Color grading in FCP NOT POSSIBLE!!!!?????

[HVX2006]

I know im going to get allot of replies saying, yes you can, or yes if you have a HD external monitor you can.....But what about this?

If i open a clip HD clip in FCP and without touching it export a non compressed QT and than open that QT in QT pro, it looks significantly different than the same clip in FCP.

If on the other hand i open this QT in final cut and view it next to the original clip it looks identical. What does this tell us? - that QT displays colors differently than FCP.

If i now burn this QT to DVD and open the DVD window next to the ORIGINAL HD FILE in FCP, the exported QT in QT pro. I have now three different windows from three different applications (FCP, QTPRO, DVDPLAYER), all on the same monitor, displaying the same clip in three different formats.

Now the punch line -

They all look different!!!! But how?????

I totally understand that colors will change as things get compressed or changed from one format to another. I think the difference between the QT and the DVDPLAYER version illustrates that quite well. The compressed DVD clip is slightly less saturated slightly lower contrast, less sharp and some compression noise is visible. I could live with this. Now on the other hand the original HD clip on the canvas of FCP looks vastly different, it is less magenta, slightly darker, significantly more saturated, more contrast......all in all very far from both the DVD and the QT pro clip.
Why is there so much difference?????? And why so few comments on this?????

It seems to me to be a major problem that a there is so much mismatch between two different pro applications FCP and QT-pro. Yes i know that FCP is not a color grading application, but it really is quite useless for any half serious color grading at all, as you are grading blind, or you have to export to QT after every small adjustment to se what you are getting. Also this means two different grades, one for computer displays and internet and one for dvd.:zombie_smiley:


Now back to the HD monitor. Can anyone that has an actual HD broadcast monitor check this???? Try compare the FCP clip on the HD monitor output to the QTpro on the computer monitor. Check if the FCP clip matches as closely to the QT as the DVDPLAYER to the QTPRO. Even if they are still three different versions, this would mean it was workable, provided one has a HD broadcast monitor. I seriously doubt this will be the case though.

On a side note. When i say different, it is not like in your face completely different, and i could see how one could not notice this. It wasn't before i had color graded for a week straight that once i saw the QT, i was like wait a minute what the FCK.

I hope someone has a solution as i just did a weeks work for nothing and am depressed like hell that FCP performs so badly in this department. Please tell me im wrong!!!!!

[Shane Ross]

Looking at the clip on an HD monitor will look different from that displayed on a computer monitor, no matter if it is viewed in FCP or QT, so that isn't a real test.

QT plays back the image using a low res proxy to ensure smooth playback. Try opening it up and in one of the preferences you can turn on HIGH QUALITY PLAYBACK. See if that doesn't make a difference.

Color grading in FCP is ABSOLUTELY possible. Just know that the use of a computer monitor to do this won't show you what you are really getting for TV viewing.

[gunleik]

This has been up so many times, I hope someone makes a sticky soon!

You cannot monitor on anything but a calibrated Broadcastmonitor (be it SD or HD) to see how it probably will look like on a TV.

QT & FCP shows the images differently, because they have different purposes.

The FCP image is always a lo-rez proxy with some gamma assumptions (which we btw are not too happy about...)

Only way to see a better proxy, but still a proxy - is through the digital cinema desktop on an Apple LCD. IF you blow up an SD image to the DCD, you will learn that SD is lorez...

Colors: watch your scopes. Get a broadcast monitor.

Gunleik

[HVX2006]

Looking at the clip on an HD monitor will look different from that displayed on a computer monitor, no matter if it is viewed in FCP or QT, so that isn't a real test.

QT plays back the image using a low res proxy to ensure smooth playback. Try opening it up and in one of the preferences you can turn on HIGH QUALITY PLAYBACK. See if that doesn't make a difference.

Color grading in FCP is ABSOLUTELY possible. Just know that the use of a computer monitor to do this won't show you what you are really getting for TV viewing.


Well you say absolutely. The way i am experiencing it is you can not even grade for internet, as the clip you grade in FCP will look different once exported, no matter what monitor. Allot different! While i agree with you that a clip looks different on a broadcast monitor, i dont see how that ads to the equation, except in the way i mentioned in my first post. As in, if what you see on a QTpro on a computer screen is a simulation of what the FCP clip looks like on a Broadcast monitor. As i said, id dont know. What do you use as a reference????

