Baselight color grading plugin for finalcut pro "seriously"

[Marc Wielage]

Just wanted to point out, that thanks to a miserable, in my opinion, Resolve interface, 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.

I understand layers and nodes just fine. But I don't understand your saying. Everything you're talking about, I can do in one Resolve nodes. Two if you had an outside layer, three if I have a separate base correction at the beginning (which is how I usually work). This is fundamentally no different than Baselight. At least in Resolve, I can glance up and quickly what each node is doing. This was a problem in Baselight, but was solved to a degree in 4.2 with Layer View. And that's still not as fast as Resolve (in terms of user response).

For what I do, Lustre isn't fast enough to keep me and my clients happy. I think you can basically get anywhere you want with every major color-corrector out there, but a lot boils down to the colorist's expectations, operating philosophy, and client requirements. Like Mike Most, I've probably used close to a dozen color-correction systems in over 25 years -- going back to Topsy, Dubner, The Image Transform system, Amigo, Arcas, daVinci 888, daVinci 2K, Pogle Pandora, Lustre, and most recently, Baselight and Resolve. That's 11 different color-correctors rolling around in my head from the last three decades. Happily, I've closed the door on all but the last two. (Until the next time I have to learn a new one.)

And don't even get me started on the color sliders in grading interface.

Buy the control surface and you won't have this problem. I'm not a fan of trying to color correct with a mouse, certainly not on a big project with a room full of clients. Oh, it can be done -- but it's also probably possible to drive a car with a mouse and a keyboard. The question is, would you really want to?

There are things you still need a mouse for, like creating custom curves and so on, but that's not something I think you'll need to tweak on every single shot. This is not rocket science. You're acting like a golfer who's more worried about what shoes and golf bag he's using than keeping his eye on the ball, and plotting out how he's going to sink the next shot.

 

[M Most]

I understand layers and nodes just fine. But I don't understand your saying. Everything you're talking about, I can do in one Resolve nodes. Two if you had an outside layer, three if I have a separate base correction at the beginning (which is how I usually work). This is fundamentally no different than Baselight. At least in Resolve, I can glance up and quickly what each node is doing. This was a problem in Baselight, but was solved to a degree in 4.2 with Layer View. And that's still not as fast as Resolve (in terms of user response).

It's solved more directly in 4.3, as they've added a flow view for the current layer (if you have a Blackboard2, don't know about current Blackboard...).

Like Mike Most, I've probably used close to a dozen color-correction systems in over 25 years -- going back to Topsy, Dubner, The Image Transform system, Amigo, Arcas, daVinci 888, daVinci 2K, Pogle Pandora, Lustre, and most recently, Baselight and Resolve. That's 11 different color-correctors rolling around in my head from the last three decades. Happily, I've closed the door on all but the last two. (Until the next time I have to learn a new one.)l

If you substitute "Encore version of Dubner" for "Image Transform," and "CCC Sunburst" for "Arcas", my list is virtually identical.

 

[jake blackstone]

I understand layers and nodes just fine. But I don't understand your saying. Everything you're talking about, I can do in one Resolve nodes. Two if you had an outside layer, three if I have a separate base correction at the beginning (which is how I usually work). This is fundamentally no different than Baselight. At least in Resolve, I can glance up and quickly what each node is doing. This was a problem in Baselight, but was solved to a degree in 4.2 with Layer View. And that's still not as fast as Resolve (in terms of user response).

For what I do, Lustre isn't fast enough to keep me and my clients happy. I think you can basically get anywhere you want with every major color-corrector out there, but a lot boils down to the colorist's expectations, operating philosophy, and client requirements. Like Mike Most, I've probably used close to a dozen color-correction systems in over 25 years -- going back to Topsy, Dubner, The Image Transform system, Amigo, Arcas, daVinci 888, daVinci 2K, Pogle Pandora, Lustre, and most recently, Baselight and Resolve. That's 11 different color-correctors rolling around in my head from the last three decades. Happily, I've closed the door on all but the last two. (Until the next time I have to learn a new one.)


