-
follow-up to Vegasvs FCP (wondering about QUALITY)
-
Windows has support of high resolution monitors, just as MacOS does. In fact, I get my drivers directly from nVidia… not sure about the Mac platform. But that’s optimal.. they know the graphic device better than anyone else.
This was a pretty interesting thing to say yeah.. MacOS and Window support the same displays and resolutions (more or less). In some cases you grab the drivers directly from the vender (i.e PNY nVidia Quadro card for example) where in general in OSX you rely on the built in drivers per OS-upgrade (10.6 came last summer and we’re at 10.6.4 now, 10.6.5 is just around the corner). Asaik it’s still nVidia / AMD writing the drivers, possibly in conjunction with Apple engineers. There are pro’s and cons with both these systems I’d say, we’ve seen Apple release poor updates and I know both nVidia and AMD have release poor driver to Windows (some even killed their hardware).
There is no need for an application to “support a graphics card”..
This of course depends on what you’re doing. CUDA- och OpenCL acceleration will require a minimum level of GPU and often a vendor will quality X amount of boards to keep it simple. Some software will simply run way better on card A vs card B (this was the case with Apple Color for a long time where ATI-boards ruled in performance). Speaking of Color, ATI-boards get the full range of rendering in 8-, 10-, 12- or 32-bit where nVidia-cards only can choose 8-bit or 32-bit float. This can very well be a programmer “fault” in the background but here I’d say Apple Color supports some cards better than others (in a perfect world it shouldn’t be like that though but reality isn’t often perfect ;-)).
If you’re doing serious video or graphics work on a Mac, you most certainly have a color calibration device (it’s easy to tell.. I get a nag every two weeks to run calibration again). Do you have support for this when you boot Windows, or is it Mac-only? That alone could be the difference in image quality that you’re seeing.
Depending on the calibration you’ll have to re-calibrate in Windows. The hardware-setting will of course follow, the software setting will of course not follow.
It can be some users use default profiles for their hardware in the software which might out of the box be better in OSX – hance they’ll find it “look better there”. This is just a theory though.
MacOSX with Apple monitors tend to be relatively accurate from the get-go. I’ve had some horrible experience with Samsung and Dell monitors and I’ve had to twist and bend them a bit – but they end up very nicely as well.
In regards of playback in FCP we have a few options.
– The canvas will always preview our sequence at an adequate level. As this window seldom is 100% scale at playback you might notice some aliasing from a “faster downscale” algorithm while playing your footage.
– You have the option of using the “Digital Cinema Display” feature which makes any monitor connected to the system (i.e computer monitor to the graphics card) a dedicated video-output source. Here you can choose to view it at 100% (i.e. 1 pixel is 1 pixel) or scale to fit the screen. Both work very well and always remain in sync with the canvas.
– The third (and best) option is an external video device via firewire or a PCI-card. What and how you can output things here depends on your video-hardware. The output also always remains in sync with your canvas.
– Color accuracy between your video-output and canvas can vary a bit. It’s always most accurate to use dedicated video hardware and reference monitor.
————————
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se -
>> There is no need for an application to “support a graphics card”..
> This of course depends on what you’re doing.
Not really. Things like CUDA and OpenCL are used by an application to simply NOT have to support any specific graphics card — they’re OS-level abstractions. That’s the proper position of the OS… it provides a socket into which software and hardware independently plug themselves.
Certainly for some things, you need a specific level of capabilities, but again, this is properly handled through APIs. If your application needs to know about the specific graphics card in use, your app or the API it’s using is broken.
> Some software will simply run way better on card A vs card B
Sure it will. Some software will run on CPU A better than CPU B. In the case of a device like a graphics card, it could be a problem with the APIs, but it’s more likely a limit of one card vs. another. That still doesn’t mean the application needs special card-level knowledge.
