ADOBE Stepped up....who's next?

[Andrew Kimery]

Apple is a hardware company that locks its software to its hardware and then markets the hell out of both to drive sales to their hardware. If they were a software company they would make their software available for the platform that 90% of the population use.

Exactly. Final Touch 2k (the app now known as Apple Color) sold for $25k. Apple now includes it in the Final Cut Suite for $1299. Not a wise move if your company depends on software sales to pay the bills.:tongue:

Mike Curtis (<--Link)has updates on Apple support for R3D. Looks like it will get rewrapped into QT (similar to P2 or XDCAM EX) and all the metadata is retained.


-A

 

[Martin Tlaskal]

We've got a number of existing Baselight customers beta testing native R3D support in Baselight right now on the Mac platform, whilst we wait for the Linux SDK.

As for low cost colour correctors, I agree completely with Lucas, it's pretty tough for a company to make money down there at present. People would be surprised how much work goes into writing a Colour Corrector - the amount of code dealing with actual "Colour Correction" in Baselight is a very small amount of the code. I'm sure the situation is the same for Assimilate, da Vinci etc. There is a pretty large investment in people required to implement conform, deck control, clustered and GPU rendering, colour management etc not to mention R3D support.

 

[Chris Parker]

agreed martin. very much so. thanks for pointing that out. there will always be a high end.

 

[Chris Parker]

and by the way. that is HUGE news as far as i am concerned.

baselight native...coming soon. i can see the dominos starting to fall.....

 

[Lucas Wilson]

Which segment are those film cameras in ? Budgets ?

Broadcast cameras today heavily compress the image. What then ? Betacam, Digibeta ?

So because they're compressed they're not "grade worthy?" Your bar keeps getting higher and higher. As the bar gets higher, the market gets smaller.

Do you think the potential customers will buy the expensive tools and accept them first, or the tools will have to be affordable to be accepted ?

Before Silicon Color was purchased by Apple, they had a very serious and high-performance color grading tool for US$5,000. For a market that was ripe with HD material and potential customers. It was affordable, professional, high-performane, and yet far from universal. So you tell me. That seemed to be the *perfect* model for what you describe. Why didn't it turn the industry upside-down?

I'm sorry we disagree on this.

No need to apologize - this is just healthy debate!

Lucas

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

So because they're compressed they're not "grade worthy?"

I meant "grade worthy" in the technical sense. Not elitist. Any form of compression limits the amplitude and amount of levels of picture manipulation and compression artifacts appear. Something tells me I don't have to explain this to you

The same way Photoshopping an image and RAW is unavoidable in a decent printed magazine's workflow, the same need is appearing in the footage segment. If it can be done people will want to do it. If you have a tool that can capture the material and don't have the tool to push the material to it's full extent then you are not complete.
People/productions will want to be complete. Just as every professional photo studio is.

Your bar keeps getting higher and higher.

Of course it does.
Is this a bad thing ? Can you blame me ?

As the bar gets higher, the market gets smaller.

Usually yes.
In this case that rule is in a process of change, IMO. I think you can guess why. ;-)

That change could lead to this interpretation:

"There are more potential customers which have a bar set high."

Before Silicon Color was purchased by Apple, they had a very serious and high-performance color grading tool for US$5,000. For a market that was ripe with HD material and potential customers. It was affordable, professional, high-performane, and yet far from universal. So you tell me. That seemed to be the *perfect* model for what you describe. Why didn't it turn the industry upside-down?

That "seemed" to be a perfect model but it wasn't.

1. Final Touch was far from perfect, as I have learned from a few colleagues who had been using it.

2. Accompanying essential hardware was weaker and more expensive, creating a greater distance (more "cons") to the potential market.

3. Affordable tool was present (HD version) which could deliver but there was no material. Which HD material are you referring to ? Film scans ? Cinealta ? I hope you're not referring to DVCProHD. Again, I'm trying to stress the difference between segments and clients > related to the type of footage > related to usability of the software to it's full extent. Which leads to justifying the purchase and time used to learn the software and adopt the workflow.

4. Color grading started to blossom only in the last decade or so. Ten or fifteen years ago mostly the simpler picture manipulations and looks were being made. Because it was film. Film has it's look, especially after various chemical treatments. Digital is sterile until "sculpted". Especially RAW. Color grading was practically unknown then to smaller productions, not just to them - to their clients also. No critical mass was there.

Post evolved. People realized that you can further "design" the image after it has been designed on set, whether it comes from film or sensor. Another creative tool has been given to the creative workflow. "Given" as "being closer and more familiar than before".

Today, more and more you have multiple masks through the whole movie or most of it. Not to mention the looks of movies everyone remembers and tries to copy these days. It takes time for people to get introduced to a whole new set of tools and creative options. Especially if the tools are expensive, rare and learning options are very limited.
Being in an affordable segment Silicon Color had a misfortune of wrong timing. The time is now.

