Color Profiles and FCP X (and others)

And that Gamma issue is another nail in FCPX's coffin, it seems.

I've been assuming (Ha! Assumption being the mother of all bugger-ups) that FCPX is sRGB using the 'standard' 2.2 Gamma, and there's been a slight 'assumption' from some quarters (as far as I can tell) that it's actually Rec709, even though that Gamma was 1.96somethingorother, so outputs from MBL in FCPX would come out all dark and dingy. Yes, the colour space is pretty much the same (please correct me if I'm wrong), but the difference in the Gamma means we're still grading for video OR for data (my output exists purely in the data realm), and I don't think we're quite at that distinction yet.

It all felt a lot simpler and more predictable in 'unmanaged' FCP7. Ah well, moving on to CS6 soon. Sigh.

BTW - please don't let my recitation of familiar numbers and letters lull you into thinking that I know what I'm talking about. For me, trying to grasp the finer points of colorimetry and video processing feels like trying to grasp soap in a bath... The more you think you've got it, the further it flies away, usually under the U-bend of the loo.
 
MattDavis said:
And that Gamma issue is another nail in FCPX's coffin, it seems.
Click to expand...

FCPX is fine here. Can see difference between rec709 (2.35) and sRGB (2.2) on the Dreamcolor. Although I'm outputting for inter/intranet type uses I still target broadcast legal REC709 because iPads are weapon of choice for viewing and they are bang on REC709.

FCP7 was always wrong (1.8) but many people were convinced it was right even though they were viewing on a sRGB monitor (let's face it, most FCP users never had broadcast monitors!). Apple then released QT with a FCP compatibility switch which further confused the issue and cemented the wrongness. This lead to head scratching when they output and viewed back in QT and they'd get a much darker image than they were expecting. QT was right and it was easier to blame compressor for adding a gamma shift than to get to grips with colour management.

There really shouldn't be a massive gamma shift from 2.35 to 2.2 nowhere near the 1.8 to 2.2 of yore. It's not normally something a client would notice on their uncalibrated desktop PC with random gamma and dust obscured colour space.

I think Apple is still ahead in colour management unless Adobe have upped their game in CS6.
 
Last edited:
Why is there no eyedropper or tool to view the colour in FCP X. Unless it's well, well hidden? Or i'm being particularly myopic about the whole thing.

AE treats the source files correct as we know, not on CS6 yet.

My photoshop seems unable to do an accurate colour picker thing either, as if there's a layer of colour management on which i've not been able to disable. In AE i can get RGB values around 10,10,10 for a dark patch, the same in PS is RGB 1,1,1 which it shows for the next patch which is visibly brighter. I'm pretty sure i'd set up everything correctly but obviously not...

I have a grey wedge on it's way to me, perhaps i will be able to profile the gammas a little better.

and cpc, that's a great article on the flat profile on your site, explains very well what's going on.

thanks
Paul
 
Nirv said:
They hid it in Motion.
Click to expand...

FFS.

Bit OT: Is motion any good? I've zipped through the manual and it seems pretty powerful but there just doesn't seem to be anyone using it for anything beyond motion graphics. It seems like it might offer some 3D comping, keying and whatnot but it's treated like a poor second cousin out there. Not worth it for an eye dropper though. Put that into a smoke fund...

cheers
paul
 
Postmaster said:
I think the most annoying thing in 709 is the Gamma. When you grade for TV it's too bright on computer monitors and vice versa.
Click to expand...

when in doubt i grade in P3, and use P3->709 and P3->sRGB lut's on output to the mon, so set mon to P3, get to work.. when we are 99% happy, i add aP3->709 lut, set mon to 709 and screen it to see if i need to make any tweaks, then do the same with sRGB if needed.

For a feature it takes me a full day to do both, and for comericals it's only a few minuites really.... normaly we really don't tweak much of anything anyway.

For tape outputs we use the BMD output with the LUT

For file outputs i add the same LUTs in the output tool.

d
 
paulcurtis said:
FFS.

Bit OT: Is motion any good?
Click to expand...

I can't believe you haven't got it? :)

If you know how to fully exploit Motion and FCPX together you won't need Smoke. I really don't see much that Smoke can do that you can't achieve with Motion.

Motion seems to be overlooked in favour of AE but it offers different tools for a slightly different market.

You should really look into Publishing and Rigging in the Motion manual and there will be all the incentive to buy. These features alone are ridiculously powerful yet you've also got a 2.5D compositor working in float and mostly in real time. I really only use Shake now for really very complex work everything else goes through Motion.

All the effects, titles and transitions in FCPX are all Motion projects, think of Motion as the development tool for all FCPX effects and titles etc. FCPX is a much enhanced experience with Motion and really offers you something that can't be found anywhere else. FCPX has one arm tied behind its back without Motion.

The only think lacking is a slick round-trip from FCPX to Motion and back. I suspect that'll be fixed soon enough given the number of requests I've seen on Twitter.
 
So if you guys think the FS100/700 has a problem with highlights and green ghost look at this:

C300 in full glory :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top