> Speaking of Color, ATI-boards get the full range of rendering
Ages ago, the only choice for good color was Matrox… they used much higher quality DACs (back in the analog days), etc. Then ATi did pretty well, and I used them for awhile. And of course in digital, the graphic card is responsible for color modes, but not the color itself.. it’s just sending numbers. I went to nVidia for GPU acceleration some time ago, just to get decent AVC previews a few years back. Next time maybe ATi… I’m interested to see OpenCL replace CUDA as the go-to API, I don’t think Streams is getting much support from anyone. Apple is ahead there, being the initial architects of OpenCL.
As for calibration… it’s not Apple monitors per se that are any better than anyone else’s; Apple doesn’t make LCDs. But they do insist on IPS displays, which do have the best color stability. So yeah, if you’re not going to calibrate your monitor, you’re better off with an IPS. MVA is pretty close, and better for motion video. The vast majority of monitors are TN, which usually only resolves about 6 bits per color, and can vary quite a bit in what you actually see. I wouldn’t pick a TN monitor for color work of any kind, and it’s completely useless without calibration. But any monitor is going to change over time, as the backlight and panel ages. Even room temperature can have small effects on your panels.
Could be overkill, depending on your needs, but calibration is a pretty easy thing to do.
-Dave
-
Erik, to backtrack a bit, I have a question regarding a comment you made earlier. After sharing a lot with me about FCP and post, you said that “FCP is my editor”. Considering that you jump from software to software, I assume that you have the option of having Avid be your editor. Would you say that you choose FCP over Avid?
Also guys, a lot is being said about calibration. And I’m glad because this is totally new to me and seems to be very important. A comment was even made that HDTVs should be calibrated. Can someone please tell me what is calibration, and in general how would one go about calibrating a Mac monitor, a PC monitor, and an HDTV. Thanks all.
-
[Frank Black] ” Can someone please tell me what is calibration, and in general how would one go about calibrating a Mac monitor, a PC monitor, and an HDTV.”
You purchase a calibration device like a Spyder 3 (which is what I use) or Pantone Eye-One or Huey and you install the software that comes with it and follow the directions. Some only work with computer monitors, others work with HDTV’s too. There is no guess work or talent involved. The device and software do all the hard work.
These devices measure the colors coming from your monitor against the colors they know they should be, and they build a profile for your graphics card that adjusts the colors to be correct. then they load that profile into your graphics card every time your computers boots and once a month they bug you to recalibrate (which only takes a few minutes). You can’t trust a monitor that hasn’t been calibrated.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com -
John, thanks a lot. I Googled Spyder 3 and checked out an image. And with what you’re saying I have a pretty good understanding of what it is, am happy to know about it, and am looking forward to getting it. Thanks again man.
-
You’re welcome. The three versions of the Spyder 3 use the same hardware device. The difference in price you are paying for are the capabilities of the software so read those carefully when you pick.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com -
Correct. AVID, Premier Pro, FCP or say Vegas could be “the editor”. It all depends on what you do of course. In some situations you don’t want to leave this app if possible, in some situations it’s natural to do so.
————————
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se -
Got it.
-
Erik, it seems to me that you do the type of professional work that would be done on a feature film. So what do you mean by “it all depends on what you do of course?” If the work you do is the type of work that would be done on a feature, then for what type of work would you choose Avid for?
The reason I ask is because you made a good case for FCP, and I’m wondering what kind of work you would switch to Avid for. (I guess I’m also trying to figure out why Avid is multiple times the cost of other NLEs.
-
Used to be the same with the Huey. The plain “Huey” (now apparently discontinud) supported a single monitor; the “Huey Pro” supports multiple monitors and more flexible settings (color temperature, gamma, whitepoint).
It’s true that calibration was originally created for photo work… you calibrated your monitor and printer so that what you saw on-screen matched what you printed (or, in the case of commerical work, what shows up in a magazine). But you need this every bit as much for video work. Even in the case of dual monitors, even of the same kind, you’re not necessarily matched out of the box.
The Huey Pro also acts as a light sensor in the room when not used for calibration, so it can dynamically adjust your color profile based on changing room light conditions.
-Dave
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up