Color Correction & MacBookPro

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

Veteran
I just bought the 17" MacBookPro because it has a higher color gamut (60% more) and better contrast 1:700 (vs 1:500). It also boasts a huge screen with true 1080 HD resolution.

So I thought I was all good for my Apple Color work w/o having (although it would be best) to buy an external monitor (such as a Cinema display which is another +$800)

Then the Matte vs Glossy debate!

Which is better?

I got the glossy, figuring that the matte is either an extra film on top of the glass, or a special process which I figured would most likely be worse (for color accuracy). Isn't clear glass the best glass, despite glare? Lol. My logical assumption based nothing on science.

Then the nay-sayers don't even talk about color or contrast but just complain about reflections. Who the f#$k color corrects in an environment that reflections on a screen should even be a concern? Oh, well. I guess my color correction session at the beach is canceled. :P

Thirdly, people like to bash all MBP LCD's for color work because of the narrow angle of view on the screen. I'm not sure how they work, but when I use my laptop, I tend to type from directly in front of it.

That is my 2cents. Does anyone here know any REAL info or facts about the screen? Matte vs Glossy? Not concerning what you perfer, but rather what IS better for color accuracy.

That's my paranoid rant. At the end of the day I have to remember that my audience will be watching it on sh*t aweful displays of every kind, no matter how hard I work.

:dankk2:
 
Laptop screens aren't color accurate for video work. The preview window inside Color isn't designed to be color accurate either (nor is the Canvas window in FCP). And the only way an Apple Cinema Display should even be remotely considered for color is if you use it w/the Matrox MXO.


-A
 
Use an I/O device like from AJA or Blackmagic and send it out to a broadcast quality monitor. No application offers broadcast accurate viewing in software on a computer display.


-A
 
Last edited:
If you are going to be using the Macbook for color correction with no external monitor, I would go with the matte display. The glossy display artificially enhances contrast, so it's picture representation, while it sure does look nice, is not as accurate. That's why photographers nearly revolted when Apple wasn't offering a matte option on the new models (before the new 17" was released).
 
Once I get my MBP I was also planning to use the spyder3 color calibration... not that this is as good as a $2.5k breakout box and monitor, but I thought it would at least solve most issues by sensing the glossy's increased contrast and etc and applying it's counter correction. Isn't that the point of those things?

I understand the BEST way to do it... I am looking for the BEST way to do it with a laptop. On the go (but assume I'll do my correction work in a proper viewing environment) Of course I'll always run the video through a proper monitor before I do anything with it, but I figure I can land many of the base corrections while still in the field. No?

I apologize for this. It sounds blasphemous to you post fellows, as I would think you were if you were to suggest haphazard shortcuts for cinematography. But since I'm mainly a cameraman and many of my projects are low budget as such that I cannot hire a colorist or correct all the time on large nice stations, I wanted to see how much I could get away with on a laptop. I'll always preview it on a broadcast calibrated monitor before declaring a finished product, but you see what I'm trying to do.

This is relatively new to me and I'm certainly glad you are helping! I've learned alot from these posts.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Of course I'll always run the video through a proper monitor before I do anything with it, but I figure I can land many of the base corrections while still in the field. No?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Really no reason to do any corrections until your cut is final and you take it to the "proper viewing environment" you were talking about. You just end up doing the work twice.
 
Also, you can use a camera, like the HPX170, as an I/O for a production monitor in some situations (like when editing DV25, DV50, or DVCProHD). Thats a nice, portable solution to CC.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Once I get my MBP I was also planning to use the spyder3 color calibration... not that this is as good as a $2.5k breakout box and monitor, but I thought it would at least solve most issues by sensing the glossy's increased contrast and etc and applying it's counter correction. Isn't that the point of those things?
Click to expand...
Calibrators like that aren't designed to calibrate to video b'cast specs and, on top of that, sometimes the display profiles created by those tools will break Color (the preview window and/or scopes won't display properly).


-A
 
hey i know that using color bars you can color correct a monitor. but is there any way to color correct a computer monitor like say a mac book pro screen?
 
dotbot said:
hey i know that using color bars you can color correct a monitor. but is there any way to color correct a computer monitor like say a mac book pro screen?
Click to expand...

No. NO no no no no. How many times do we need to say no? The COMPUTER MONITOR is NOT reliable for color correction. Not without AT LEAST the Matrox MXO. And then it is close, but still not the best way to go. It is the best way to go using a computer monitor.

You cannot by any stretch of the imagination make your latop display show proper video colors. It isn't designed to do so. The Spyder calibrates for PHOTO and PRINT work, not video. Those are vastly different color spaces.

Want cheap? Get an MXO2 Mini and small HDTV (like 20" or so) and use that. It won't be 1:1 pixel, but you will get a far better and closer to true image than you can on your computer display.
 
