Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: wich codecs for grading ?  (Read 11910 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2011, 06:12:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok for a motion Lightroom. But please, without this silly flower kitsch ornament ! it looks like the truck decoration the ugly sister's sitting in.

and please, without the FaceBook and Twitter buttons too...Adobe MD you would deserve a Muac.

ps: No, I'm thinking about it...I'm afraid that if Adobe goes for a Lightroom of motion be sure that the YouTube button will not be missing.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 06:27:36 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2011, 06:40:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Ahh but that beautiful end panel is user-configurable!  Roll Eyes
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2011, 08:01:23 PM »
ReplyReply

The deeper you get into motion, Apple's FCP X seems like a good idea that needs work, or a bad idea that needs a rewrite.

I'm hopping for the former, because when you think about it, a single base software with add on's to take you as far as you want to go could redefine editing to finish.

We just returned with over 16 terabytes of raw footage and when you look at that stack of drives you come to the shuttering conclusion that to get to the final edit is right up there with post produciton of a good indie movie.

It's almost frightening to think of the amount of work that is ahead of us and if FCP X can do anything right . . . it's fast.

Now it just needs to be more professional and flexible which allows more creativity in the edit.

You kind of get the idea that Apple should just write a check (and everybody knows they got the money) to somebody like Avid and say let's make FCP heavy, lay out a road map for app add ons and start selling.

IMO

BC
Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2011, 09:45:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I have very little experience in all of this, but I have to say... I am LOVING DaVince Resolve.  Instead of their full blown work surface, I went for the Wave Tangent, bundled with Resolve from B+H for about 3k.  I added an nVidia Quadra 4000 for GPU crunching (required) and a Decklink card to run the 10bit image out to my Flanders Scienific monitor (which kicks my Eizo's ass and spits on it).

All in all, I got my Resolve system setup on my 12 core Mac for about $5k.  Mind you, I already had a fast internal raid, the Flanders monitor and a Red Rocket card (which Resolve likes).  It would be smoother to have all of the grading functionality built into an NLE but Resolve is just freaking awesome.  I get really beautiful stuff out of it VERY quickly.  Besides it's power (grading and reviewing 4k R3D's in real time) and ease of use, it also offers Power Windows, a really nice tracker and image stabilization.  I am going to become a Power Window Junkie, mark my words!

Do I sound like a fanboy yet?

I had moved from FCP to Premier since FCP was still 32 bit (not taking advantage of my pile of Ram) and Premier handles R3D's beautifully.  Now the problem is I can't really roundtrip from PP to Resolve and back again.  Not until Adobe updates the FCP XML export to v5, anyway.  It's always something... but it's an interesting journey at least.

CB
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2011, 10:56:42 PM »
ReplyReply

BC wrote: "The deeper you get into motion, Apple's FCP X seems like a good idea that needs work, or a bad idea that needs a rewrite."

I'm also a newbie to all of this so should be careful to not claim to know sweet FA, but... I am trying FCPX on an important (to me) project and am finding it fast and able to do all I need at the moment. I know real talented guys have rubbished it, but I also know a couple personally (BBC guys who work on the prestigious stuff) who think it has real potential.

And maybe it's an advantage to have not used Avid, Premier and FCP for a few years, and effectively forgotten how to. Eg, I read an experienced editor saying he couldn't contemplate using X because you can't stack the timeline. Er, from day one I used P (position) to place some clips and can stack them as high as I want. I know the advantage of having multi level timelines and can't see there's a problem with them in X. And now I wonder if that sort of misinformation is hindering its launch/progress.

Yeah, I know about the missing bits but they're on the way. I can justify the cost of Avid, or whatever, but I'm going to persevere with FCPX because I suspect when the dust has settled it will be seen to be one of the fastest out there. And if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time and I'll get Avid or PP, or whatever is the best at the time. Just my newbie 2C.
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2011, 12:27:29 AM »
ReplyReply

So what's the point to get a dedicated grading software like Scratch or DaVinci?

Is it mostly a question of time-efficiency factor?

I ask this question because I have the feeling that you seems to say that it's not about quality at all, that any pro NLE or AE grading tools would in fact do the same but just taking more time?