[HVX2006]

This has been up so many times, I hope someone makes a sticky soon!

You cannot monitor on anything but a calibrated Broadcastmonitor (be it SD or HD) to see how it probably will look like on a TV.

QT & FCP shows the images differently, because they have different purposes.

The FCP image is always a lo-rez proxy with some gamma assumptions (which we btw are not too happy about...)

Only way to see a better proxy, but still a proxy - is through the digital cinema desktop on an Apple LCD. IF you blow up an SD image to the DCD, you will learn that SD is lorez...

Colors: watch your scopes. Get a broadcast monitor.

Gunleik

Just to simplify and cut out all the variables, imagine you where just to do a grade for display on internet. Surly it would make no sense there to have an external monitor as you would be making a grade for a computer monitor display anyways. I say you could still not do it as when you ad yellow in FCP and export to QT it will be as if you added red. How do you know what you are doing. Grading per scopes is not an option. And although i have read many threads on this, they all fizzled out after the initial, get a HD monitor, or the proxy comments. I just dont understand that if QT and DVDPLAYER can be this close, why can the ultra pro application like FCP not. Maybe i am just asking for to much?

[gunleik]

Just a hunch here (as I export a bit for the net)

I actually monitor this, too on my same external monitor (HD or not, that's not the point).

I think (but haven't a/b'ed so this is just a hunch) that when you export say a h.264 for web, the gamma is shifted on export to suit the finished medium.

One of the problems you are taking up, is that in addition to show'ing the image at a proxy rez, FCP also adds some gamma assumptions to the material, so it is actually true that an external monitor is THE ONLY WAY to preview FCP edits, no matter delivery.

If you export a DV/DVCPRO HD file QT will (and should) look differently from your FCP preview - because you're still in a "editing" format.

Just for the hell of it: try exporting a h.264. I am generally happy with the results.

One problem with computer monitors, though is that they are as different as TV sets and that windows and OSX uses different gammacurves.

I think QT adjusts for this on the different platforms, but then again it is only assumptions. If you playback the same file from say VLC and QT, you'll see different gamma assumptions too.

This is why we are saying that the only proper and common editing reference you'll ever get is an external calibrated broadcast monitor. Because this is what all software and sets relate to. Their interpretation may vary, though.

But no set is similar, so this will just put you in a fairly safe spot. It will not ensure total similarity in preview on every device.

Cheers!

G

[HVX2006]

Just a hunch here (as I export a bit for the net)

I actually monitor this, too on my same external monitor (HD or not, that's not the point).

I think (but haven't a/b'ed so this is just a hunch) that when you export say a h.264 for web, the gamma is shifted on export to suit the finished medium.

One of the problems you are taking up, is that in addition to show'ing the image at a proxy rez, FCP also adds some gamma assumptions to the material, so it is actually true that an external monitor is THE ONLY WAY to preview FCP edits, no matter delivery.

If you export a DV/DVCPRO HD file QT will (and should) look differently from your FCP preview - because you're still in a "editing" format.

Just for the hell of it: try exporting a h.264. I am generally happy with the results.

One problem with computer monitors, though is that they are as different as TV sets and that windows and OSX uses different gammacurves.

I think QT adjusts for this on the different platforms, but then again it is only assumptions. If you playback the same file from say VLC and QT, you'll see different gamma assumptions too.

This is why we are saying that the only proper and common editing reference you'll ever get is an external calibrated broadcast monitor. Because this is what all software and sets relate to. Their interpretation may vary, though.

But no set is similar, so this will just put you in a fairly safe spot. It will not ensure total similarity in preview on every device.

Cheers!

G


Thank you G for trying to help. But im going to challenge you here again, just for the sake of finding a better way. Imagine the most simple setup. You wanted to grade for display in QT. As in a ad agency wants to show there film on there laptop using QT. I still dont see how you are going to do it. Except if you tell me that that what you are seeing on a broadcast monitor is exactly what you are seeing on your computer monitor when watching the same clip in QT. I hope this is making sense the way im writing it.

[gunleik]

I see your point.

