Baselight color grading plugin for finalcut pro "seriously"

[roryhinds]

no offence taken as its a valid discussion and I think I'm in the same boat as you. I know there are more and more people saying they are colourist (colorists) and it devalues the work of the established professional. Its a hard game but one that is worth fighting.

Yeah I do edit and I also do vfx. Why do I only put down Director, DP and Colorist... well I've actually just being saying FILM Maker as a catch all these days. I don't want to be editing day in day out on other peoples footage so I don't advertise it as I want to concentrate on what makes me happy and where I think my skills at the moment are best suited.

The funny thing is I've just finished editing a feature which took me 3 months of full-time editing and I've been working the last 2 months on doing Visual Effects in Flame and am now grading and finishing.

RED sent me an email to say my EPIC-M is ready now so I'm not sure what this all makes me. I like the filmmaker title as it really is a catch all, but I know having a title doesn't get you clients and projects and I know I'm a bit of an odd fish in that my skills span many disciplines that I perform to a very high standard and I'm not shy to get my hands dirty and forgo my ego to get something done. This feature film needed an updated website so I stepped up and helped out, that doesn't mean I want to be doing websites all day every day or that I should advertise I'm a web designer and developer.

I guess I should say GEEK / Artist but when do the slashes ( / ) stop. We all do so much today and for me its all so much fun.
Maybe Nutcase is a better title or just Passionate... does that make me sound like a hooker

 

[jake blackstone]

no offence taken as its a valid discussion and I think I'm in the same boat as you. I know there are more and more people saying they are colourist (colorists) and it devalues the work of the established professional. Its a hard game but one that is worth fighting.

Yeah I do edit and I also do vfx. Why do I only put down Director, DP and Colorist... well I've actually just being saying FILM Maker as a catch all these days. I don't want to be editing day in day out on other peoples footage so I don't advertise it as I want to concentrate on what makes me happy and where I think my skills at the moment are best suited.

The funny thing is I've just finished editing a feature which took me 3 months of full-time editing and I've been working the last 2 months on doing Visual Effects in Flame and am now grading and finishing.

RED sent me an email to say my EPIC-M is ready now so I'm not sure what this all makes me. I like the filmmaker title as it really is a catch all, but I know having a title doesn't get you clients and projects and I know I'm a bit of an odd fish in that my skills span many disciplines that I perform to a very high standard and I'm not shy to get my hands dirty and forgo my ego to get something done. This feature film needed an updated website so I stepped up and helped out, that doesn't mean I want to be doing websites all day every day or that I should advertise I'm a web designer and developer.

I guess I should say GEEK / Artist but when do the slashes ( / ) stop. We all do so much today and for me its all so much fun.
Maybe Nutcase is a better title or just Passionate... does that make me sound like a hooker

No, a good hooker gots to have just a very narrow set of skillz
But back to my point. You're stating, that you're a colourist and not an editor or VFX artist even though you can do it all. So, by your own admission, you can see the contradiction in using these terms. That is exactly my point, that the colorist's contribution is being devalued with every passing day, as demonstrated by countless users claiming being a "colorist". Hence, a need to move up the food chain by acquiring a set of new new skills. And good for you for doing just that.

 

[roryhinds]

Yeah I think the days of just doing one thing are pretty much over. Unless you're at a large facility working day in day out just colouring which here aren't many large facilities and the golden days of post are over for sure. So in saying that there aren't that many pure Colourist out there, I have total respect for the ones that are still just doing Colour, but as you say times are changing and we all need money coming in the door so adapting your skill set and protecting your earning potential is a smart thing to do.

I'm probability not the best person to comment on this as I'm very independent and have always shredded my own path and not being very traditional. I've freelanced then owned my own business and have never had a full-time salary type job as I've always worked for myself in that regard. Which is a blessing and a curse.

I think we work in a tough industry as people tend to devalue art in general and belittle the skill and effort needed to perform the task at hand so you'll always fighting a change. Especially today when there are more and more people wanting to be a film maker (editor, shooter, dp, director, vfx, colourist, sound designer.... etc) and clients thinking they can get work for less cause there is so much competition on who wants the work.

I don't know how we change that as times are going getting worse.

I guess for me its about being my own boss and creating my own projects so I'm kept busy and money is coming through the door and its also about educating people. Take for example when EPIC is out everyone can say they have and EPIC, but what about the package and what about it being and EPIC M - X or S

I think its more about you as an artist and your body of work and experience then the tool you use.