If so, the dedicated grading software is only justified if you are a color artist and have regularly a lot of volume to grade but they are in fact not necessary to have a better quality. Is it really truth?

The Answer is yes, it only helps to save time. Time is an important factor in the commercial video and film world. But that does not mean color grading software is useless. Da Vinci, Lustre and Scratch have very powerful grading tools. Obviously, the sales of these systems imply that the speed advantage they provide are important to a lot of people.

Let me back up a bit and explain something. When I was in college, for my final year project (I have a degree in electrical and electronics engineering), I wrote and designed an Image processing software (photoshop like) using C. Imagine my surprise - that I could almost do anything Photoshop did (in the year 1999). Basically color grading is just pixel manipulation. At the heart of it, there are mathematical algorithms already in place for most manipulations. Over a period of time, these codes have become near perfect - the levels/curves RGB tool, the exposure tool, masks and rotoscoping, 32-bit linear workspace, etc. With just these basic tools, one can accomplish anything that a higher end system can - with the advantage of saving money, but at the cost of spending more time on it.

Quote
And the siren song trap is very easy to fall into because those softwares are so good, so complex and bloody attractive that it's hard to think you won't get a better workflow and aesthetic results with them...knowing the real contribution they can add is not easy.

It's the same thing with cameras too, isn't it? I would love to own a Leica M9 (I love RF and manual focus). But as you mentioned in my other post, the 550D is good enough...but still.....sigh.

Quote
Reading your posts from the beginning and some of Chris Sanderson too, I have the feeling that it's not as simple as that and that in fact we need less than we imagine, even for a high-end workflow.

That IMO is the very strong contribution the experienced cine-video pros can share to us. Because that's bloody important.

I sort of like when someone says to me: "come on! you don't need that" because in the end it's always a lot of time saved and everything that works simple to me is really a good sign.

That's true. After working on many systems over the years I feel I need less and less. This is why I press you to learn After Effects.

If Nuke is the Mohammed Ali of boxing, then AE is the Bruce Lee of Kung Fu. Ali can only use two hands. Lee can use anything, and is good at everything. That kind of power comes with a steep learning curve. But it will pay off in the long run.

The GUI of AE is very similar to Photoshop. Why don't you try to rearrange the windows in AE to match PS - maybe that might help.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2011, 03:38:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I had moved from FCP to Premier since FCP was still 32 bit (not taking advantage of my pile of Ram) and Premier handles R3D's beautifully.  Now the problem is I can't really roundtrip from PP to Resolve and back again.  Not until Adobe updates the FCP XML export to v5, anyway.  It's always something... but it's an interesting journey at least.

CB

Wired.

This is a common workflow with Red, from Premiere to FCP to Resolve and back. There must be a trick to know.

I tell you what I know despite being very limited.

There is a "rule" is when you edit in Premiere you converted to ProRes max quality and avoid the native Red although tempting because it's not without issues in the pipeline further as you have seen.

(In that Avid as a clear advantage with the bin structure I must say but the normal workflow in PP is to work Pro bloody Res)

Normaly when you export the XML from PP you export with: File/Export = "Final Cut Pro XML" , name it
Open FCP7: import/XML

But when you load the XML you created in Premiere for FCP from Resolve, you need to first load the XML but also choose the sequence
Can you see the timeline management panel? from there you press "load" / xml (the one you created from Premiere)
But when you have to select the sequence, it's going to be an AAF, in fact it's the AAF created by Premiere for FCP. That AAF should appear in your resolve import pop-up window in a list.


Hope it helps.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 03:41:05 AM by fredjeang » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2011, 04:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

The deeper you get into motion, Apple's FCP X seems like a good idea that needs work, or a bad idea that needs a rewrite.

I'm hopping for the former, because when you think about it, a single base software with add on's to take you as far as you want to go could redefine editing to finish.

We just returned with over 16 terabytes of raw footage and when you look at that stack of drives you come to the shuttering conclusion that to get to the final edit is right up there with post produciton of a good indie movie.

It's almost frightening to think of the amount of work that is ahead of us and if FCP X can do anything right . . . it's fast.

Now it just needs to be more professional and flexible which allows more creativity in the edit.

