Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Baselight color grading plugin for finalcut pro "seriously"

I had seen it today and Baselight on FCP is true indeed. But it is with one a huge caveat: It's a work in progress.
Nothing really had been decided yet. It runs on FCP 7, but as i said, the devils in the details. BL plugin is a demonstration technology right now. According to FL, FCP was just an obvious choice of the most popular editing software on a Mac. They could have as well decided to use PPro, AE or some other software. They still may do that. They are talking with Foundry about doing BL plugin for Nuke! So, what is it really and what it's real purpose? I'm too exhausted for the long explanation, that needed to really explain the whole story behind the BL plugin. May be Martin or someone else can start it, but I need some food and a drink:-)
 
jake blackstone said:
I had seen it today and Baselight on FCP is true indeed. But it is with one a huge caveat: It's a work in progress.
Nothing really had been decided yet. It runs on FCP 7, but as i said, the devils in the details. BL plugin is a demonstration technology right now. According to FL, FCP was just an obvious choice of the most popular editing software on a Mac. They could have as well decided to use PPro, AE or some other software. They still may do that. They are talking with Foundry about doing BL plugin for Nuke! So, what is it really and what it's real purpose? I'm too exhausted for the long explanation, that needed to really explain the whole story behind the BL plugin. May be Martin or someone else can start it, but I need some food and a drink:-)
Click to expand...

Go eat, take a nap. I have been waiting all day for your opinion on the BL plugin.
 
Same here Jake!
 
OK, that's better:-)
Back to BL plugin. First a little background. As many of you know, Baselight on a Mac had been in existence for number of years. FL was not interested in following the footsteps of other companies in a race to the bottom on a Mac platform. At the same time, no company can ignore the exploding indy market. So, instead FL decided to establish a presence on a Mac and to use it as an opportunity to pursue a multi prong goal. The most important being "look management". Again, a little background. CDL had failed miserably. Right now, if any material is sent out to, say, VFX some kind of LUT needs to accompany that material. That solution in itself is not a great one. Now, imagine, with those files you send an XML generated by the Baselight, driven by the colorist. VFX house opens up this XML inside the NUKE and everything now has proper color, proper cuts and nothing is baked in, just like any metadata. So, if everyone in the pipeline -editorial, VFX, color grading, finish all had the same BL plugin, imagine the possibilities! Imagine, that now conform can be done in FCP, shapes can be tracked and the whole project can be prepared for BL. BL session can be performed, but no render needed. Export the session from BL and open it in FCP, adjust, if needed, render at required resolution or resolutions. So, as you can see, it's more, than just grading, it's a development platform. It will change a good deal, before it will be released in a fall.
Just couple more notes.
There will be a GPU support.
Only 4 layers will be supported in BL plugin.
Artist series panel is working and it can be user reconfigured.
There will be some other limitation, some based on API limitations, some based on marketing. At this point nobody really knows how this will end, including FL. But from what I had heard, I'm very optimistic...
Frankie, you should buy 10!!! I thought you were coming to NAB?
And, if anyone happens to be by the FL booth, check out the new 4.3 version. Three screens, background rendering and the best of all- the new panel. It's by far the coolest thing I had ever seen. You have to see it to appreciate it.
 
Resolve is way better than I thought anyway...

I'm cool either which way.

I suspect the new FCP will be a powerhouse for grading very soon. 4k, direct R3d etc etc...
I do alot of grading now in FCP 3way with Saphire plugins. Seriously not a problem and super quick!
So many options out there, everyone just needs to buy the one that suits them.
 
Hi Jake,

> Only 4 layers will be supported in BL plugin.

The 4 layers was simply a little hard-wired thing for the demo - there will be more than 4 layers in the release version.
 
Martin Tlaskal said:
Hi Jake,

> Only 4 layers will be supported in BL plugin.

The 4 layers was simply a little hard-wired thing for the demo - there will be more than 4 layers in the release version.
Click to expand...
I guess, I misunderstood you:-) Sorry. So, will then BL plugin operate just like the real BL- unlimited layers?
And, while I have you here, were anything in the new FCPx announcement, that had an impact on FL development for the BL plugin? Does FL plans take advantage of the new 64 bit architecture and Grand Central Dispatch? And will you rewrite GPU support with Open CL or will you utilize CUDA, which obviously would limit plugin acceleration to nVidia cards only?
And finally, I'd like to add, that it was great to finally meet you in person and see the rest of FL gang .
 
