Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Does that make the point clearer for you?”
Heck no – but that’s because I’m functionally a color idiot – and know far less about this stuff than either you or Oliver.
And obviously vastly less than Phil, too.
As an end user I have ONLY one question that’s of real use to me to answer.
Can I come to the tools (as implemented in X 10.4) and achieve the corrections I might require efficiently and accurately and in ways that don’t get me in trouble later?
Whether the METHOD of how the tools apply any math between the interface and the results is apparently an area of debate just like whether an editor prefer a mouse or a trackpad.
And that’s fine.
But can this tool GET THE JOB DONE is what has basically been called into question in this debate
10.4 was implied to be not just different – but WRONG.
It needed to be FIXED – STAT.
That was what I heard coming out of this discussion.ls early days
Now, apparently it appears to need to be “fixed” merely so it more closely meets the prior preferences of a certain class of colorists that might prefer that it work more like what they are accustomed to.
And don’t get me wrong – that quest is fair and legit.
But it’s “I need the mouse, not the trackpad” to be efficient. A defensible position for any individual editor. but not one fair to apply to ALL editors.
Not shipping a desktop machine without a mouse might be viewed as “non-standard” at one point in computing. Then Laptops become popular and shipping THEM mouselrss becomes just fine.
So is it “broken” (like you can’t move the cursor until this gets fixed – broken.)
Or just “different” like we’re giving you a trackpad not a mouse because we think this makes more sense here.That’s all I’m trying to figure out.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
Then Simon, please help me better understand this.
It appears (to my layman’s brain) that Phil (I don’t know him so I can only refer fairly to the handle he has elected to use in his posts) feels there are legitimate reasons Apple has made the operations interface choices it has. And that they are science based – not arbitrary or “bugs” in the sense they are mistakes that need correcting.
He appears to feel these are choices that users can easily adapt to in order to achieve the proper results they want consistent with accepted industry practices.
If you feel differently, by all means weigh in if you feel it’s worth your time.
The goal is enhanced understanding. For everyone. Nothing else.
My 2 cents.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
Simons above post seems to me very useful advice.
Many like me will be exploring this new implementation of well understood colorists tools and anything that helps people learn to “go slowly” and use restraint with a tool that can get you into trouble – is probably very good advice.
My 2 cents.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Oliver Peters] “BTW – haven’t you been the one arguing all the way up to 10.4 that the color board was perfectly fine and all you really needed? ☺”
Absolutely.
I was crystal clear that my needs have been pretty basic as I never saw myself as any kind of precision colorist (and still don’t.)
I’ve never worked in the realms where “looks” might be important.
What always has been important to me is the ability to make people look good on camera.
The color board easily let me correct improperly white bakanced, poorly exposed, or mismatched shots extremely quickly and efficiently l. That had tremendous value to me. Still does.
If the new tools help me go beyond that – and lets me work with video a bit more like I’ve always been able to work with stills in the realm of contrast adjustment and directing the viewers eyes to the important parts of scenes – I certainly welcome that.
To me – this is a huge improvement in my tool of choice. It was great before in my assessment for reasons based on speed and organizational capability (and other things, of course) – but pretty basic on how it addressed color work – something that appears to be increasingly important as the technology continues to evolve (Rec2020, et al.)
Now it appears to be much better.
For free!
What’s not to like? ????
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
This actually has me excited to learn more about color work – largely because these tools are now at my fingertips daily. This is probably similar to how Premiere users felt when they got Lumetri folded in?
It ALL advances the industry.
It seems like there may never have been “something wrong” about how Apple is approaching color here – they are doing what they have always done – rethinking how the interface might be designed In order to make a complex process more approachable to those Who aren’t yet conditioned to do things in a particular way.
That’s kinda Apples thing.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Herb Sevush] “there is confusion out there and sweeping it under the rug does not make it go away.”
Life is FULL of confusion, Herb.
Some natural – some generated.
I just posted a MacBreak from Steve and Mark that’s one of the early communication pieces that may be helping people understand some of Apples approach with this VERY new implementation of Color Correction/Grading.
I’m sure more will follow.