You kind of get the idea that Apple should just write a check (and everybody knows they got the money) to somebody like Avid and say let's make FCP heavy, lay out a road map for app add ons and start selling.

IMO

BC


I don't see it James. For many reasons.

Avid or Premiere are getting also more and more simple and in fact, if I keep my head cold and follow the "rational path", you can already do everything to finishing (except heavy fx and some 3D stab that can be added) in Avid without having to open any external software and more importantly, not maybe tomorrow but today for sure.

The grading in Avid is very straightforward and as I experienced with Scratch, where are the differences? None!

Also, remember that Avid "grades" the Red files in Raw. It's like you'd work exactly like with RedCineX but within the Avid Timeline in real time (but with the Avid's cursors). So when you want to push isos or Raw stuff kind of works, you don't degrade. And you don't need anything else than Media Composer, no need to get out of timeline, render or whatever. It's not exactly color correction in the normal sense, it's that you can actually do basically what RedCineX does working on raw datas. In fact it's having the RedCineX functions without the RedCineX step, wich is already very nice.

But here is a cool point: if a truth raw color correction is needed for free, you can always export an XML from your avid, import in RedCineX and conform from there what you did in Avid, the all sequence.

That's a pretty much straighforward way.

And let's say you need to mask, stuff like that, you can then re-import the raw graded into Avid natively and use then the tools within the timeline, so in fact with 2 softwares a lot can be already done brillantly. I don't even use the metafuze stuff.

Then, about the possible re-write I don't see that the pros who have been feeling spoiled by Apple and already switched will be back again just like that if Apple is putting FCX to pro workflow because then a re-learning etc etc. Because remember that it's not just going to be a FCP8, it's not a continuity but a complete re-learning so when you put that on the table, if a complete re-learning will actually occurs you may want to go stable in softwares that are moving forward for pro needs because Apple has clearly choosen the massificate target, that is good because they needed to be very simple, that is bad because they needed to be very simple. Simple and intuitive yes, but without limitations.

Do we want the KIA NLE? (where all the familly, gran'ma, is sitting with the childs who are screaming with their I.pads games while the dog is barking and mum in front is screaming to the childs while talking to her mum on the I.phone and the big belly dad with the hat is driving guess where...to Miami with the gps activated because reading motorway signs is not the deal and they will take pics and videos of their big bellies eating enormous icecreams colored with their Apple mobiles, edit them in FCPX and press the button "send-to-youtube"). That's more or less the Apple's target. I have serious doubts if they have the will to work more for their former clients.

And there is also this free software wich is a sort of FCPX but featured for pro workflow that is called Lightworks. It has this sort of new-age colored interface that I really don't like but it's not amateur at all and in RedUsers it's been used and for what I read people are happy, it's very good. I've been trying it and didn't like it at all but not because underfeatured but because it's weired, too different and look toy (although it isn't at all). http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?43671-Lightworks-to-go-Open-Source&s=271eae7079c00252a653cdfc1e7874d8

http://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/lightworks/1

One thing is sure, we all want something simple, efficient and fast that covers all the pipeline to finishing.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 06:10:31 AM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2011, 11:38:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't see it James. For many reasons.

Avid or Premiere are getting also more and more simple and in fact, if I keep my head cold and follow the "rational path", you can already do everything to finishing (except heavy fx and some 3D stab that can be added) in Avid without having to open any external software and more importantly, not maybe tomorrow but today for sure.

snip


I still don't get it.  Color control software that goes from nodes that instead of channels, with foreign interfaces and proprietary formats and control panels.

I know how to color, been doing it in photoshop for years, in video some in color (which is another node type system), but it's not just the learning curve, it's the buying process.  CB has his hardware set, (though try taking that system on the road, but since Lightroom is almost the same end result as di-vinici (in still mode) you kind of wonder how hard it would be to have a more familiar interface that just downloaded and played without worrying about pci processing cards and so many combinations of hardware and software that it takes a consultant to really guide you.

I'm not for dumbing down the process, just making it more reasonable for most of our work, because let's be honest, how many people buying a RED or a 5d2 are going to go to a large screen 4k cinema movie?

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2011, 06:59:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the same wishes. I wish it was more simple.

