Don't forget that FCP has been criticized for it's relatively simple color correction abilities which have been handily beaten by competing products, such as Avid's "Express". I can agree with that. This will not only end that embarrassment, but turn the tables completely.
Acutally the CC abilities of Express are on-pair with that of FCP. Barely enough for casual cc but not for real profesionnal.
The real missing link for fcp to give a serious alternative to Avid into the professional word was a Symphony answer. The CC GUI of Symphony is a real winner and you get all real time in 1:1.
Now, with the acquisition of Final Touch, I've very exciting to see the next release of FCP. Maybe, finaly, there will be a very serious alternative to Avid in he broadcast word...
But I think the full feature set is too imposing for most users who need much simpler correction than this offers.
I agree. I don't want to see what has happened so far with Shake, where, while it is, from industry experts, an incredible application, it's nodal system is still mystifying to many (well, okay, me, but I consider myself pretty handy 'round the mouse). And with Shake, Apple seems less inclined to change the interface, and rather just lower the price to rock-bottom levels to encourage buy-in and just "get it out there" in the open and let the user base become the in-the-field experts with hands-on work.
Colour correction in FCP will be improved but I think we will eventually see a Motion/Shake/Final Touch hybrid for effects and finishing with deep GPU integration. 2K and even 4K workflows are going to take off for many independent producers in the next couple of years and it looks like Apple are going to position themselves for a killer offer in that market.
it sounds like you've had some experience in the video post production field. what are the chances of a photoshop color specialist landing a position correcting color for video?
I am a cinematographer.
I'm not completely sure what knowledge one must have to be a photoshop specialist or how easily that translates into video.
Film and video both have a defined set standard for color, gray scale, and luminance that one has to know to be a colorist. You have to understand this so the final product will look as it should when it is broadcast on television or projected onto a screen.
Most of the colorists I know who work in big post houses had to mentor with senior colorists and work their way up the ladder to becoming a professional colorist.
Many of the senior colorists are guys who come from narrative television, commercial and music video. They have been working in the field for 10 to 20 years.
The best well known Hollywood colorists are guys who originally worked with film. Before their was any digital timing they worked with a machine called a Hazeltine that was used to color time film prints. Those guys know light, color, and film stock so well their skills are valuable in the digital world.
Partly the answer to your question depends on which market would you want to work in. Movies, narrative television, broadcast television, commercials, or music video. They all have their individual specific skill sets and needs.
2K and even 4K workflows are going to take off for many independent producers in the next couple of years
We'll see.
2K and 4K are extremely expensive. Mostly because it takes a lot of storage and processing power to deal with those huge files.
2K is pretty common in Hollywood these days. But not well liked because it's obviously lower quality than 35mm. 4K is better and gaining momentum but is still expensive even on a Hollywood budget.
Most of the colorists I know who work in big post houses had to mentor with senior colorists and work their way up the ladder to becoming a professional colorist.
agreed. telecine is sort of a weird job. nobody just jumps straight into it. everyone has to spend time as a tape op in order to get into that field. and the machines that they use are much more complex than just punching stuff out on a mac. we're talking about quarter million dollar davinci machines. i'm not sure any big-time colorists use any desktop system.
agreed. telecine is sort of a weird job. nobody just jumps straight into it. everyone has to spend time as a tape op in order to get into that field. and the machines that they use are much more complex than just punching stuff out on a mac. we're talking about quarter million dollar davinci machines. i'm not sure any big-time colorists use any desktop system.
Ther is always going to be some lower work done on the desktop level. There was a program out at one time. I don't remember the name, I'm not good with names. But someone might remember it.
2K and 4K are extremely expensive. Mostly because it takes a lot of storage and processing power to deal with those huge files.
2K is pretty common in Hollywood these days. But not well liked because it's obviously lower quality than 35mm. 4K is better and gaining momentum but is still expensive even on a Hollywood budget.
Which is precisely why Apple are interested.
One imperative is the RED camera, which is real and going to happen in a big way in the next 18 months. The wavelet compression codec they have come up with (by Graeme Nattras) allows a relatively smooth 4K capture. The first company to come up with a doable and affordable 4K workflow gets a strong foothold in 'real' Digital Cinema.
Doesn't every Hollywood movie go through a 2K digital intermediate anyway?
If it were bundled Apple would also force current owners of FinalTouch to buy the entire FC Studio suite.
These days the only version of FCP you can buy is the entire suite, and without FCP FT's useless.
But as a FT HD user, the real cost of colour correction isn't the software, it's the supporting hardware. You can't grade professionally with a mouse, keyboard and LCD screens. If FT gets rolled into some Shake/FT compositing/grading/finishing app then price isn't really the issue, but workflow.
Final Touch's much vaunted xml workflow is deeply flawed, especially at non-NTSC frame rates. Getting media in and out is like pulling teeth. And Silicon Color have never really sorted the bugs. I want more grading and less dentistry.
I'm sure Apple bought it for the GPU pipeline which is very promising across the board. That has immediate application within FCP, with a simpler interface, and a separate pro grading app. Unfortunately that leaves current FT users grappling with a misnamed beta release and a locked development path.