Buy the control surface and you won't have this problem. I'm not a fan of trying to color correct with a mouse, certainly not on a big project with a room full of clients. Oh, it can be done -- but it's also probably possible to drive a car with a mouse and a keyboard. The question is, would you really want to?

There are things you still need a mouse for, like creating custom curves and so on, but that's not something I think you'll need to tweak on every single shot. This is not rocket science. You're acting like a golfer who's more worried about what shoes and golf bag he's using than keeping his eye on the ball, and plotting out how he's going to sink the next shot.

Well, I didn't know we're comparing our d..ks, so let me add FilmMaster and a little of Scratch to the list, so there, now all three of us have our credentials in the open.
BTW, did your Pogle had ESR? Mine did
Anyway, if you bothered to read my post in full, you'd see, that I expressed the notion, that UI is subjective. Therefore, I proposed to use a real life measurement of it's usefulness, as it relates to the user interaction with the device. For that I'd provided a specific instance of Resolve being positioned as an "on-set" grading device. As it's stands now, Resolve is not very useful, unless you use a panel. People on set don't have a luxury of unlimited space and a simple modification to the UI would make Resolve more useful as opposed to being less useful now. Users would be able simply use their MB Pro without a panel. Do you still want to argue this point?
Let's move on to the nodes.
I know only two color grading devices, that uses nodes and not layers. Well, may be DaVinci and now BM knows something, that the rest of the industry doesn't... So, again, rather than talk about golf, which I know nothing about, I'd rather give you a real life example of efficient UI.
Say, you just graded 10 shots with a girl wearing a green dress. Client wanted the dress blue. OK, no problem, you whip out your "wonder node", pull the key, add garbage mask, track it and finally make your dress blue using primary controls. Great. Well, as it usually happens, an hour later client changes his mind and he insists that the dress now must be red. OK, now imagine you're using one of those "inefficient and slow" systems, like Lustre, BL or FilmMaster. With these "slow" systems you quickly create a new group, where you add those 10 shots of the girl and with BL or Lustre you can even watch those 10 shots on a single screen and adjust the dress live. FilmMaster does it as well, but it doesn't display those shots on the screen. Done and done! Or, if this is too fast, you can make the dress red on one shot and then copy ONLY the primary correction to the rest of shots as a group paste. So, let's look at the "fast and efficient" Resolve UI. Yes, you can copy a node to a group (making a group in resolve an ordeal in itself) , but then your just destroyed your handy key and tracked garbage mask work. Resolve doesn't allow to "drill down" to the needed operator, like Lustre and FilmMaster does.
So, in conclusion, my d..k is longer, yes, you can achieve pretty much the same result with pretty much any software, time permitting, bad UI be damned and I don't play golf. I hope I didn't miss anything else...

 

[Marc Wielage]

For that I'd provided a specific instance of Resolve being positioned as an "on-set" grading device. As it's stands now, Resolve is not very useful, unless you use a panel.

I'm not sure if it's ideal for that. You basically need to apply a LUT and a minor look, and that's all. I also don't think Pablo, Lustre, Nucoda, or Baselight would be appropriate for on-set color, either.

So, let's look at the "fast and efficient" Resolve UI. Yes, you can copy a node to a group (making a group in resolve an ordeal in itself) , but then your just destroyed your handy key and tracked garbage mask work. Resolve doesn't allow to "drill down" to the needed operator, like Lustre and FilmMaster does.

There's workarounds for everything. I'm not so foolish as to pretend one tool works for everything, nor does one way of operating is appropriate for all situations.

As one example: I saved a lot of time on the last Resolve project I did by grabbing previously-saved nodes from the Power Grades and just reusing them over and over again. And it did include a key and a tracked garbage mask. The only thing that doesn't copy over are the keyframes, and those are individualized per shot, anyway. Out of 400 shots in the show (this was a sitcom), I bet 75 had this defocus-key tracked power window. If we'd been on 2K, it would've taken twice as long.