 

[jake blackstone]

I'm curios, what will happen, when thousands upon thousands of Epic-S or whatever Scarlet is called these days, will get out in the wild and start competing on earnest with Epic-Ms and Xs? How many companies, not producing for big screen, will forgo the big brother and just settle for the inexpensive or less expensive cameras? Technically, it is about the same resolution as Alexa. Will lower resolution deter those clients from choosing cheaper cameras? Everyone in the business needs to take a hard look at their business model.

 

[roryhinds]

Yeah if you can use the tool for your own projects and avoid the madness in the market then you'll be a happier camper.
I do see myself getting a few EPIC-S's to use as B Camera's which is pretty cool having that option. But then again I'm only guessing at the spec's of the S and time will only tell when the details are released.

I guess as we progress things get more complicated and simpler at the same time. For the professionals out there they can make an informed decision and take their art to another level which is pretty exciting, although every coin has two sides

 

[jake blackstone]

It's little strange, as it's not on the main FilmLight site for all of their official announcements, but I found this on their tutorial pages:
Just Announced - Baselight for Nuke
Just announce today, the same technology in the Baselight plugin for Final Cut Pro is also going to be availible for Nuke.
Any way you look at it, I think this is a very significant development. Complete color management from editorial to VFX and to final grading. No more CDL, thank god

 

[shashbugu]

No baselight plugin for CS5, Smoke?

 

[jake blackstone]

No baselight plugin for CS5, Smoke?

Can't imagine one for Smoke. They kinda have their own grading software. May be you heard of it, Lustre?
CS5, who knows...

 

[shashbugu]

Can't imagine one for Smoke. They kinda have their own grading software. May be you heard of it, Lustre?
CS5, who knows...

I'm just pushing it here.....Not like I have ever seen a baselight system.

Complete color management from editorial to VFX and to final grading. No more CDL, thank god

just saying

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Interesting conversation.

Today at 2 AM I wrapped a TVC that I directed and shot for a client here in Germany. Airing will be in Spain and Portugal. Every day the world is getting smaller, things are much more globalized than a few years ago, technology is moving rapidly and job descriptions are changing monthly.

Nonetheless, the making of films in terms of storytelling remains the same. In the 20 years I'm in working in this industry I haven't seen anything new in this regard. And even if you see something new it's probably only new for you. The filmmaking craft did not change much. Only the zeitgeist is changing but this in the very most cases just a modification of the surface.

What I see is:

1. Many young aspiring directors are much more skilled today in technical terms than 10 years ago. The young director from today can write, shoot, and edit. Oftentimes they are skilled additionally on the VFX side, be it colour timing, compositing or even 3D animation.

2. NLEs tend to become more and more swiss army knifes. The more sophisticated ones like Smoke or Avid DS are a grading suite, a VFX and comping seat and a audio studio in one application. No wonder that a colourist, a VFX artist, an editor and sound designer are morphing into one job: postproduction operator, ok un-cool word, scratch operator and call it "post-artist".

3. The Baselight plugin is a natural, welcome development in this scenario.

4. Now Epic. I shot my last 35mm roll just about 3 years ago. The camera was an Arri 435. Without lenses it's about 90k, not to mention all the necessary accessories such as video assist, camera control unit etc... A rentable 35mm package cost a few years ago over 200k. Then, you had to add the costs of stock, lab, telecine etc.... That's all gone today. I shot yesterday with my old RedOne M (am I'm saying "old"?) and rented Masterprimes. In a controlled environment such as a studio the RedOne still delivers supreme images. Epic will do that even better - in the realm of 35mm. The accessibility of comparable cheap digital 35mm moving picture cameras to almost everyone and a full post production facility on a laptop - due to the rapid technical development - makes it much more easy for the new blood to get into the industry. However, you must be much more trained and skilled to survive in his tough market than in the past. The credo of "old school" directors "I tell you what I want and you know how to do it" won't cut it anymore. The director of today is booked for problem solving.

Because all is changing a lot in these days I see many traditional jobs categories dying. Of course there will be colourists around tomorrow but they will also wear an editor and VFX hat. Only in the very high-end such strict job-discription will survive, but even there I already see a maceration of such structures slowly evolving.

Economics drives development: in the end it's all about money.

I call myself a filmmaker and think that this term meets best most of the things I have to do to start and finish a film project.