The node solution for grading is not necessary, if it makes all sense in softwares like Nuke I don't get the point in a dedicated grading software. Maybe to keep people involved in the heavy PP "at home" with the nodes.

More I dig into the motion post-prod, more I have the feeling that many things aren't really necessary. If something brings truth visible better results even very expensive, I would consider it a possible necessary option. But that has to be demonstrated.

When I tested Scratch, wich I did in 4 and 2K, I honestly expected to see spectacular differences with what can be obtained in Avid with RedCineX wich is free. Maybe my eyes fail, but differences: rien du tout!
C'est la même chose. So where those 4000 extra euros go ?

I would have expect then a super-faster processing workflow, but in fact it wasn't because passing through softwares is not what I would call intuitive and fast.

Thinkig of it, do we imagine that we would be opening a raw file in Phase, then have to export it in another format to Phocus to color correct it, then have to export it in PS for compositing, then have to reimport it to Phase to save it, and within a myriad of plug-ins within the process...well, a lot of the motion workflow works that way! No thanks!

I'm also on the idea that one single software for all is the grail. It actually exists, it's Smoke, but Smoke has a very big problem: it's very difficult to learn, not intuitive and expensive.

The only place I did see a lot of difference whas in the confort in use. So yes, for a guy who spend all day grading it might play a big role and therefore justify the expense.

But I think that what Sareesh said is truth even if we will have problems to admit it because hey, we like high-end softwares, but: current NLE are probably powerfull enough to do everything up to the most demanding output. Add some correct plug-ins like good keyers etc...and I'm sure that without having to go out of the editor except for very specific extreme tasks or serious special FX.

Something else I found. I had to edit a sound take for a paintor and we also had to clean it for a video-art work. We where working with Audition wich is a software very used by sound pros. It's complicated like hell (sounbooth is way more simple) but the basics are managable. Well, after awhile we couldn't find the right sound. I wasn't satisfied, he wasn't satisfied. We where turning around in circles. Then, I had this idea to just try with the sound tool in the Avid timeline...in 1 minute we had the sound we where looking for. The guy stopped me with a big smile and said: this is it, this is what I want, we got the sound. And indeed we had the sound.

Same with the imagery. I take a R3D and grade into Avid, Edius or PP with a good plug-in and it just bloody works.

There was a tool in Scratch that was a moving mask, very good. Later on, I discovered that Edius 6 had exactly the same tool and it works exactly the same way with exactly the same results.
Then, I discovered that Avid as well has a very interesting mask capability.
 
In fact, more I move forward, more I see that what we where complaining about MF is multiply by 10 in the motion world. 1000000 bucks softwares super powerfull aimed to be used by artists-engineers highly qualified against the 15 years old skater kids that are doing the same with the same results with 200 bucks softwares in less time than just the transfer between platforms takes in the high-end workflow. It really makes me think.


« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 07:23:36 PM by fredjeang » Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2011, 07:14:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I have no issues at all with working in HD.  Seriously.  When is any of my shit ever going to make it to 4k projection?  

What I AM anxious to maintain is maximum latitude in my files right up until picture lock.  If you grade, transcode and edit, then your look is baked into the ProRes and every adjustment you make degrades the image a bit.  As my clips come together into the timeline, I find that I need to re-evaluate my exposures, color balance and local corrections clip by clip so that the entire sequence has the best possible continuity and flow.

I can work with raw R3D's right up until I transcode for deliverables.  That is cool as hell.  It makes me wish I could drop .IIQs right into Photoshop and process out final Tiffs only when all the retouching is done.  Instead of trying to adapt a motion workflow to my Photoshop sensibilities, I find myself wishing I could grade 60mp stills in Resolve.

There's so many killer tools out there that you have endless options adopting a workflow that best suits your needs.

Cooter, I thought you hauled around even more shit than I do... what's a tower and a couple monitors on top of it?  I drag mine up to Michigan with me for long studio shoots all the time.

Honestly though, I think it's great that we all have different takes on this and can come back here to share what does and doesn't work.

Freds got me thinkin hard about looking at Avid again...

Cheers from some hotel... at least the beers good.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 07:20:31 PM by CBarrett » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2011, 07:47:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Freds got me thinkin hard about looking at Avid again...

Cheers from some hotel... at least the beers good.