No need to apologize

Actually, I was expressing how I feel on this.
That does not mean I wouldn't apologize if I felt there was a need to.

- this is just healthy debate!

I hope it is. Well, healthy factors help inducing health. As the current workflow is not healthy from my perspective, maybe we can get there in time.
I'm not in a hurry. I've learned to calm my nerves enough after Motion, so Color can be workable. ;-)

 

[M Most]

In this case that rule is in a process of change, IMO. I think you can guess why. ;-)

That change could lead to this interpretation:

"There are more potential customers which have a bar set high."

Having read all of your posts in this thread, I have to say that what all of this sounds like is a bunch of rationalizations, some fairly well stated, some not, for the basic premise - often stated here in much the same way - of "I want cheap stuff because companies should give it to me." Or perhaps the just as oft stated "because Red decided to charge much less than other camera suppliers, every company in the film business should now charge proportionally less as well."

I don't know where people have gotten what seems to be an extreme sense of entitlement these days. And in the worst recession most of us have ever known in our lives, I don't know why people seem to think that companies making specific tools for a limited audience in a specific industry should suddenly think they can sell to the mass market and be hugely profitable if only they lowered their prices by 75%. Sounds to me like you take Chris Anderson a bit too seriously.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Having read all of your posts in this thread, I have to say that what all of this sounds like is a bunch of rationalizations, some fairly well stated, some not, for the basic premise - often stated here in much the same way - of "I want cheap stuff because companies should give it to me."

Okay...
I think I have provided enough for my point to be understood. Let's play with this a bit:

"I want cheap stuff because companies should give it to me."

Starting from:

I want cheap stuff

1. "I" am not important in this. The point I'm trying to make is. By thinking about "I" factor you are clearly missing the point.
I can continue using Color, which will eventually turn into great and reliable tool. I doubt Color will remain to be the only option.
Let's change "I" into "users"
2. I think the word "need" would be more suitable than "want".
3. Definition and interpretation oh "cheap" is very relative. Let's turn "cheap" into "five-figure-range-type-of-affordable"
4. Personally I would use the word "creative tools" instead of "stuff", but let's leave "stuff" just for kicks.

Okay. Now we have:

Users need five-figure-range-type-of-affordable stuff

moving on

companies should give it to me.

let's change "give" into "react", and "me" into "market"
plus add something extra so we could get:

Companies should react to the market demand

So...now we have:

Users need five figure range type of affordable stuff

+

Companies should react to the market demand

Now..something is missing here...I know...let's add something again, plus change order and construct these two into:

Companies should react to the market demand
if the market shows a gap where there is a critical mass of
users who need five-figure-range-type-of-affordable stuff

Hmm....it still doesn't sound right.

This one does:

I think
that the companies should react to the market demand
if the market shows a gap where there is a critical mass of
users who need five-figure-range-type-of-affordable stuff

Now...you could have gotten to the exact construction I just did.
I just wanted to help you not to get caught into the same ego trap the next time.



Apologies to Redusers for another large post.

 

[M Most]

I just wanted to help you not to get caught into the same ego trap the next time.

Oh gee, thanks. I so needed the help. :wacko:

And to think I was just beginning to miss Laguun and his insistence on always having the last word (actually, about 10 paragraphs of the last word - and especially when Lucas was the sparring partner) even when the conversation was already over.

 

[Mike Harrington]

I don't know where people have gotten what seems to be an extreme sense of entitlement these days

this forum is about who will step up to the plate workflow wise....
whoever brings us that workflow will be paid....

there is no entitlement....

I agree we have to watch that we don't scream "unfair" or "give me this product at a certain price or your business will surely fail"

but a "healthy debate" as Luki put it is warranted and the reason for these forums.

 

[Nick Wolf]

Pardon me guys a moment;

I miss Laguun...

And the dialogue generated by those debates between the big tec brains around here were so rich in knowledge...I think the site is poorer with his absence...No matter what the point of view was ( For or Against ) it was always exciting and informative to read.

I recall reading Laguun asking Lucas to join in a drink at IBC ... Did that happen?

If not why?

This sandbox is big enough for everyone with something of value to contribute to be welcome...

DogDay.

 

[HD Hildebrand]

I don't know where people have gotten what seems to be an extreme sense of entitlement these days.

We've gone through the baby boomers, then generation x, y and z, and now we've come upon the entitlement generation. It's everywhere and it's kind of freaky at times. Some of us have just been around a little longer to know that the world doesn't actually owe us something. Mind you, the baby boomers have always thought they were God's gift to entitlement - they still do.