Hans

 

[Marc Wielage]

Yes, like it or not, color grading is pretty easy, relatively speaking. Great colorists are still worth their weight in gold. It's just now, as I said many times before, anyone now can be a "colorist". The mystique of old DaVinci and Pogle color grading is pretty much gone.

Well, the myth here is that merely owning the software qualifies you as an artist. 2,000,000 people own Final Cut Pro, but I wouldn't call all of them great editors. Merely calling yourself a colorist and being a colorist with credentials and experience are radically different things.

The mystique of old daVinci and Pogle may be gone, but the job of being a colorist is a hundred times more complex than it ever used to be, because now we're involved in conforming, dealing with different source formats, 20 simultaneous layers (or nodes) happening on a single shot, solving visual effects issues, picture fixes and solving lighting problems, plus we're more heavily involved in output files and deliverables. It's a radically different world, roughly the difference between riding a skateboard and driving a Ferrari.

My take has always been: "making pretty pictures is easy. But making an entire scene match in context and reflect the intent of the director and cinematographer is the hard part." Half the battle is just having the experience to know how to approach each problem, along with making the director and DP feel secure in knowing the colorist can make them happy and get the scene to work.

 

[shashbugu]

It all depends on what industry you are in. Colleges around the world are churning out more digital artists by the week. With the advent of cheaper software and decent cameras there is more time and footage to build a working experience in a very short time. The professional protectionist survival conversation for folks 30 and up is very different for the hungry to learn 29 and below. They say experience is the best teacher, but they also say in the digital world what took ten years to master can be taught to an artistic geek in a hour, "now that's CHURCH". Times are changing fast, you can brag to your wife in your bedroom about how gifted you are with your $100k baselight or you can join the revolution with a $1k baselight. (some young guru will figure out how to configure a baselight to work almost as good as its daddy). Prime example BMD Resolve on the mac has become hardware dependant scalable to whatever your pocket can deliver for a mere fraction of the price. Local cable TVC are looking better and better thanks to more affordable technology and an abundance of artists.

 

[jake blackstone]

The mystique of old daVinci and Pogle may be gone, but the job of being a colorist is a hundred times more complex than it ever used to be, because now we're involved in conforming, dealing with different source formats, 20 simultaneous layers (or nodes) happening on a single shot

Just wanted to point out, that thanks to a miserable, in my opinion, Resolve iinterface, people fail to understand a fundamental difference between layers and nodes. Quick example. You isolate something with the keyer, farther improve the selection with the garbage mask and then use hue and primary adjustments to get the color of that subject to look the way you intended. You just used up 4 nodes, but it's all one layer. If you decide to do another adjustment on the outside selection, it is still the same one layer. That is why Resolve fails so miserably, in my opinion, to assist colorist in doing it's job. All you have to do is to look at Lustre. It has traditional 48 layers, that is breeze to see and understand, but if needed, just push "`" and, like any Autodesk product, there they are, all the nodes exposed. Nodes are great for compositing purposes, but they fail miserably for quick glance type operation, tha's used by the colorist. I would also would like to point out, that not every node can even be a layer. For example, primary or secondary operator can be a layer by itself, but keyer or a garbage mask, which are just selectors, can't. For them to become a layer, they need to be used with another node, like primary adjustment or defocus. So, it's one mass confusion, which really doesn't have to be. And don't even get me started on the color sliders in grading interface:-(
Sorry for going on the tangent, but it's something, that I encounter all the time...

 

[M Most]

Just wanted to point out, that thanks to a miserable, in my opinion, Resolve iinterface, people fail to understand a fundamental difference between layers and nodes. Quick example. You isolate something with the keyer, farther improve the selection with the garbage mask and then use hue and primary adjustments to get the color of that subject to look the way you intended. You just used up 4 nodes, but it's all one layer. If you decide to do another adjustment on the outside selection, it is still the same one layer. That is why Resolve fails so miserably, in my opinion, to assist colorist in doing it's job. All you have to do is to look at Lustre. It has traditional 48 layers, that is breeze to see and understand, but if needed, just push "`" and, like any Autodesk product, there they are, all the nodes exposed. Nodes are great for compositing purposes, but they fail miserably for quick glance type operation, tha's used by the colorist. I would also would like to point out, that not every node can even be a layer. For example, primary or secondary operator can be a layer by itself, but keyer or a garbage mask, which are just selectors, can't. For them to become a layer, they need to be used with another node, like primary adjustment or defocus. So, it's one mass confusion, which really doesn't have to be. And don't even get me started on the color sliders in grading interface:-(
Sorry for going on the tangent, but it's something, that I encounter all the time...