Martin Tlaskal said:
Hi Jake,

> Only 4 layers will be supported in BL plugin.

The 4 layers was simply a little hard-wired thing for the demo - there will be more than 4 layers in the release version.
Click to expand...

Will we see any CS5 support?
 
shashbugu said:
Really harsh but true. Stop dissing us Jake we are trying to find time to learn. Its easier for us to always just hire a colorist.
Click to expand...
Jake is actually right. Far too many people don't get that the hard part of color-correcting is located about 3 feet behind the keyboard.

Alexis Van Hurkman's recent book, Color Correction Handbook, puts it very well when it says, "you aren't a good colorist until you've had at least 5000 hours' worth of experience." It's very hard to argue with that. This is the first decent book I've ever seen on the art of color correction, and it covers pretty much everything current (including the full version of Baselight).

I would add to Jake's list: 1) having very good, 100% reliable monitoring, and 2) having proper scopes. Having tons of fast storage helps, too.

The new Baselight 2 control surface is extraordinary -- one of the best things I saw at NAB.
 
Marc Wielage said:
J
The new Baselight 2 control surface is extraordinary -- one of the best things I saw at NAB.
Click to expand...

It's one of those things, that when you see it, you can't believe your eyes. http://vimeo.com/22301647?ab
On the other note, with the release of Resolve, it feels, that color grading quickly becoming a commodity, where everyone does their own grading, good or bad. Resolve rapidly becoming a tool reminiscent of a Photoshop. So, rather than to continue on the path of least resistance on the road to nowhere, I decided to embrace the new way of doing business- final finishing. In particular- Smoke finishing. In my opinion, Smoke is the only true finishing system, that is capable of handling pretty much anything you throw at it, that is except the ability to write Prores and DNxHD, arghhh
With the inclusion of new relighting tools in the 2012 Smoke, it is now possible to not only do a traditional i.e. flat 2D color grading, a la windows and masks, but now it is possible to completely relight the scene in true 3D environment with real volumetric lighting, that interacts with the environment- with true occlusions, with lights casting realistic shadows and realistic procedural lens flares etc. Smoke can take EDL, XML or AAF and completely finish the whole project in one box. The only thing I'm sorry, is that I haven't made this decision a long time ago, as it takes conciderable time to get familiar with the Smoke interface. I just hope, that BM doesn't come up with the consumer $1k version of Flame:-)
 
jake blackstone said:
It's one of those things, that when you see it, you can't believe your eyes. http://vimeo.com/22301647?ab
On the other note, with the release of Resolve, it feels, that color grading quickly becoming a commodity, where everyone does their own grading, good or bad. Resolve rapidly becoming a tool reminiscent of a Photoshop. So, rather than to continue on the path of least resistance on the road to nowhere, I decided to embrace the new way of doing business- final finishing. In particular- Smoke finishing. In my opinion, Smoke is the only true finishing system, that is capable of handling pretty much anything you throw at it, that is except the ability to write Prores and DNxHD, arghhh
With the inclusion of new relighting tools in the 2012 Smoke, it is now possible to not only do a traditional i.e. flat 2D color grading, a la windows and masks, but now it is possible to completely relight the scene in true 3D environment with real volumetric lighting, that interacts with the environment- with true occlusions, with lights casting realistic shadows and realistic procedural lens flares etc. Smoke can take EDL, XML or AAF and completely finish the whole project in one box. The only thing I'm sorry, is that I haven't made this decision a long time ago, as it takes conciderable time to get familiar with the Smoke interface.
Click to expand...


Haha, Jake - seems we are in the same boat.

I bought Smoke roughly a year ago for my own projects but I can see very well you intention regarding postproduction business.

This were my reasons:

1. All my projects will have changes AFTER finishing. Going back to the NLE and then re-comform has been a very tedious process.

2. I have very often minor VFX like re-grading, touch-ups, text, etc.... Sometimes bigger tasks like green screen composits in a 3D environment or sky replacements occur. Before Smoke I've done that with Shake and it took me literally weeks to come to acceptable results. Now I count in hours - no, minutes.

3. Smoke is not Nuke/Shake/Fusion or Flame. But it has an ueber-toolsset that can accomplish all of my needs. If not - I have to reactivate Shake.