And I too have been frustrated of the lack of common ground on other things than reference points. This becomes even more frustrating when you take into account that for example shake and FCP handle gamma-curves differently, which means that your files are altered in unwanted ways when you punch files between them. Funny thing, though - is that this is not the case when you check on the broadcast monitor.

What is behind this? All software (regretfully) makes assumptions. And I chalenge you to do the h.264 (videomonitor internet delivery format) test vs a broadcast monitor. In my experience these are pretty close when I come from DVCPRO HD.

G

[HVX2006]

I see your point.

This becomes even more frustrating when you take into account that for example shake and FCP handle gamma-curves differently, which means that your files are altered in unwanted ways when you punch files between them. Funny thing, though - is that this is not the case when you check on the broadcast monitor.

G

If this is really the case and it truly feels counter intuitive to say the least. Than it would be interesting to know if a QT played through QTpro but viewed on a broadcast monitor looks the same/close as the same clip played through FCP. I would be very surprised. Personally i find this mismatch completely unacceptable for a professional application and puts it a decade behind applications like Photoshop.

[gunleik]

It will not look the same and there are many very good and logical reasons for this.

The broadcastmonitor is the only calibrateable "standard". But has a lot of disadvantages to a videomonitor. It's colorspace and dynamic range is extremly limited compared to many computermonitors. Odd? Well, that's just how it is.

Thus images that will lokk "bright and good" on a computermonitor will be "blown and bad" on a TV-set, just to take one example.

QT will assume that you are on a computerscreen - in your example, while the broadcastmonitor isn't. Thus the gammaresponse will again fail.

The only common ground for videoprojection and CC is the calibrated broadcast monitor. Accept it or not, but there you have the common ground you are asking for. Everything else relates to that.

remember there is already so many variables, that it is kind of logical to differ between production and delivery formats.

Gunleik

[HVX2006]

Its just so wack that QT can be so close to DVDPLAYER, but that FCP can't simulate QT colors. As the colors final cut displays on the canvas and viewer are a completely useless reference, why not make them at least sort of match to QT and DVDplayer. They could still let the colors stand as they do for the monitor output. It is completely retarded.

[gunleik]

The logic within FCP/QT itself is actually quite good.
But you're not the first to get upset/confused/enraged over the whole color issue when you get to video. This is a general issue, though and not a FCP specific issue.

I agree that it would be good to have the option to choose different profiles/gammacurves for different uses, but I fear that it would only add to the confusion...

Generally spoken, it would be good to have 2 options:
This works, trust us. It may look weird, but watch your scopes and a broadcast monitor and you'll be good.

Basically like today.

And:
Tweak for your needs, but hey mate - you're on your own. No guarantees given
... Except for the scopes and your Broadcast monitor.

Question is: Do we really need alternative 2 that much? Consider that most pro videographers shoot on B&W EVF's.

It boils down to - after a while - the ability to trust yor skills, knowledge and tools...

Gunleik

[HVX2006]

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93794

Here an article relating to the topic. It basically says that FCP mimics the colors of what a final project played on a DVD looks like on a broadcast monitor. And that QT is a 1to1 reference to the source footage. Which means, that the QT and the DVD player image looks very close, as i have stated already. What i just dont get is why not use the same color space for FCP as is used for QTpro, it would make so much more sense.

[gunleik]

The problem is that this will cause other unwanted problems because of different color and gamma handling for different platforms (broadcast, mac, pc, video, data, SD, HD).

But as I said. It would be nice to have the option to brak your neck on this.

Still: The calibrated broadcast monitor advice is the easy way around all of this.

G

[HVX2006]

Still: The calibrated broadcast monitor advice is the easy way around all of this.

G


Well sort of. It is strange that they would only be catering to the real high budget crowd as i am sure 90% of people that use FCP dont have the budget for a broadcast monitor. Where 90% of people using Avid probably have. Not to say that FCP is not a pro application, just do to it being relative cheep allot of non professionals and low budget people are using it. Besides the fact, that so much stuff will only ever be shown on the internet, why not make it possible to at least accurately color-grade for this on a computer monitor. It would be such an easy ad on feature, and seems o short sighted not to have.

[gunleik]

Well, that's sorta why they've thrown in the Digital Cinema Desktop feature, to allow you to "sort of" preview on a second Apple LCD.

I say Apple because that's what the feature is calibrated for. I have both Apple 23" and Dell 24" and would never use the Dell for this.