Just a word of warning, though. I bought an MXO about a year ago and it's been nothing but problems. I was just issued an RMA to finally get a new one. And it's not just me, go scan the user forums for all the MXO family. It's very scary. These boxes are riddled with problems that just seem to get worse everytime Apple update's their OS.
 
I have the MXO and MXO2 and have had ZERO issues with them. Occasionally one does ship with problems, but that is true with about any hardware. I had a bad AJA Kona LH and got a replacement. Matrox will get you a replacement soon.

If you go into the user forums for ANY capture card you will see issues. That is what the forums are for. If you based your judgement of anything on the forums, ALL NLEs would suck and be rife with issues, all the hardware would be riddled with issues, and nothing would appear to work. People don't post stuff like "My MXO is working great, no problems thus far" or "This Kona card rocks, and FCP has been problem free for years." People don't do that...they only post problems.

forums are like hospitals, people only go when they are sick. I don't go when I am healthy, do you?

I have used the MXO for 3 years, and the MXO2 for 8 months. Updated the OS lots and lots, and no issues. I also keep on top of the hardware drivers for the devices, as should everyone.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Then the Matte vs Glossy debate!

Which is better?

I got the glossy, figuring that the matte is either an extra film on top of the glass, or a special process which I figured would most likely be worse (for color accuracy). Isn't clear glass the best glass, despite glare? Lol. My logical assumption based nothing on science.
:dankk2:
Click to expand...

The Wife and I tend to choose displays that have the least amount of 'added' stuff. So, for the old MBP 17" we chose the 'matte', because in that case, the 'glossy' was an additional layer. In the case of Her new MBP 15", we chose the glossy, because the matte was an additional layer. (At least that's what we were told about the different displays...)

We color calibrate our displays with a Spyder (She got it as a promo item for her seminars...), but really for Her work, she only uses the Cinema Display attached to Her G-5 for 'ultimate' last gasp color correction or verification.

This is all for 'still' stuff... for my 'video' stuff... I tend to just go with the MBP 17" matte finish.

When I was selling 'high speed' network adapters to publishers in the 90's, I would visit publishers, and for the most part, they would have a number of work stations setup, (hence the need for the networking cards...), but there was only one Golden Display where final color work was done, usually buried inside of the offices, with adjusted illumination, etc. and calibrated... and operated by 'one' guy/gal who was the final arbiter of things color...

In that regard, The Wife used a CRT for several years after getting a Cinema Display, for Her 'final' color work...
 
Don't agree at all. I've owned loads of audio gear and some video gear over the last 10 years and nothing compares to this box in terms of issues. If you go to the forum you'll see tons of people with the same couple of problems, which tells me there's something intrinsically wrong, not just the odd bad box. The moderators even concede that they don't know what to do a lot of the time and it took them months to fix their software so that the calibration bars would work with the new version of Quicktime. I'm not trying to steer you away from Matrox I'm just warning you about my and a lot of other people's experience. I wished I'd known before I bought.

Shane Ross said:
I have the MXO and MXO2 and have had ZERO issues with them. Occasionally one does ship with problems, but that is true with about any hardware. I had a bad AJA Kona LH and got a replacement. Matrox will get you a replacement soon.

If you go into the user forums for ANY capture card you will see issues. That is what the forums are for. If you based your judgement of anything on the forums, ALL NLEs would suck and be rife with issues, all the hardware would be riddled with issues, and nothing would appear to work. People don't post stuff like "My MXO is working great, no problems thus far" or "This Kona card rocks, and FCP has been problem free for years." People don't do that...they only post problems.

forums are like hospitals, people only go when they are sick. I don't go when I am healthy, do you?

I have used the MXO for 3 years, and the MXO2 for 8 months. Updated the OS lots and lots, and no issues. I also keep on top of the hardware drivers for the devices, as should everyone.
Click to expand...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
How are you supposed to use Apple Color if it's not accurate in the software display?

I don't see how that is possible.
Click to expand...



You can use a cheap DV converter with FCP but I am not sure if Color can out put to an NTSC monitor using a cheap DV converter. After Effects can. An AJA or Decklink card would be best since a DV converter is limited to 720X480. Some of the motion grpashics may jitter but the CC should be accurate if the NTSC monitor is color corrected. It may not be the best option but for laptop users there is not much choice for previewing your work on an broadcast quality NTSC monitor.

Below is a link for using a DV converter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhp4NsJFRpU
 
well DV converters/camcorders aren't a great option because the image gets recompressed to DV 4:1:1 before going to the monitor.

regardless, Color doesn't support FW output using any device except the AJA ioHD.
 
bigbossbmb said:
well DV converters/camcorders aren't a great option because the image gets recompressed to DV 4:1:1 before going to the monitor.

regardless, Color doesn't support FW output using any device except the AJA ioHD.
Click to expand...


I agree that the footage will be 5:1 compression and 4:1:1 color space but it is still much better than using the VGA screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top