4. I use SpeedGrade for colouring rushes. I keep this workflow because even Smoke has sufficient grading tools it's not an RT grading app.

5. FCP as a finishing tool is only a make-shift as best. Gamma hell, 8-Bit RGB handling, mediocre render quality/filter are annoying.
PP ist doing many things better but it is in no ways close to Smoke's abilities.

And yes, the new 2012 release is a major one. I love the new Defocus in Blur that creates marvelous bokehs and - best of all- resides also in the Modular Keyer and hence is available in Action. Furthermore, the Denoise tool is worth to look at. It takes some time to understand how it works but after a while you can achieve excellent results (check the slider Detail...)

Auto Stabilizer is an interesting alternative to Smoke's excellent Tracker. I have accomplished convincing results in a very short time frame with non-panning shots. I still have to figure out how to stabilize pans/tracks and fast moves with Auto Stabilize.

Lat but not least 2D Transform has a convenient handheld shake button that creates realistic shakes if you except the fact that
obviously no parallax shifts can take place.

The new Action with all the lighting nodes is wonderful and makes AE for me obsolete.

This said it took me roughly 1 year constant work on over 10 projects to get familiar with Smoke's interface. But it's the video junkie's dream machine:

Editing, Comping, Grading and sound design (yes Smoke's sound effects smoke all audio tools in any of the other NLEs and there is OMF I/O...) in one machine is all I wanted so badly all the years. I'll never look back.


jake blackstone said:
I just hope, that BM doesn't come up with the consumer $1k version of Flame:-)
Click to expand...

The reason why Smoke is not spread all over the world is the steep and loooong learning curve and the knowledge an operator must have to work with this tool.
Flame's tool set is even bigger - so no worries here.... Apple Color, Resolve, etc... are comparable easy to work with. But to achieve results that exceed the clients expectations is not easy regardless the tool one uses.


Hans
 
jake blackstone said:
It's one of those things, that when you see it, you can't believe your eyes. http://vimeo.com/22301647?ab
On the other note, with the release of Resolve, it feels, that color grading quickly becoming a commodity, where everyone does their own grading, good or bad. Resolve rapidly becoming a tool reminiscent of a Photoshop. So, rather than to continue on the path of least resistance on the road to nowhere, I decided to embrace the new way of doing business- final finishing. In particular- Smoke finishing. In my opinion, Smoke is the only true finishing system, that is capable of handling pretty much anything you throw at it, that is except the ability to write Prores and DNxHD, arghhh
With the inclusion of new relighting tools in the 2012 Smoke, it is now possible to not only do a traditional i.e. flat 2D color grading, a la windows and masks, but now it is possible to completely relight the scene in true 3D environment with real volumetric lighting, that interacts with the environment- with true occlusions, with lights casting realistic shadows and realistic procedural lens flares etc. Smoke can take EDL, XML or AAF and completely finish the whole project in one box. The only thing I'm sorry, is that I haven't made this decision a long time ago, as it takes conciderable time to get familiar with the Smoke interface. I just hope, that BM doesn't come up with the consumer $1k version of Flame:-)
Click to expand...

Make sure you get the Logic Smoke keyboard, an wacom intous, and optionally (especially for you) a euphonix control surface. The Logic keyboard greatly reduces the learning curve. The interface is pretty daunting at first but once you realize what the tools are capable of doing, you will eventually force yourself to get used to it. Smoke really changes the choices you make when you are making pre-production decisions on the anatomy of a scene. A few more 3D plates on set and some camera projection know how goes a long way in smoke. The nomenclature of of source and record sound pretty straight forward until you realize that you actually create pre-composites, sequences, grades, etc saving them in the clip library before committing them to the record creative conform timeline. Very slick.

The biggest gripes that I keep hammering Autodesk about, and I have a list longer than anyone can imagine. It takes about 5 steps to render a sequence. Come on Autodesk you are on a Mac now get with it. The interface is fine, but importing soft or hard, versioning, and rendering take way too long to do. even the drag and drop import isn't soft.
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Haha, Jake - seems we are in the same boat.

I bought Smoke roughly a year ago for my own projects but I can see very well you intention regarding postproduction business.

This were my reasons:

1. All my projects will have changes AFTER finishing. Going back to the NLE and then re-comform has been a very tedious process.