Then again, if there's a better deal to be had with better quality, I'm all over it. Why? Because I'm entitled to it.

But hey, that's just me, and I'm entitled to my opinion (and entitlement). :sarcasm:

 

[Lucas Wilson]

I recall reading Laguun asking Lucas to join in a drink at IBC ... Did that happen?

Yep... we had a couple of drinks.

Lucas

 

[Mike Harrington]

Pardon me guys a moment;

I miss Laguun...

And the dialogue generated by those debates between the big tec brains around here were so rich in knowledge...I think the site is poorer with his absence...No matter what the point of view was ( For or Against ) it was always exciting and informative to read.

I recall reading Laguun asking Lucas to join in a drink at IBC ... Did that happen?

If not why?

This sandbox is big enough for everyone with something of value to contribute to be welcome...

DogDay.

I don't think he's banned is he?

 

[ericyoung]

Why would any company making high end color correction software want to sell it for 4 figures?...Even with a freeish app like Color, how many people have mastered it yet? The others aren't going to be less complex...There are affordable apps like Colorista and Color Finesse and I suspect there will be more.

...I was talking about real color grading, not advanced color correction...Are you suggesting that there is no demand for this or that the proper grading should be left only for high end studios ?

:umm: I believe there are no stupid questions, so...

New to the finishing side of things, I'm confused about the professional high end definition of the terms "grading" and "colour correction".

With stills, I'm confident that with properly exposed digital pictures I can make them appear "natural" and "good" or give them whatever creative "look" I want within Photoshop. My understanding is that making a digital still appear natural and good would be defined as colour correction, and giving it a creative look would be defined as grading (applying a stylistic manipulation of image parameters to achieve a emotional feel or artistic interpretation of the captured scene).

So what makes Apple Color, Colorista, Color Finesse merely colour correction tools, and Scratch, Pablo, DaVinci, etc grading tools?

Apart from hardware, and a talented operator, what stops the low end apps being useable for grading like I think Photoshop can be used for almost everything in the stills world?

 

[Mike Harrington]

some of them are fine....

Color Finesse needs masking and tracking....(you can do it in after effects but it's a pain)

Colorista needs secondaries, and it's only 8 bit in PPro (i know the marketing dosn't say it but it's true)

Color is pretty complete for 2k

they are the same as a high end grading tool except in some cases precision, realtime, features(versioning,tracking ect)

you could grade with any of these, or fusion, nuke, combustion ect
it's all a matter of workflow and speed

scratch would run circles around any of the above(in terms of workflow and speed)

 

[M Most]

New to the finishing side of things, I'm confused about the professional high end definition of the terms "grading" and "colour correction"....
So what makes Apple Color, Colorista, Color Finesse merely colour correction tools, and Scratch, Pablo, DaVinci, etc grading tools?

The terms are interchangeable. Color Correction is a term that has been used in the US for years to describe electronic color manipulation, just as the term timing has been used for years to describe the photochemical version of the same thing, achieved by varying the printing lights. Grading has long been the European term for the same thing, and has been adapted by forums like this one, most likely because the original posts referring to it were probably put here by European (or possibly Canadian) members. "Grading" is not a term that has been used by the American film and video industry, the terminology has always been color correction (electronic) or timing (film). The only exception to this has been in live video, where the process of matching cameras is usually called "painting."

Confused yet?

 

[ericyoung]

So if one is willing to work around missing tools and features, and have enough time, it's possible to achieve the same result as a high end grading suite, or near enough that your average film enthusiast at home wouldn't notice any difference in a film out or digital cinema projection?

 

[Nick Wolf]

Lucas,

WoW very cool...That makes me very happy to hear, ( :Assuming it was fun and interesting, most likely a bit surreal?: ) ... After all you both are super passionate about what you do, so actually you probably have more in common than is generally assumed...Either way the heated discussions between the two of you have been really facinating to follow.

Ciao,

DogDay.

 

[M Most]

So if one is willing to work around missing tools and features, and have enough time, it's possible to achieve the same result as a high end grading suite, or near enough that your average film enthusiast at home wouldn't notice any difference in a film out or digital cinema projection?

In theory. However, you also need lots and lots of time and patience, proper monitoring (to ensure that what you're seeing is what everyone else will see), a color management pipeline and the ability to convert to different distribution mediums seamlessly, and the knowledge and talent to do the work properly.

So yes, if you have all of the above, you could theoretically use tools like After Effects, Photoshop, Shake, Combustion, or just about anything else that can manipulate digital image data to do the same things the "big boys" do. It will take you a lot longer, you'll have to do a lot of things more than once to get it right, and in the end it will probably cost you a lot more than it's worth. But technically it can be done.

At the risk of sounding redundant, though: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. It applies here just as it's applied to numerous other things in the past.