-
FCPX and color correction tools
-
[Claude Lyneis] ” I have used the FCPX color bar, Color Finale and lately Chromatic. Like Chromatic best, Color Finale next and Apple’s thingy least. It is just not intuitive.”
As a Premiere Pro use I don’t think Apple’s Color Board is all that bad. It may not have been intuitive for those that have used the color wheels and curves but it does have a decent amount of CC once you learn how to use. Having said that I am not going to say it is better than what Premiere Pro has to offer.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t know if I agree. Sometimes documentary and reality TV (or similar styles of production) are harder, because there’s less control of the image in production and a wider range of [often mismatched] cameras are used. For these types of jobs, especially non-broadcast, it’s pretty hard to beat what Adobe has done with the Lumetri Color panel. “
Each project has its own set of hurdles, but I think doc/unscripted benefits from not having the expectation to look as slick as scripted. Shaky cam, jump cuts, blown out skies, even horrible camera moves are typically accepted by audiences because ‘hey, it’s real life’ and the roughness adds to the authenticity. Scripted is supposed to look more polished in part because you are supposed to have more control over variables, but as well all know that’s not always true (especially if you are working on lower-end projects). And many times scripted is also expected to have a ‘look’ where as doc/unscripted is just expected to look natural (or be an enhancement of the beauty already in the scene).
I don’t know how many times I’ve got a scene that someone wanted to be ‘moody’ so they just turned off all the lights but one and left me with an under-lit face swimming in a sea detail-less black noise. WTF am I supposed to do with that? Here, let me Neat Video this scene within an inch of its life and hopefully it won’t look totally offensive. Or someone’s wanted the ‘teal & orange’ look but they didn’t think to dress their set or cast to facilitate that look. No, we can’t get that ‘blockbuster’ look because a bunch of people are wearing red, green, yellow, etc., and the room is orange. Or the shoot was done outside over the course of the day and it’s very obvious that the different angles were shot several hours apart.
Ugh.
/rant
Years ago I cut a doc called “Looking for Lenny” (about Lenny Bruce’s impact on standup and Free Speech) and it was all shot in SD over the course of six years (mainly Canon GL1, some random handy cam and later an HVX200). In 2012 we got distribution (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, cable/Sat VOD, etc.,) and I always joke that it was the last SD project picked up by Netflix. If we’d been an indie drama or indie action movie I think getting distro like that wouldn’t have been possible because the production value wouldn’t have been good enough. But for a doc people are much more forgiving.
[Oliver Peters] “I’m working on a team right now producing a fair amount of branded entertainment content and absolutely everything gets color corrected and all with the Lumetri tools. The editors are definitely expected to know how to do this, even if their work is only for approval of rough cuts by the client.
When you look at the work being done, the Color Board doesn’t cut it. If we went third party plug-ins, then that would mean purchasing at least 7 or 8 licenses. Turnarounds don’t permit enough time to use Resolve. So, having better color tools integrated into X would help push X into this arena.”
I’ve been very impressed with Lumetri. For years I used Colorista for my in-NLE grading needs (both in PPro and FCP Legend), but I haven’t thought about it since the second round of Lumetri updates. 6 or 7 years ago I worked briefly as a Junior Colorist for a company that did a lot of shows for HGTV and they did all their coloring inside of FCP 7 using an assortment of plugins (and sometimes just using the 3-way). If you were up to speed on the plugins they used it was certainly faster than doing the round trip to Color (prep, send the timeline, grade, render, back to FCP, hope their aren’t any changes, etc.,), and easier to make last minute changes too. FWIW a few years ago they switched to Avid and Resolve.
-
[Brian Seegmiller] “Even with the purchase of third party plugins FCP X is still cheaper than the alternative.”
Not if the alternative is Resolve. No need for grading plugins as it is a fully featured grade tool. And even if you buy it it’s the same price now as FCPX.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “I think Apple’s happy with how 1st party color grading is inside FCP X sp they aren’t going to drastically improve it. They’ll leave it up to third parties.”