Comments
Don't forget that FCP has been criticized for it's relatively simple color correction abilities which have been handily beaten by competing products, such as Avid's "Express". I can agree with that. This will not only end that embarrassment, but turn the tables completely.
Acutally the CC abilities of Express are on-pair with that of FCP. Barely enough for casual cc but not for real profesionnal.
The real missing link for fcp to give a serious alternative to Avid into the professional word was a Symphony answer. The CC GUI of Symphony is a real winner and you get all real time in 1:1.
Now, with the acquisition of Final Touch, I've very exciting to see the next release of FCP. Maybe, finaly, there will be a very serious alternative to Avid in he broadcast word...
I agree. I've been saying this as well.
But I think the full feature set is too imposing for most users who need much simpler correction than this offers.
I agree. I don't want to see what has happened so far with Shake, where, while it is, from industry experts, an incredible application, it's nodal system is still mystifying to many (well, okay, me, but I consider myself pretty handy 'round the mouse). And with Shake, Apple seems less inclined to change the interface, and rather just lower the price to rock-bottom levels to encourage buy-in and just "get it out there" in the open and let the user base become the in-the-field experts with hands-on work.
Love it. Go Apple.
it sounds like you've had some experience in the video post production field. what are the chances of a photoshop color specialist landing a position correcting color for video?
I am a cinematographer.
I'm not completely sure what knowledge one must have to be a photoshop specialist or how easily that translates into video.
Film and video both have a defined set standard for color, gray scale, and luminance that one has to know to be a colorist. You have to understand this so the final product will look as it should when it is broadcast on television or projected onto a screen.
Most of the colorists I know who work in big post houses had to mentor with senior colorists and work their way up the ladder to becoming a professional colorist.
Many of the senior colorists are guys who come from narrative television, commercial and music video. They have been working in the field for 10 to 20 years.
The best well known Hollywood colorists are guys who originally worked with film. Before their was any digital timing they worked with a machine called a Hazeltine that was used to color time film prints. Those guys know light, color, and film stock so well their skills are valuable in the digital world.
Partly the answer to your question depends on which market would you want to work in. Movies, narrative television, broadcast television, commercials, or music video. They all have their individual specific skill sets and needs.
2K and even 4K workflows are going to take off for many independent producers in the next couple of years
We'll see.
2K and 4K are extremely expensive. Mostly because it takes a lot of storage and processing power to deal with those huge files.
2K is pretty common in Hollywood these days. But not well liked because it's obviously lower quality than 35mm. 4K is better and gaining momentum but is still expensive even on a Hollywood budget.
Most of the colorists I know who work in big post houses had to mentor with senior colorists and work their way up the ladder to becoming a professional colorist.
agreed. telecine is sort of a weird job. nobody just jumps straight into it. everyone has to spend time as a tape op in order to get into that field. and the machines that they use are much more complex than just punching stuff out on a mac. we're talking about quarter million dollar davinci machines. i'm not sure any big-time colorists use any desktop system.
agreed. telecine is sort of a weird job. nobody just jumps straight into it. everyone has to spend time as a tape op in order to get into that field. and the machines that they use are much more complex than just punching stuff out on a mac. we're talking about quarter million dollar davinci machines. i'm not sure any big-time colorists use any desktop system.
Ther is always going to be some lower work done on the desktop level. There was a program out at one time. I don't remember the name, I'm not good with names. But someone might remember it.
We'll see.
2K and 4K are extremely expensive. Mostly because it takes a lot of storage and processing power to deal with those huge files.
2K is pretty common in Hollywood these days. But not well liked because it's obviously lower quality than 35mm. 4K is better and gaining momentum but is still expensive even on a Hollywood budget.
Which is precisely why Apple are interested.
One imperative is the RED camera, which is real and going to happen in a big way in the next 18 months. The wavelet compression codec they have come up with (by Graeme Nattras) allows a relatively smooth 4K capture. The first company to come up with a doable and affordable 4K workflow gets a strong foothold in 'real' Digital Cinema.
Doesn't every Hollywood movie go through a 2K digital intermediate anyway?
If it were bundled Apple would also force current owners of FinalTouch to buy the entire FC Studio suite.
These days the only version of FCP you can buy is the entire suite, and without FCP FT's useless.
But as a FT HD user, the real cost of colour correction isn't the software, it's the supporting hardware. You can't grade professionally with a mouse, keyboard and LCD screens. If FT gets rolled into some Shake/FT compositing/grading/finishing app then price isn't really the issue, but workflow.
Final Touch's much vaunted xml workflow is deeply flawed, especially at non-NTSC frame rates. Getting media in and out is like pulling teeth. And Silicon Color have never really sorted the bugs. I want more grading and less dentistry.
I'm sure Apple bought it for the GPU pipeline which is very promising across the board. That has immediate application within FCP, with a simpler interface, and a separate pro grading app. Unfortunately that leaves current FT users grappling with a misnamed beta release and a locked development path.
You can't grade professionally with a mouse, keyboard and LCD screens.
What do pros use instead?