geez, Jake. Baselight, which as I recall you've expressed quite a bit of fondness for, works exactly the same way, albeit with a different screen representation. Screen representations are just that - a window to the underlying architecture of the software, presented in a way the programmers find appropriate. In high end programs, there is usually the expectation by the programmer that the user will be using some sort of control surface, and not doing most of their work by directly manipulating the interface. Baselight makes that assumption, and Resolve makes that assumption. If you don't happen to like the on screen sliders, well, they're not there to be used directly in most situations, they're there as visual indications of the control range and the current setting - in other words, as visual feedback rather than as controls.

At least, that's the way I see it.

 

[jake blackstone]

geez, Jake. Baselight, which as I recall you've expressed quite a bit of fondness for, works exactly the same way, albeit with a different screen representation. Screen representations are just that - a window to the underlying architecture of the software, presented in a way the programmers find appropriate. In high end programs, there is usually the expectation by the programmer that the user will be using some sort of control surface, and not doing most of their work by directly manipulating the interface. Baselight makes that assumption, and Resolve makes that assumption. If you don't happen to like the on screen sliders, well, they're not there to be used directly in most situations, they're there as visual indications of the control range and the current setting - in other words, as visual feedback rather than as controls.

At least, that's the way I see it.

I do LOVE Baselight and I don't recall Baselight having sliders representation of the color wheels. Sliders are used when appropriate, such as exposure, saturation, pivot point, etc. Colors have coordinates and sliders can't represent a coordinate. The last sliders based color grading system , that I had "privilege" to use was a glorious Dubner. No thanks But that is beside the point, as there is a bit of a problem with your logic. Like it or not, Baselight and Resolve serve a bit of a different markets -Baselight is for a high end professional market and Resolve is for prosumer, semipro and yes, professional market. I know of just a few individuals, that have Baselight as a personal grading device. Resolve on the other hand, as you know, is another story. And that brigs me to the main point. Yes, the screen representation is just that, until you actually need to use it. Resolve on a Mac and especially an upcoming free version had been positioned as a great alternative for the on-set crowd- simple, very portable, works on pretty much anything. This is all wonderful, until you realize, that Resolve is impossible to use without a panel and now all that portability and convenience is out the window as now you have to lug the panel as well. Baselight, Lustre and FilmMaster all very easy to use with just a mouse, all day long.
On a final note, Baselight interface is not without problems and FL knows it. That is why they continually refine and improve it, as clearly demonstrated by the latest version 4.3 with not one but three screens and new Blackboard 2.

 

[M Most]

I do LOVE Baselight and I don't recall Baselight having sliders representation of the color wheels. Sliders are used when appropriate, such as exposure, saturation, pivot point, etc. Colors have coordinates and sliders can't represent a coordinate. The last sliders based color grading system , that I had "privilege" to use was a glorious Dubner. No thanks But that is beside the point, as there is a bit of a problem with your logic. Like it or not, Baselight and Resolve serve a bit of a different markets -Baselight is for a high end professional market and Resolve is for prosumer, semipro and yes, professional market. I know of just a few individuals, that have Baselight as a personal grading device. Resolve on the other hand, as you know, is another story. And that brigs me to the main point. Yes, the screen representation is just that, until you actually need to use it. Resolve on a Mac and especially an upcoming free version had been positioned as a great alternative for the on-set crowd- simple, very portable, works on pretty much anything. This is all wonderful, until you realize, that Resolve is impossible to use without a panel and now all that portability and convenience is out the window as now you have to lug the panel as well. Baselight, Lustre and FilmMaster all very easy to use with just a mouse, all day long.

Resolve was designed for the same user base as Baselight, and that is professional colorists. The fact that Blackmagic has repositioned it financially to widen its market doesn't change that fact because they haven't redesigned the program, other than to offer and emphasize curve grading in the unreleased version 8. The current version 7 is the same interface and program design that they basically inherited when they bought the company, and that product was designed for and marketed to professional facilities. And that's what it is. As for color controls, colors don't have coordinates unless they're being defined in a three dimensional representation. In a two dimensional representation - which is what primary color correction is - they only have R, G, and B values. You might like a vectorscope representation, but that's not indicative of what the controls represent. I'm not fond of sliders either, but if you've been around DaVinci for a while, you might recall that the original system (the DaVinci Unified Color Corrector) had all knobs, and their function was identical to Dubner's sliders, with the only real difference being the addition of a separate luminance channel. Resolve is an evolved version of everything DaVinci's legacy products have been. You may not like it, and you might want something different, and that's fine. But regardless of where Blackmagic positions it price-wise, it is what it is - a grading system for professional colorists, not a piece of consumer level software. If they want to change it, perhaps it will become that. But to this point, they haven't. As for the Baselight interface, it works well with a mouse and keyboard (and, hopefully, trackball panel) because it was designed before Filmlight designed the Blackboard. In other words, it was originally designed for a mouse and keyboard, unlike Resolve which was never expected to be sold without DaVinci's control panels. Different design criteria, different results.

