Andrew Kimery
Forum Replies Created
-
The CC debate was about business models and the business models haven’t changed so there’s literally nothing new to talk about. Compare that to the debate in here, which is about software, and there have been lots of software changes since 2011.
For example, prior to the 10.4 announcement there was a big debate here about color wheels vs color board and the pro-boarders said that wheels weren’t need (and according to some wheels would actually be detrimental to the FCP X user experience). Then Apple adds wheels and there was another huge debate about whether or not part of Apple’s implementation of wheels was a bug or a ‘reimagining’ of how a color tool should work in that regard.
In another example, Adobe and Blackmagic have both added features that are similar to FCP X’s Keyword Collections and Smart Collections. Are they ‘good enough’ facsimiles to keep PPro and Resolves users satisfied, or will the more robust implementation in FCP X be something that draw in converts?
As I’ve mentioned in previous threads, Apple chose a different philosophical route when making FCP X compared to PPro, Avid, Resolve, etc., so having a ‘FCP X compared to the rest’ debate area is, IMO, both still relevant and appropriate.
-
[Oliver Peters] “For those who really want to understand color correction, might I suggest two of the best books:
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Technique-Digital-Color-Correction/dp/024081715X...
https://www.amazon.com/Color-Correction-Handbook-Professional-Techniques/dp...
“Both great recommendations, Oliver!
-
IMO it’s the editor’s responsibility (or the assistant editor’s if there is an assistant editor). I want the colorist to spend as much time as possible coloring and as little time as possible dealing with technical issues.
-
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
What does your contract with the client say with regards to copyright? Did you explicitly retain the copyright? IIRC in your situation (a work for hire) the copyright defaults to the client unless you specify in the contract that you are retaining the copyright.
-
Isn’t Phil’s text in Bill’s OP part of video coloring 101? I remember reading about it in FC Legend’s user manual when I first started seriously grading maybe 10yrs ago or so. Bill, Phil basically talks (in painful detail) about how scopes can show users levels that are out of broadcast safe and why that’s normal.
Bill, I know you have an audio background so let me take a stab at a very rough audio analogy.
Imagine you are using a new three band audio equalizer and the Mid adjustment bleeds into the Bass and Treble in a way that you’ve never experienced with any other three band equalizer you have ever used. So every time you touch the Mids you have to make excessive Bass and Treble adjustments where as other three band equalizers don’t require the same back and forth/counter balancing adjustments to get the same, desired result. On top of that, you discover that the equalizer works as expected when working with 48k, 16bit audio and it only gives you the unexpected results when working with 96k, 24bit audio.
[Bill Davis] “This is supposed to be a conversation seeking the TRUTH about the allegation that a piece of software may have BAD DESIGN at its core.”
So go seek the truth. Listen to what people have to say. Google things. Ask questions. Listen. You are interjecting a surprising amount and you seem to be more inclined to agree with Phil because he is speculating in a way that puts FCPX in a more positive light and less inclined to agree with Simon or Michael or Oliver just because they’ve aren’t.
[Bill Davis] “Phil continues, but I’ll stop there because this whole conversation is getting boring. “
Unfortunately you stopped right when Phil was getting on topic. All but one of posts you’ve copied and pasted from Phil aren’t really relevant to the discussion being had here and the one copy/paste that was very on point Phil seems to have backed away from because it looks like he inadvertently based the whole thing on a false assumption.
You’ve said more than once that all of this is totally outside of your wheel house (which is fine) yet you are still trying to tell people that they wrong but you, admittedly, don’t know what you are talking about so you end up trying to use Phil as your proxy warrior. Hell, I used to color full time for broadcast and I still remember enough that I don’t have trouble following what’s going on (including Phil’s quoting of chapter and verse) but there’s no useful info I can add to the discussion so I’ve just been lurking and learning.
[Bill Davis] “If you have counter material from equivalent sources arguing that Adobe or AVID or Resolves methods of doing this stuff are better – bring them to the table. Seriously. Please.”
People already have, they’ve just tried to keep things in laymen’s terms so the conversation can be accessible to experts and non-experts alike. It’s not as impressive sounding as quoting scripture, but it keeps the non-experts from getting left behind as they try to decipher what all the jargon means and how it’s applicable (or not) to what’s being talked about.
-
[Chris Wright] “i’ve broken down neutralizing into semi automatic presets and actual yuv, hsl, rgb values. it would be very easy to make a one click grade neutralizer that did white point, black point, 3d white balance for mixed lighting, gamma to 48 ire, sat to 70%, hue to value. Honestly, I don’t know why no one’s made the one-click master button yet. Then, all you’d have to do is the one creative lut after all shots standardized. maybe AI could give us the orange/teal look. it’s its favorite!”
Turn that into a plugin and you’ll make bank. I’ve yet to find an auto balance button that wasn’t useless 90% of the time.
-
Yes, thank you to everyone that’s contributed to this discussion. You all have taken something that can be pretty complex and broken it down so that the info is accessible to non-experts as well as experts. And that’s not always an easy thing to.
-
If you subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud you should give Adobe Bridge a look. I don’t have any recommendations/experience with any open source solutions. Are you on a Mac or PC?
-
[Ronny Courtens] “Absolutely, and it has been very interesting for me to see the opinions about FCP X make such a large shift here over the years. “
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that as X has become a more feature-rich and battle tested NLE it has become a more accepted NLE. Which is the typical path of any new entrant into a market with already established players.
-
[Bill Davis] “Wow, such hostility.”
Wow, such pearl clutching. ????
Apple PR obviously over-reached and got called out by Oliver, Shane went a step further and called out every NLE company that uses the ‘Hey, look at the awards our software helped win’ schtick and some other people are approaching the point of debating what the definition of the word “is” is to try and validate Apple PR’s statement which just goes to *prove* Oliver’s point that the wording can’t be taken at face value.
Of course, as has been stated many times here, ‘Hollywood’ workflows and ‘Hollywood’ successes are meaningless so why people are trying so hard to defend Apple’s dubious statement about this ‘meaningless’ achievement is a mystery to me. ☺
Dollars to donuts if you walk up to someone and say “What’s the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the phrase ‘award-winning Hollywood feature films'” the reply won’t be , “A Netflix documentary that won a Primetime Emmy and had a 7 day theatrical run in LA to meet Oscar eligibility requirements.” That’s not a knock on “What Happened, Miss Simone?” at all, but Apple’s statement intentionally chose to use the phrase “award-winning Hollywood feature films” as opposed to the more accurate “award-winning documentary films” or “award-winning independent feature films” for a reason.
To Noah’s point, it’s common for companies (and people) to pad their resumés, but that doesn’t mean it has to go unchallenged.