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

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 **** that dont work based on advice, i have come to see how rare it is to get reliable info. G you the king.
 
HVX2006 said:
I OFFICIALLY TAKE IT BACK. YOU CAN COLOR GRADE WITH FINAL CUT!!!!! BUT ONLY WITH A BROADCAST MONITR OR AN APPLE CINEMA DISPLAY.
Click to expand...
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 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?
 
HVX2006 said:
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????
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
BenB said:
Computer monitors are much less universal than TV screens.
Click to expand...


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 ****. 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.
 
HVX2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top