The Panny 17" is a clear winner, though...

Gunleik

[HVX2006]

Well, that's sorta why they've thrown in the Digital Cinema Desktop feature, to allow you to "sort of" preview on a second Apple LCD.

I say Apple because that's what the feature is calibrated for. I have both Apple 23" and Dell 24" and would never use the Dell for this.

The Panny 17" is a clear winner, though...

Gunleik


Sorry me stupid. Can you elaborate. Did you ever compare a Apple display next to a brodcat monitor. What is the Digital cinema desktop?

[gunleik]

If you have a second monitor you can choose "View-videoplayback-Digital cinema desktop"

This is to give you a pixel-accurate chroma/Luma sorta accurate preview on a second Apple LCD.

I say Apple, because that's what it's calibrated for.

I used this a lot before getting a proper solution, and it's much better. I wouldn't go back, though.

I also went through the BlackMagic HD-link (via HDSDI) to Apple 23" step before cashing out on a proper monitor, and personally I actually prefer the Digital Cinema desktop.

Gunleik

[HVX2006]

i might just have to go out and get one, what is the cheapest option out there that will work. Could you be specific as to size and make. So what you are saying is that the monitor is closer to the final QT or DVD than the standard laptop or "standard" desktop monitor image is. Have you compared it to an actual broadcast monitor? How does it work? do you drag the canvas of final cut to this display the same as when you are using any other brand display. Or is there some extra feature when using a mac monitor. What would the difference be using a mac monitor V.S> high quality photo monitor?

[gunleik]

If you need to see 1080 at full rez, the 23" is the way to go.

When you choose this option and External monitor-view-all frames you get the image up.

Just test with what you have, to get an idea, but the calibration is towards an Apple LCD response.

I have not a/b'ed much, but can do it tomorrow, if you like.

If you google it, you can see what other people think.

G

[HVX2006]

HOLY CACKANOLY!!!!!! ThediffARENCE IS HUUUUUGEGEEGGEGEGGEEEEEE!!!!!!

Like most of the time with apple products they just poo pooing work.


I OFFICIALLY TAKE IT BACK. YOU CAN COLOR GRADE WITH FINAL CUT!!!!! BUT ONLY WITH A BROADCAST MONITR OR AN APPLE CINEMA DISPLAY.

The crazy thing is, that now the clip i see on my 20 inch apple cinema display in FCP mode is very close to what the same QTpro clip looks like once exported and viewed on the macbook screen. I had my 3000 dollar lacie retouching screen connected before and it sucked ass for video. Dam i am so happy to have found a solution. Thank you Gunleik for great advice, after years of buying shit that dont work based on advice, i have come to see how rare it is to get reliable info. G you the king.

[gunleik]

I OFFICIALLY TAKE IT BACK. YOU CAN COLOR GRADE WITH FINAL CUT!!!!! BUT ONLY WITH A BROADCAST MONITR OR AN APPLE CINEMA DISPLAY.

I'll just have to add: In digital cinema desktop mode

And then I can hang your quote on my wall.:)
I cannot ressist to point you at my first answer, though... -;)

Happy you made it work!

Gunleik

[HVX2006]

I would say that the difference between FCP on a cinema display and the same file exported as a QT and played in QT-pro is aprox 10%. How far is dvd played on a standard TV from the QT on a computer screen. When played on the same computer screen, the QT and DVDplayer are very close, again maybe 10% difference. Playing this same dvd on my dvd player that is connected to my TV, there was a pronounced difference, blacks where severely crushed and the colors had shifted towards green and more contrast. What are others experiencing?

[VaricamLife]

Ah do remember that every device is different. And all have different settings. Also room lighting can impact things as well. The only way to get them all to look the same is to calibrate all the viewing devices properly with bars and with the lighting conditions set to the level that you will be viewing with. Consistency in what you get can depend upon a lot of factors.

So if you use a calibrated broadcast monitor, a properly lit room, and vectorscopes, then you can know that your image is okay. After that who knows what kind of room/conditions your tape/dvd/etc will be viewed at, that you can often not control. Anyway....

cheers.

[HVX2006]

well what im wondering is if the dvd i made was badly done as the difference is quite allot. Blacks that are ok on my computer display are crushed on the tv????