 

[jake blackstone]

Resolve was designed for the same user base as Baselight, and that is professional colorists. The fact that Blackmagic has repositioned it financially to widen its market doesn't change that fact because they haven't redesigned the program, other than to offer and emphasize curve grading in the unreleased version 8. The current version 7 is the same interface and program design that they basically inherited when they bought the company, and that product was designed for and marketed to professional facilities. And that's what it is. As for color controls, colors don't have coordinates unless they're being defined in a three dimensional representation. In a two dimensional representation - which is what primary color correction is - they only have R, G, and B values. You might like a vectorscope representation, but that's not indicative of what the controls represent. I'm not fond of sliders either, but if you've been around DaVinci for a while, you might recall that the original system (the DaVinci Unified Color Corrector) had all knobs, and their function was identical to Dubner's sliders, with the only real difference being the addition of a separate luminance channel. Resolve is an evolved version of everything DaVinci's legacy products have been. You may not like it, and you might want something different, and that's fine. But regardless of where Blackmagic positions it price-wise, it is what it is - a grading system for professional colorists, not a piece of consumer level software. If they want to change it, perhaps it will become that. But to this point, they haven't. As for the Baselight interface, it works well with a mouse and keyboard (and, hopefully, trackball panel) because it was designed before Filmlight designed the Blackboard. In other words, it was originally designed for a mouse and keyboard, unlike Resolve which was never expected to be sold without DaVinci's control panels. Different design criteria, different results.

I don't see any fundamental disagreement in our respective points of view. Traditional UI development is a product of extensive research, incorporating user's experience, expectations and of coarse, legacy, which we all know DaVinci has aplenty. Nevertheless, times change and something, that was good 10 years ago must change to keep up with the rest of industry, as DaVinci found this out the hard way. Since purchasing DaVinci, BM hasn't done anything meaningful in bringing Resolve UI up to today's standard. I do realize, that UI is a very subjective and everyone has an idea of the best UI. That is why I'm using defined metrics, based on the real world of intended use of the product. If Resolve is expected to be used as a on-set device, it's UI needs to be reworked. I had already made a suggestion to BM on a way to improve Resolve's UI, so will see...
If Resolve is to be used only as a standard grading device with a standard panel, then fine. But even then, BM would be well advised to get busy and finally release panel SDK, so manufacturers could write proper drivers for their panels. This way there would be a proper manufacturer support and finally a long awaited capability to customize those panels.

 

[M Most]

BTW, in Baselight's GUI, there is a button on the Video Grade panel that changes the color wheels to sliders. Just thought you might want to try that.... ;-D

 

[jake blackstone]

BTW, in Baselight's GUI, there is a button on the Video Grade panel that changes the color wheels to sliders. Just thought you might want to try that.... ;-D

I always liked BL's ability to customize pretty much anything. That is why it's such a great system, as it allows any anyone to use it the way user finds most productive and not the other way around. Yes, I know about sliders on BL, but does anyone uses it this way? Same as Lustre, which has it's nodes hidden, but I don't think anyone uses it that way as well. Unfortunately, some systems insist on doing it that way and there is no way to customize that

 

[Tim Sutherland]

Quick example. You isolate something with the keyer, farther improve the selection with the garbage mask and then use hue and primary adjustments to get the color of that subject to look the way you intended. You just used up 4 nodes, but it's all one layer. If you decide to do another adjustment on the outside selection, it is still the same one layer.

By the way, you can do all of this in a single node in Resolve.

Edit: not that I profess to be any sort of Resolve super user, just that it can easily be done, and you can treat nodes pretty much like layers.

Also, I like having the sliders as a reference, it would be nice to have both, but in a mouse based world I usually work with individual channels lift gamma and gain separately, not with the wheels, so having that reference is nice.

Tim