Chris,

I think that 2 NLE is not bad at all because you cover the work situations very well. I have 3 installed. The 3 are usefull.

Avid has some good advantages and some downsides. Compared to Premiere it is not so intuitive. So yes, expect a learning curve more serious. It takes more time to feel confident.
But it is also more flexible. The bins are very powerfull and allow a lot of plays with files.

The dialog between Avid and Premiere is very good. You can really pass from one to another without issues.

But carefull when I posted that Red grading in raw within Avid. It is actually the case but it's not really grading either in the orthodox sense. (I warned it in my post) The best is a video example to see the red workflow, I found this one:   

 
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzStKbR5C-A&feature=related
Part 2 orientated Red workflow is the most interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WHZFWEvlJw&feature=related
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2011, 08:58:06 PM »
ReplyReply

http://techmediaplanet.com/2011/07/episode-26-final-cut-pro-x/

Maybe worth a listen, at least.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2011, 05:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Apple is for sure the best company when it comes to design really efficient, simple and intuitive interface. I have no doubt about that and I'm sure nobody does either. this is Apple's sign and their NLE isn't failing on that aspect.

FCPX is very strong on what Apple knows best and this video shows it again. The people who have been testing it are not blind, everybody can recognise in a few minutes that some features and its structure are indeed the future of the NLEs.  

Personaly I'd like to have many of the FCPX approach on my editors, it simply is better designed and truly a glimpse of what should be the next generation we all want.

That's not the problem of FCPX. Its problem is that it is underfeatured and limited or almost unusable for professionals. It's not Apple target obviously because that company is everything except naive.

As it is, it would need a real pro version that deserves the name. It's not what Apple had in mind and designed that's failing, it's the limitations it has within a pro workflow.

The big question IMO is in the hand of the company: does Apple really has the will to do a pro version (or a version for pros if you prefer) ? Mystery.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 05:52:53 PM by fredjeang » Logged
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2011, 06:11:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok for a motion Lightroom. But please, without this silly flower kitsch ornament ! it looks like the truck decoration the ugly sister's sitting in.

and please, without the FaceBook and Twitter buttons too...Adobe MD you would deserve a Muac.

ps: No, I'm thinking about it...I'm afraid that if Adobe goes for a Lightroom of motion be sure that the YouTube button will not be missing.

If you don't like the kitsch (Adobe are having a laugh at our expense) right click on the design and chose another one from the ridiculous amount of choices offered.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2011, 06:15:46 PM »
ReplyReply

If you don't like the kitsch (Adobe are having a laugh at our expense) right click on the design and chose another one from the ridiculous amount of choices offered.

Oh I did better: I removed the app from my computer. I feel lighter without lightroom.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2011, 11:46:34 AM »
ReplyReply

CB

Yes we carry a lot of stuff.  Our camera and camera accessory cases total 7.

Our custom DIT station is 5 feet tall and holds two laptops, red rocket, raid 0's and backup battery so we do carry a lot.

With lights and modifiers it's double, so on this last trip we decided to forego all but the small led's and hire gaffers, as our baggage overage was over $1,000 a flight and TSA has become real animals at going through cases.

On the first U.S. Leg TSB did not insert the lights in their slots and  destroyed two 1 ft. square LED panels and I took a new thunderbolt I mac for some quick on the fly editing and arriving in Chicago the I-mac case came down the carousel unzipped with the I-mac hanging out.  How it didn't get smashed still amazes me.

BTW:  The DIT station though large saved us, as we could run two laptops and process dailies on the fly.

Anyway, as you know video opens up a huge door compared to still production and we could have easily moved 24 cases if we wanted to be completely self contained, though I am now a firm believer in hiring a gaffer and equipment for every project as I just do not want to be responsible for moving and transporting lights and cine generators.

Also in Thailand I worked with the best sound man I've ever used.  He was tremendous and I am positive he saved us 3 hours a day.  He kept three cameras wired wireless, had everything ready to go the moment he stepped out of the van and the sound is so good I don't think we'll need much work other than adjusting some levels.


Fred,

On FCP X I've been reviewing tutorials on all of our flights (it's the only time I have the time) and I think it's very close to being there.  The ability to three point edit is a big change and not accepting psds and allowing you to park footage off the main timeline is an issue.

