction up or down along that line. The color board is more general with the low-mid -high choices and I feel like I am more limited in correction capability than with either of the other plug ins. I can get close to a result I want with the color board, and in many case even nail it, however with the added granularity of the other tools, in sticky situations, I can really go the full distance. -
BTW – something on the positive. I like how the color board handles saturation. Most tools only give you global saturation control, whereas the color board breaks this into low/mid/high/overall. That’s important, because as you increate contrast you often also need to decrease saturation. This depends on whether processing is YRGB or RGB. Typically you’d want less saturation in the low and high ends, but maybe leave it alone in the mid-range or overall. That’s a nice plus with the color board.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “the color board is about balance and cast, not increasing or decreasing a specific color, which is what the UI implies.”
It’s also what you implied in that article…………………….”If you want to make the shadows less blue, then move the shadows button into the lower blue region of the color swatch to subtract blue.”
You never mention the word “cast” in the entire article.
Also are you suggesting that Apple swap the color board for wheels or have the wheels and color board?
-
[Tony West] “You never mention the word “cast” in the entire article.”
Semantics.
[Tony West] “Also are you suggesting that Apple swap the color board for wheels or have the wheels and color board?”
[Oliver Peters] “- Add a UI preference setting to use color wheels in place of the color swatches.
– Add a luma curve window.
– Add temp/tint sliders.
– Add control of the crossovers at lows/mids and mids/highs (like in Symphony and Color Finesse).
– Add a LUT importer effect (separate from the color board).
– Enable control surface support.”What I suggested was a preference toggle so a user could choose the wheels instead of the color swatch. But both would be available. For some reason folks are getting fixated on the color wheels issues. However, I also mentioned a number of other things, so there are more changes/enhancements that could be done other than a simple UI change. What about curves, LUTs, etc.?
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/97555
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
BTW – What does this mean?
[Bill Davis] ” in such a light code footprint. “
On my MBP, the FCPX application is 3.7GB. Premiere is 2.75GB. Resolve 14.0 is 704MB. Now which has the lighter footprint?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Tony West] “You never mention the word “cast” in the entire article.”
Semantics.”
Agreed, as it was when you brought it up with my post.
[Oliver Peters] “What I suggested was a preference toggle so a user could choose the wheels instead of the color swatch. But both would be available.”
OK
[Oliver Peters] “What about curves, LUTs, etc.?”
Sure. I will take as many LUTs as they want to put in there. I will take everything on your list.
I do kind of feel for software makers who are trying to make a living filling “gaps” left by X
As X fills those, it steps on those people. apple doesn’t need to make ALL the money out there, but that’s a whole nother topic.I certainly enjoy not paying a subscription. If it’s going to cost me for them to add stuff that I likely won’t use that often, no thanks.
It’s a balance I guess. I like the cheap upfront A la carte model myself.
-
[Walter Soyka] “but the wheel also clearly shows why “less blue” brings “more yellow.””
And after having corrected my image, how is that actually relevant information? I don’t even look at the color board while changing values (or after), I look at the scopes. For me, that’s the whole point. I don’t have to know what the opposite of “more yellow” etc. is (even if I do) to get what I’m looking for with the Color Board. I have never heard anyone (except maybe myself) say “I need more green” as opposed to “I have to reduce the magenta”, nor do I see how understanding that they’re both the same is in any way relevant to the result they’re looking for with the Color Board. They just reduce the magenta. Done.
From my experience the Color Board makes color correction understandable without actually understanding it (to the degree you describe) for a lot of people, nor do they need to. Which pretty much describes 99% of the people even doing “color correction” from my experience. Don’t have the first clue about basic color (primary, complimentary etc. yadda yadda) , but they can correct with X in a pinch. Yes, as opposed to with a circle. See it almost daily.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
In a way this whole argument should be comforting to people like me and Oliver that grade as a business. Knowing there are such deficiencies in NLE tool sets and that people are grading on computer screens with a mouse make it much easier for us to outperform both in grade finesse and also speed and efficiency using better tools and hardware.
The only time I attempted to use the X color board I immediately got it so it isn’t a case of not being able to adapt or being locked into a paradigm and having no flexibility. It was just that using a mouse and trying to get speed and finesse with a mouse just isn’t possible compared to a grade panel like my Tangent and Resolves extra functionality. So what this argument boils down to is that many editors just don’t care about grading enough to want decent tools and that the argument about rigid thinking equally applies to X editors that don’t want change from the changes they have already accepted.
As cost, speed and efficiencies seem to be an obsession in the X argument, I see the cost of Resolve (same as X), the efficiencies of their software and hardware and know that X is not in the same league when it comes to grading by any metric. So when someone like Oliver, who is better placed than most to objectively compare, points out that X should offer better grade tools, I take notice.
-
hmmmmm
So what it sounds like to me you are saying is…….if you put up a downloadable ungraded image and then you put up the same image that you graded with your superior tools and skills, and then subpar X users put up their grade on your sample image side by side, your graded image is going to clearly stand head and shoulders over the others.
Do have that right, or did I misunderstand you?
-
[Tony West] “Do have that right, or did I misunderstand you?”
Yes you misunderstand. I said that I can get the shots graded faster than a mouse based system with a dedicated controller like a Tangent. Plus there will be shots that I can get a greater level of grade finesse with the Resolve tool set. So it was about efficiency and the ability to go beyond the X tool set on certain shots. Because I grade docos I commonly have to shot match completely mismatched material or poorly lit shots. I constantly need tracked power windows to bring out faces or trim down background features. I need LUTs with modern slog type cameras. I need more than RGB wheels or a board to trim mixed light. HSL keying often inside tracked power windows are common.
And when the director turns up and says what does it look like if I put a film emulator on the whole show or just one scene. Not only can I do all this but for the baasic grade I can work very fast and efficient because I have dedicated trackballs and pots and transport controls.
So what I am saying is I can basic grade faster than a typical NLE (X, 7, Pr or Avid) Avid may give me a run if you are using a panel not a mouse/ keyboard. Plus I can go so much further with tricky material which is far more common in my world than a well lit, DP’d TV or feature.
Sure a test of one or two Ok shots might not show the difference. It is the 1,000 plus shots per program that will show the size of the difference in efficiency and finesse.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up