-
FCPX Viewer image non-standard
-
… I once offlined an ad spot for American and Canadian theatrical distribution. We were given approval, and were about to send out for CC and sweetening, and the client said this looks and sounds perfect (on their laptop), and said don’t change a thing…
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “But I would ask, “so what?” I would never judge color on any computer display. That’s what picture monitors are for. Like, Flanders or JVC or Boland or any of the other broadcast monitors (I hesitate to include Marshall or TV Logic in the list). “
First – the reality these days is that many suites no longer have a QC-grade external monitor connected via SDI. For many of those that still do, the monitors are old and look like crap.
Second – the majority of work done in the corporate world – which far, far exceeds entertainment and broadcast post – never ends up on broadcast TV and is only viewed via the web. Not even DVDs any longer. In that case, a properly calibrated computer display will be more accurate to what they will see than a broadcast monitor.
So for these reasons, it is valid to find value in the quality of the image of the viewer on the computer display.
My normal SOP, wherever possible, is to make sure my computer display is as close as possible to what the SDI output will be. That way what I see in the viewer will be reasonably similar to what I see on the broadcast output. Therefore, I find it important for an application to give me a proper image.
There are many times where I do have to do basic color correction on just the computer display. If every application is pretty close – given that I know the monitor’s image will generally track with that of the SDI image – then I know what I’ll get. If FCPX is several points too light in gamma, then I can’t trust the correction to be in the ballpark.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Oliver, does the ProRes Quicktime export from FCPX match what you see on the screen? And is the video the same in your experience with Premiere and Avid as well compared to what they actually export?
John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.
-
[John Davidson] “Oliver, does the ProRes Quicktime export from FCPX match what you see on the screen? And is the video the same in your experience with Premiere and Avid as well compared to what they actually export?”
Yes, the roundtrip back to an exported ProRes file matches. So, frame grabs from the ProRes source, FCPX viewer, and ProRes export all match each other. The limitation though is QuickTime Player X, which doesn’t always look right either.
If I export from Premiere as ProRes MOV, then the frame grabs from that file in QT Player X will match FCPX and the export from FCPX.
However, I would caution, though, that I feel QT Player is also elevated gamma and a bit desaturated compared with a broadcast monitor. If I used a different codec, wrapper and player, the results would be different. For example, if you export an MP4, it’s better to use a different player. At least in my experience.
I guess the bottom line is which “right” is “right”? 🙂
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I did a round of testing of exports between Premiere and FCPX. Exported to M4V in FCPX and MP4 in Premiere. Each exported file was opened in QT Player X and Switch. I pulled screen grabs from each.
The bottomline is that all of the exported files seem to match each other and these grabs match that of the FCPX viewer. They are all brighter than the Premiere viewer image. This would make all of these files a tad brighter than how the image would look on an external SDI monitor. So it’s a huge question of which gamma interpretation is correct? Who knows?
Unfortunately only Avid and Resolve offer some ability to make changes to what you see in the UI. Avid does it in the viewer. Resolve does it in timeline color management.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Actually, my question was kinda rhetorical.
[Oliver Peters] “many suites no longer have a QC-grade external monitor”
I guess it’s just the old broadcaster in my that makes me shudder at this unfortunate reality.[Oliver Peters] “a properly calibrated computer display “
Is there such a thing in the wild? 😉 Actually, I’m shocked at how well my current LG 21:9 monitor matches the pix monitor.Kidding aside, I understand the issues. But I hate the idea of giving in to the continuous slide in quality.
Imagine an audio mixing stage that no longer uses real reference grade speakers to mix. They just use whatever random consumer electronics big box store-bought speakers someone brings in that day. Or they use a boom box. Or the earphones that come standard with every iPhone. Because that’s how most people listen any more.
There has always been the need to check a mix on Auratones or some other restricted-bandwidth speaker. But you still want a reference playback system that is genuine hi-fi. I think it’s fine to see how the picture grade looks on different monitors and through different media players. But I think a video professional has to at least try to have some kind of professional reference as a baseline. I consider it the cost of doing business, even if the business is “just” corporate or YouTube.
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “But I think a video professional has to at least try to have some kind of professional reference as a baseline. I consider it the cost of doing business, even if the business is “just” corporate or YouTube.”
Tell that to the broadcasters. In my experience, they are the worst offenders.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “they are the worst offenders.”
Yes, I guess that’s true. I got out of local TV years ago, but the slide into “good enough” had already started back then. Now I just stand and gape at some of the stuff I see on local.
Fortunately, because most facilities in LA still have to deal with network standards, there are minimum standards for equipment that keep things passable. But its probably just a matter of time here, too.
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “Fortunately, because most facilities in LA still have to deal with network standards, there are minimum standards for equipment that keep things passable. But its probably just a matter of time here, too.”
But is that true in all departments? For instance, a lot of stations use an Adobe-equipped graphics department for graphics, VFX, promos, etc. Typically done in After Effects. What are they monitoring on? I haven’t seen these departments use real monitoring unless they used Quantel. If they use Flame, that’s the UI feeding a monitor, just like After Effects.
I’d be willing to bet that they don’t adhere to standards as much as you might think 🙂 Ultimately this stuff goes as a file to a server and played to air from there. That’s why you have limiters 🙂
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Well, in this spirit, who’s now going to quantify the problem Oliver is seeing?
Somebody has to have a tool that measures a monitor output (in mili-NITS?) or whatever the appropriate measurement of the number of photons being emitted off the LCD screen might be.
Shouldn’t a reading off the same monitor – using the same file – gone through Premiere Pro and FCP X demonstrate a consistent variation in measurable image brightness?
Oliver expects there’s a gamma shift. And he may well be totally correct. So it shouldn’t be hard to display a test pattern with a fixed grey scale and measure some pixels at the top, middle and bottom of and report whether it’s 5%, 1% or .1%. variation between the Apple and Adobe approach.
In the test file, wouldn’t there also be a digital standard for those ACTUAL pixels? Be useful to know if the pixel is at 0 how far off zero a pixel display might actually, measurably be.
We lived for decades with Japanese NTSC black at 0ire and US black at 7.5ire and figured out how to get stuff done. Is this as big a thing? Barely noticeably bad? Inquiring minds should want to know.
Thinking about it, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to fire all the actual engineers in all the TV stations 5-10 years ago. A few actual science-based types popping up might well be useful right about now!
; )
New signature under construction and coming soon. Please stand by…
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up