For those of us without a color science background – looks like 10.4 might help us explore color options in some interesting ways – even if it won’t instantly make any of us professional colorists or manage to TOTALLY replace Baselight across the industry – a thing I highly doubt was ever Apples intent.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Neil Goodman] “Why do full fledged Color correction suites like Davinci and Baselight, etc use the same lingo? Got nothing to do with Avid.”
Again, you are quoting as if those are my opinions..
They are the opinion of a color scientist who knows boatloads more than I do about this stuff.
I’m just trying to make sense of the current criticism of the X approach to color tools n 10.4.
That’s all.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Simon Ubsdell] “or b) you can dazzle everyone with your superior knowledge by copying and pasting impressive-sounding passages from the standard texts.”
Uh, … all I thought I was doing was posting material from a guy I had met online who knows BOATLOADS more than I do – so what I was starting to learn about might be useful to others.
If it came across as ME trying to be ANY type of expert – holy heck I’m sorry.
I thought I’d been SUPER clear about that.
Swear to God I just thought it was both interesting and informative and might be useful since there are people who hang here that are not on Facebook.
Period.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Shane Ross] “Why was Avid brought into this? Even colorist or online people who use it (and it’s mostly not by choice, but because of production chain) complain about Avid and rail against how antiquated it is. How useless it is anymore. Avid is not the standard for colorist tools to be held up to…its tools are really old and very limited, compared to Resolve or Baselight.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def”Look, I had much rising confusion about this issue.
Like many, I questioned whether there was an ACTUAL flaw in how X handled color in the new 10.3 tools.
It was being discussed on another forum.
That discussion attracted participants with high level color science expertise.
I don’t know much about this topic, but some folks like Phil Pan (his on-line handle) are legitimate color scientists – so when I learned a lot from reading this post there – I felt it appropriate to try to spread that expertise.
So I asked for and gained specific permission for the re-post I made.
IT’s what HE wrote on his own – copied by me VERBATIM and ENTIRELY – so there would be no possible claim of cherry picking.
If AVID was mentioned, it’s because he elected to mention them. Nothing more or less than that.
If you have issues with the suitability of the color approach in ANY software program, X, Premier Pro, Resolve, AVID, heck – MacPaint for all I care – look elsewhere for answers.
I just thought more expertise was better than less when discussing such a complex topic.
Period.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Herb Sevush] “The only problem comes from those being in denial about the problem – Apple can’t fix what it doesn’t realize is broken. The only danger lies in silence.”
I would argue, Herb, that the greater threat is spreading misinformation under the guise of accurate discussion.
This might well be a BUG.
It also might be an alternate rational and defensible choice on Apples part.
If so the leap here to pre-define it as a “BUG” – is the central issue I’m addressing.
If it IS – that will be confirmed.
If it ISN’T the damage to the softwares public perception will be all that remains.
And that’s not cool if the premise proves to be false.
That’s exactly what happened to X in its first year. It’s depths we’re hidden behind the equally flawed quick meme of iMovie Pro.
This excerpt from Phil Pan (a qualified color scientist whom I quoted with permission in another thread) is one small indication that this might NOT be a BUG at all, but rather a rational alternative software design choice.
He wrote:
Avid is the oldest digital video software company on the block and its tools are laden with legacy items that will not be removed until the last user from the old analogue broadcast days retires. It makes zero sense in 2018 to use analogue-days nomenclature and units; nor does it for Final Cut to still show a waveform monitor that expresses picture excursion in IRE units, with antiquated concepts such as ‘superblack’ and ‘superwhite’. But the FCP team didn’t have much of a choice, since it needed to compete with Avid in what had become a buttoned-up, conservative market.
AND
Now, if there are problematic naming conventions in FCPs various colour tools, one shouldn’t panic. As is the case for Avid, there are legacy reasons for the naming conventions to be messy. What matters is that you understand which parameter does what to your image. In time, as the industry evolves, Apple will be in a position to ditch the old names and abide by a more coherent standard.
These are excerpts from his full, complex post that I pasted above so that these excerpts can be read in full context.
My point is there MAY be a bug – or there may be nothing of the sort.
It’s YOU who was triggered to attach the terms “error” and “bug” and “broken” to this discussion in your post.
So that’s clearly the top level impression this thread has spiked for you.
IF it proves to be none of those things, just understand you are the guy who ends up spreading the FUD.
Not clarifying things.
FWIW.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.