I agree with the sentiment 100% and I am totally happy with Apple doing that. Why try to be everything to every one? Make a solid base product and vet 3rd party add-ons for those who need that. I have been playing with Resolve 14 and the experience confirms my thoughts. I would rather have BMD decide what Resolve is and focus, versus trying to be everything. Cluttered interface that, while better than R12, still “handles slowly” and crashes a lot (ok, it’s a public beta). I don’t need all that stuff. Perhaps you get what you pay for.
[Andrew Kimery] “Even if Apple dumps the power of Color into X, the usability will be drastically hindered by not being able to use panels.”
I would love to see that power in X but I for one, and probably many many other editors, will never invest in a panel system for color correction. Simply not in my wheelhouse. I’m an editor first. Sure, I can do a little color but if I can’t do it in X (or with whatever plug in), it goes to a colorist who has invested in her/his profession with panels, scopes, monitors, etc.
[Andrew Kimery] “You mean like properly white balancing and exposing an image during production (or even *gasp* shooting a chip chart)?”
Perish the thought!
-
[Scott Witthaus] ” I’m an editor first. Sure, I can do a little color but if I can’t do it in X (or with whatever plug in), it goes to a colorist who has invested in her/his profession with panels, scopes, monitors, etc.
“Exactly my thoughts.
I can pretty much do whatever grading I’m trying to do in X and a few plugins.
I find the color board to be very straight forward and simplistic. I add as many layers as I want and I like how I can turn those off and on.
The Lumetri tools look very nice, but at the end of the day I believe I can get pretty much the same look as somebody using it.
I don’t worry if somebody else has the same plugins on their computer. If it’s needed for the job get it. It’s not like any of these things cost a million dollars.
I like their new color and effects workspaces.
I’d prefer to see Apple add more Looks and Effects than tools like wheels.
-
It just seems like color correction within X is something Apple just hasn’t fully implemented. For example, there are way more tools and controls in Motion. You can already build and export a more feature-rich color corrector as a Motion template using those tools (and I have) than the color board.
Plus, Apple does have a type of panel architecture, as evidenced by the slide-over access to the color board. Clearly even Apple knew it wouldn’t work within the existing Inspector layout. Yet, that same UI control is not made available to the third-party developers.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Scott Witthaus] ” I have been playing with Resolve 14 and the experience confirms my thoughts. I would rather have BMD decide what Resolve is and focus, versus trying to be everything. Cluttered interface that, while better than R12, still “handles slowly” and crashes a lot (ok, it’s a public beta). I don’t need all that stuff. Perhaps you get what you pay for.”
The GUI of DR has a a lot of customization so I think that the term cluttered is subjective. I have not been on a Mac or used FCPX in about two years but after buying my Mac Mini and FCPX I see all the problems that plagued the GUI of FCPX are still there. FCPX still has a Fisher Price Like GUI after more than six years of being in the market. As far as clutter I will have a video that will shed some light on what I think people are referring to when they say cluttered. Having said that I would not want to change the GUI of Premiere Pro for the GUI of FCPX.
-
[andy patterson] “I see all the problems that plagued the GUI of FCPX are still there. FCPX still has a Fisher Price Like GUI after more than six years of being in the market.”
In your opinion! I heartily disagree, it’s not “plagued with problems”
-
[andy patterson] ” Having said that I would not want to change the GUI of Premiere Pro for the GUI of FCPX.”
Oh please, Andy. Didn’t you state that Pr 17 was quite possibly the worst NLE ever? ????
[andy patterson] “FCPX still has a Fisher Price Like GUI after more than six years of being in the market.”
Fischer Price to some, elegantly clean to others.Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Oliver Peters] “You can already build and export a more feature-rich color corrector as a Motion template using those tools (and I have) than the color board.”
For anyone interested:
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/building-a-free-fcp-x-color-correction-filter/
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/building-fcp-x-effects-update/
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/fcp-x-color-board-presets/These all still seem to work in the current version.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up