2. I have very often minor VFX like re-grading, touch-ups, text, etc.... Sometimes bigger tasks like green screen composits in a 3D environment or sky replacements occur. Before Smoke I've done that with Shake and it took me literally weeks to come to acceptable results. Now I count in hours - no, minutes.

3. Smoke is not Nuke/Shake/Fusion or Flame. But it has an ueber-toolsset that can accomplish all of my needs. If not - I have to reactivate Shake.

4. I use SpeedGrade for colouring rushes. I keep this workflow because even Smoke has sufficient grading tools it's not an RT grading app.

5. FCP as a finishing tool is only a make-shift as best. Gamma hell, 8-Bit RGB handling, mediocre render quality/filter are annoying.
PP ist doing many things better but it is in no ways close to Smoke's abilities.

And yes, the new 2012 release is a major one. I love the new Defocus in Blur that creates marvelous bokehs and - best of all- resides also in the Modular Keyer and hence is available in Action. Furthermore, the Denoise tool is worth to look at. It takes some time to understand how it works but after a while you can achieve excellent results (check the slider Detail...)

Auto Stabilizer is an interesting alternative to Smoke's excellent Tracker. I have accomplished convincing results in a very short time frame with non-panning shots. I still have to figure out how to stabilize pans/tracks and fast moves with Auto Stabilize.

Lat but not least 2D Transform has a convenient handheld shake button that creates realistic shakes if you except the fact that
obviously no parallax shifts can take place.

The new Action with all the lighting nodes is wonderful and makes AE for me obsolete.

This said it took me roughly 1 year constant work on over 10 projects to get familiar with Smoke's interface. But it's the video junkie's dream machine:

Editing, Comping, Grading and sound design (yes Smoke's sound effects smoke all audio tools in any of the other NLEs and there is OMF I/O...) in one machine is all I wanted so badly all the years. I'll never look back.




The reason why Smoke is not spread all over the world is the steep and loooong learning curve and the knowledge an operator must have to work with this tool.
Flame's tool set is even bigger - so no worries here.... Apple Color, Resolve, etc... are comparable easy to work with. But to achieve results that exceed the clients expectations is not easy regardless the tool one uses.


Hans
Click to expand...

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. Heck, CC and CW is just a tiny portion of total capabilities of Smoke. Oh, how would I like to see Lustre included with Smoke on a Mac. It's so easy, when Smoke just creates the project for Lustre. No conforming, just drag and drop the project into the timeline and start grading.
Yeah Hans. A year of learning, before getting really familiar with the interface sounds about right, that's what I figured.
The only aspect, that continues to be otherly puzzling is total luck of support for main compressed codecs- Prores, DNxHD and Cineform. 2012 is a major upgrade and yet, no progress on the codec front. But on a positive note, Service Pack 1, barely a week after NAB, now includes EPIC support, nice!
 
jake blackstone said:
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".
Click to expand...

While it's certainly true that the gear is a lot more affordable, I would argue that the accuracy of your statement really depends on who the clients are. In the circles I travel in, it's absolutely not the case.
 
M Most said:
While it's certainly true that the gear is a lot more affordable, I would argue that the accuracy of your statement really depends on who the clients are. In the circles I travel in, it's absolutely not the case.
Click to expand...

Not sure Mike I understand which statement you're disagreeing with? "Great colorists are still worth their weight in gold". Is that the one? Or the "It's just now, as I said many times before, anyone now can be a "colorist". You did noticed the parenthesis?
 
everything is easy when you know how.

I guess its easy, just as you can say Editing or VFX is easy. That is what makes a professional... they make things look easy, it is after all their profession.
 
roryhinds said:
everything is easy when you know how and there is a lot more to color grading then playing with colors as it encompasses the whole finishing stage of the project from conform to final delivery.

I guess its easy just as you can say Editing or VFX compositing is easy. That is what makes a professional... they make things look easy, it is after all their profession.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite. Why do you say "Director / DoP / Colourist"? Why not VFX artist or an editor as well? Why stop at the colorist? Do you consider yourself an accomplished enough colorist to define yourself as a such? Why? I'm sure you could do a few simple edits in FCP or Avid, if needed, right? Then why is it OK to say you're a colorist and not an editor? I'm not in any way attacking you personally, I'm just trying to understand...
And, yes, I see the erosion of skills and the loss of respect in the art of color grading every day, when practically anyone can push a few colors around and call themselves a "colorist".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top