[HVX2006]

If i am in RAW mode on my 20 inch cinema display, the clip is initially displayed like a small square in the center of the monitor, that goes fullscreen when i hit play. Is this normal for 1080 footage?

[adkimery]

well what im wondering is if the dvd i made was badly done as the difference is quite allot. Blacks that are ok on my computer display are crushed on the tv????

If the blacks are crushed on the TV and TVs are the final viewing devices then I'd have to say the DVD was badly done. Don't forget to use your scopes. Reminds me of my audio prof in college, "Listen with your eyes, not your ears."


-A

[VaricamLife]

If the blacks are crushed on one TV then that really says nothing. TV's aren't really that reliable a device. I would check it across a few sets, different brands and different types (LCD, Plasma, Rear Projection, Tube). Then if its consistently bad on all sets, then yes you might have an authoring issue to address. And even then, if the final viewing element is a TV, who knows what a person's TV settings will be and so no guaranteed for them it will even look that great (cause they could have misaligned their own tv set). Just without a proper broadcast monitor you can't really say for sure.

[BenB]

Computer monitors are going to drive you nuts. As no one here has yet mentioned the calibration of the computer screen itself. It'll be different on different computers.

I'd take the laptop showing the footage and calibrate it's screen along side the computer monitor you're editing with.

As for the Web, again, everyone who views it on line will have their computer monitor show the specific characteristics of that make/model monitor, along with the wide variances in different calibrations on each monitor. Computer monitors are much less universal than TV screens.

[HVX2006]

Computer monitors are much less universal than TV screens.


That being said the standard for photo post production is pretty consistent if calibrated with a screen calibrator. I dont get it why they dont calibrate all new LCD monitors and TVs in the same way, at least like this we would all be in the ballpark. I do have to say though, as different as LCD TV's are from CTR TV's and even just the difference between the TV's of each standard, i find it hard to see how, using a CTR broadcast monitor is going to cover you for both. Monitoring with CTR monitors is something that his bin done for what the last 10 years, and they have managed to get fairly acceptable color accuracy for film out and broadcast. But this whole LCD revolution and HD has thrown so many variables in the mix in just the last 2 years, that while CTR broadcast monitors may be the only safe option out there, im not sure it will be what they are using in lets say 2 years from now. It is funny if you go to a TV shop and look at all the different displays, showing ants crawling on a exotic flower, shot in HD, it does look impressive. Looking at a big budget hollywood film calibrated for sd from a DVD, im sorry it looked like shit. So CTR or not, there is a major problem. I wonder why the bugs and flower shots look so dam good and great rendition of color, and why my HVX footage looks so poor next to it. Mind you this are daylight shots so no fancy lighting nothing. Im a little confused.

[adkimery]

That being said the standard for photo post production is pretty consistent if calibrated with a screen calibrator. I dont get it why they dont calibrate all new LCD monitors and TVs in the same way, at least like this we would all be in the ballpark.
I think $$$ is a major factor. Just look at the cost difference between a pro monitor and a consumer TV. Also, pro monitors are designed to present as accurate an image as possible while consumer TVs are designed to present as aesthetically pleasing image as possible at the expense of accuracy.


I do have to say though, as different as LCD TV's are from CTR TV's and even just the difference between the TV's of each standard, i find it hard to see how, using a CTR broadcast monitor is going to cover you for both.
I've heard of more than a few places doing HD work are using both. A CRT to judge color and an LCD to judge everything else.


I wonder why the bugs and flower shots look so dam good and great rendition of color, and why my HVX footage looks so poor next to it. Mind you this are daylight shots so no fancy lighting nothing. Im a little confused.
I'm just gonna go out on a limb and guess there was a nice chunk of change spent on seasoned pro's using high end gear from start to finished to make those images.


-A

[TheAnimal]

I've been through all this, too. I think, the truth is, that FCP is simply too old. It's meant to make content for TV screens and it's clearly not made for making internet content like podcasts.

I hope this situation will become better with FCP 6.

FCP really seems to be 10 years back when you're used to Photoshop and proper hardware calibration of your monitor, printer, scanner with ICC profiles. It's a different world.

It's completely ridiculous that you can't get consistent results from the FCP canvas to a Quicktime h.264 export viewed on the same monitor.

That being said, I'm still using FCP.