The rest is fast and I firmly believe AVID and Premier will probably add some of the Apple features into their next versions.

I take back some of my critique of the software and believe in a years time with more developers working on apps, more attention to detail from Apple, this could easily revolutionize the way we work.

I'm going to give it a test try and will let you know.

On a final note:

On this recent 1 month gig, we shot 90% of the imagery with multiple cameras using both of our RED Ones.   I had the Canon 5d2's and the new Sony FS100 also.

I used the Sony about 25% of the time and love the form factor, hate all the little buttons and find hitting color on the presets very difficult.  I spent one pre pro day working on the color presets and thought we had it nailed and then boom first session and it looked 100% different.

The beauty of RED raw is regardless of what you see on the monitor doesn't really matter because it's so easy to change it in post.

In fact once you factor in having to remove the ACHVD (or whatever it's called) wrapper from the FCP files to get them to h264, the process out the h264 to prorezz and then work with a color suite like 3cp to match the sony files to a pleasing look, the workflow on the Sony is much, much longer than the RED.

Also the Sony will blow a highlight faster than any camera I've used.  It's an amazing camera with a great form factor, but damn if Sony would just go another 20 feet it would be a world beater.

Interesting is the 5d2's saved my butt on one day when we were running late due to so many different sessions.

I had two scenes, one in an office that I wanted lit like night, one with the subject walking to his S class and driving off.  Both simple shots, but with the RED it would have taken an extra hour or two to major light the scenes, with the Sony it wouldn't go to high enough DP to record with the lower light levels I wanted so I pulled out the 5d2, the battery powered leds and shot both scenes in 20 minutes.

I can't wait for the 5d3 for both motion and stills, though yes once the EPIC is fully out with all the bits and takes Canon lenses I'll probably buy that also.

It's funny everyone complains about the 5d2's form factor for video and maybe because I've spent so much time using still cameras, but I find the 5d2 refreshing after the RED's and the Sony.  It's live view is amazing for focus and I have FF 35mm so baked into my head, chosing a lens takes no thought.

If Canon made this camera shoot RAW and 4:4:4, well I think it would scare the hell out of everyone

You can't beat raw for post production.


IMO

BC
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 11:55:47 AM by bcooter » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2011, 12:58:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, please let us know what you think about FCPX when you'll have the time to put your hands on it. As I know you are very concern about intuitive, fast and efficient workflow I'll read your lines with great interest.

Cheers.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2011, 07:34:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm each time more enthusistic with the color correction tools in Avid.

I really like the fact that you get the previous cut on the left and the next or whatever (in this case I put a waveform) and that's very usefull. It's even better than plug-ins like Colorista. You just get the picture of the footage before and the one to come wich helps consistency and also when you change position on the timeline, the displays "previous-current-next" are following.

When you open the CC mode, you just need to be on the cut and it would remember all the settings, if you save one and apply in batch you can always fine tune any cut just in the timeline and it won't affect the rest. It's bloody efficient.

No need to press anything or open any list of correction tools, it's all there.

The way levels works with the waveforms I can't think of a simpliest workflow and it really works.

This project I give a pic below was done in Premiere Pro, I started to color correct in Premiere and got nervous because it's not fun, then, as it was an Adobe proj, I send it to AE and it was better but still not a workflow I like, I finally decided to put it into Avid and yeah...I'm not married with any brand but I think Avid has really got something with MC 5.

Ps: 3 points editing in Avid works like charm too.  

The butter is the frame that is currently to be corrected. The left display shows the last frame of the previous cut and the waveform display could be anything you want, not just waveform. It could be the next cut display, others controls...
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 07:43:55 PM by fredjeang » Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2011, 05:07:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to admit, I totally wrote FCP X off without really investigating it.  After Cooter's thoughts, I had to go have a look.

Check this out if you haven't...  Final Cut Pro X: A Look From Past to Present to Future

I have to admit... it looks like FCP X would make a hell of a portable NLE.  Great for doing shit on the road.  I still like a more robust system for finishing big projects, but I'm enticed enough to drop a few hundred bucks.... The more you know.... the more you know.

CB
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad