-
Technicolor drop Colour Assist
-
[Oliver Peters] “And what do you see wrong with FCP X’s grading? I thinks it’s rather good as built-in NLE tools go.”
After 2 years of using it I’ve found FCPX’s Color correction pretty useable. I film everything in Canon C log, so everything needs attention, and despite serious shortfalls in defining areas with the shape masks, I’ve found that through applying multiple corrections it’s possible to achieve pretty sophisticated results without leaving the application.
I’ve even got used to the color board, which once you stop thinking about it and comparing it to color wheels, is very easy to use in a weird counterintuitive way.
What I liked about Color Assist was the inclusion of the curves tool and if FCPX were to include something similar to that it would be a great asset.
-
I agree that if you take the Color Board for what it is, the results can be very very good.
The only thing I really miss is being able to dial in skin tone on a color wheel very easily. The color board needs a lot more hunting and pecking.
Combined with SliceX/Mocha and Nattress Curves, it can be pretty great.
I have a large fcp7 job that’s going to need a finish.
I plan on taking it to FCPX for a grade(!).
Wish me luck.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “The only thing I really miss is being able to dial in skin tone on a color wheel very easily. The color board needs a lot more hunting and pecking. “
To me this is part of the fundamental UI flaw of the Color Board.
Color wheels make complementary colors much more obvious. They mirror Vector Scopes.
While I suspect Apple thought the Color Board would be easier since one can think in terms of “I need less of this” without having to deal with “less of this means more of that” but by obscuring that, it obscures the a key concept which aids in creativity.
Additionally The Color Board sets up situations where one might have overlapping pucks, making it that much more difficult to to maneuver the interface by mouse. -
[Mark Dobson] “What I liked about Color Assist was the inclusion of the curves tool and if FCPX were to include something similar to that it would be a great asset.”
I wonder if Technicolor saw that coming in the FCPX update and decided that key advantages of their plugin where about to be integrated. Given that they support Adobe products as well, they might have seen this coming from both developers. Maybe that’s the real reason they pulled the plug.
-
[Craig Seeman] “[Jeremy Garchow] “To me this is part of the fundamental UI flaw of the Color Board.
Color wheels make complementary colors much more obvious. They mirror Vector Scopes.
While I suspect Apple thought the Color Board would be easier since one can think in terms of “I need less of this” without having to deal with “less of this means more of that” but by obscuring that, it obscures the a key concept which aids in creativity.
Additionally The Color Board sets up situations where one might have overlapping pucks, making it that much more difficult to to maneuver the interface by mouse.“
It is certainly not a perfect replacement, I agree, but the quality and results do speak for themselves.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “It is certainly not a perfect replacement, I agree, but the quality and results do speak for themselves.”
Absolutely!
[Jeremy Garchow] “Combined with SliceX/Mocha and Nattress Curves, it can be pretty great. “
But the missing features make it awkward. Hence, the market for plugins whether it be several within the NoiseIndustries family with Moods, Levels and Curves, Color Precision, to plugins that link to interfaces such as Magic Bullet or the now defunct Color Assist. Add SliceX/Mocha for tracking. All address some perceived weakness and present an alternative to sending to/from Resolve. All the above, except SliceX/Mocha for its function and Magic Bullet, where in the $49-$99 pice range.
FCPX internal color grading needs (IMHO)
Curves, tracking, multiple live scopes, split screen or “still store” style shot comparison.
Color Wheels would be nice but that’s an alternative, not a necessity.I’m not sure how Color Assist was at such a disadvantage that Technicolor felt the need to pull the plug. It seemed to combine the functionality of some of the above plugins with the advantage of a separate work space (as Magic Bullet does).
-
Could just be purely financial and didn’t have enough of a value marketing wise for Technicolor. Adding up development costs, marketing, and other related costs to creating this – it probably didn’t have a good ROI. Development costs don’t go down because a product is cheaper. When doing that game, it is a volume play and probably didn’t get what they expected.
Another strategy is as a marketing app (ala KataData app) to bring in additional services to Technicolor which I doubt it did.
Or it is the loss leader to other products such as RedCine X Pro for RED (really camera support) or DaVinci for Blackmagic – sells $1K dongles and related hardware which Technicolor did not have.
Most likely in the end, Technicolor didn’t get any of these benefits and just cut their losses.
Michael
-
I think Technicolor came into the market from the DSLR end of things, fitting in with their Cinestyle profiles camera settings. I might be wrong but I think the DSLR filming market has probably peaked and is on the decline.
Almost every camera manufacturer has now produced a large sensor camcorder type camera. Having bought a C300 ( almost paid it off! ) there is nothing that would induce me to film with a DSLR again although in the right hands DSLRs will knock the spots off most video cameras.
So it could be that the product was already out of date by the time it was launched and development costs v/s sales of turning the Ap into a professional rather than prosumer product just didn’t stack up.
And the ‘looks’ packages for FCPX are mostly a total waste of money, easily replicated in FCPX, and a hugely oversubscribed area of what must be a fairly small plugin market place.
-
[Mark Dobson] “I might be wrong but I think the DSLR filming market has probably peaked and is on the decline.”
[Mark Dobson] “Having bought a C300 ( almost paid it off! ) there is nothing that would induce me to film with a DSLR again”Certainly their are better alternatives like the C300 but they do provide a low cost point of entry and the lenses one buys know can be used later. There’s also times when the small size and inconspicuous appearance can work. Once you start having to rig it out though, you can now consider getting alternatives which don’t cost much more, once you include the cost of the rig.
[Mark Dobson] “So it could be that the product was already out of date by the time it was launched and development costs v/s sales of turning the Ap into a professional rather than prosumer product just didn’t stack up.”
Although at $99 it was cost competitive with other plugins. Maybe their development costs were higher or their business model needed higher revenue.
That said I don’t think these grading plugins are really specific to DSLRs but that might have been part of Technicolor’s user base/business model.
[Mark Dobson] “And the ‘looks’ packages for FCPX are mostly a total waste of money, easily replicated in FCPX”
They can be a good education tool for the novice if they take them apart. On the other hand so many are so over the top they might actually be learning bad aesthetics.
-
[Craig Seeman] “To me this is part of the fundamental UI flaw of the Color Board.
Color wheels make complementary colors much more obvious. “Maybe you should look at this:
https://www.dalegrahncolor.com
No color wheels there. Also true in Lightroom. No color wheels.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up