Trying to do this kind of operation is a lot more kludgy and less intuitive on Baselight (though it can be done). It's been so long since I used Lustre, I'm bleary trying to even recall how to do it. But I'm pretty confident I could do it faster on Resolve, plus the tracking is so much more precise, it hands down kills it.

Just being able to create a power window with one button is a nice shortcut. This would be several steps in Baselight... but any good colorist who does this 8-10 hours a day can probably get fast at anything. There's still no working macros in Resolve, and once they put those in (assuming they're as good as the 2K macros), I think that'll speed things up even more, especially with repetitive operations.

 

[M Most]

I'm not sure if it's ideal for that. You basically need to apply a LUT and a minor look, and that's all. I also don't think Pablo, Lustre, Nucoda, or Baselight would be appropriate for on-set color, either.

But it's FREEEE!!!....

I happen to agree with you. Resolve is ridiculous overkill for on-set work, which IMHO should be limited to, as you say, a LUT application and perhaps some basic primary tweaks, and that's it.

I saved a lot of time on the last Resolve project I did by grabbing previously-saved nodes from the Power Grades and just reusing them over and over again. And it did include a key and a tracked garbage mask. The only thing that doesn't copy over are the keyframes, and those are individualized per shot, anyway. Out of 400 shots in the show (this was a sitcom), I bet 75 had this defocus-key tracked power window. If we'd been on 2K, it would've taken twice as long.

Trying to do this kind of operation is a lot more kludgy and less intuitive on Baselight (though it can be done).

Not really. Save the source shot (the one with the original grade) into the Gallery. Point to it. Go to the next shot. Apply it. As many times as you want. If it's a "supplementary" grade - i.e., just the key/garbage mask/defocus operation, smart copy it from the source (one button), then smart paste it wherever you need it (also one step). Adjust the garbage mask as needed. Done. No more steps than Resolve, really.

Just being able to create a power window with one button is a nice shortcut. This would be several steps in Baselight...

Not as of version 4.2. There are several prebuilt shapes available now (ellipse, rectangle, edge wipes from all four directions, and even a light cone). You simply select "shape" on the current (or a new) layer, and select the shape you want. You're now at the same starting point as you are with Resolve. If you want inside and outside falloff, that's there now, too, and separately adjustable.

Fact is. all of the major programs are becoming more streamlined and more feature filled, and each of them is both borrowing ideas from the others, and coming up with novel approaches of their own. The differences between them are more in terms of personal working style, need for a "one box" solution (i.e., features such as a good conforming module, compositing/fix capabilities, that sort of thing), and how they fit into a particular facility infrastructure (i.e., does the facility already use Smoke, or Quantel, etc.). Other than that, it's really just your personal choice. Price is also a consideration, but not in every case.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Fact is. all of the major programs are becoming more streamlined and more feature filled, and each of them is both borrowing ideas from the others, and coming up with novel approaches of their own. The differences between them are more in terms of personal working style, need for a "one box" solution (i.e., features such as a good conforming module, compositing/fix capabilities, that sort of thing), and how they fit into a particular facility infrastructure (i.e., does the facility already use Smoke, or Quantel, etc.). Other than that, it's really just your personal choice. Price is also a consideration, but not in every case.

Yeah, I made the exact same observation about five years ago -- that as time goes on, many of the editing and color-correction systems out there are beginning to blur together and do things in very similar ways. They're more similar than different nowadays than ever before.

I have to admit, it's an interesting time for post facilities when you can buy a full-blown Resolve for $150K, vs. $700K for a full-blown DaVinci 2K ten years ago. It's good for new facilities (or facilities that are upgrading); not so good for large facilities that have a lot of legacy equipment they can't get rid of. I also agree that it's all about the workflow -- what specific file formats are used most often in the facility, how fast you can bring footage in, how fast you can render it out, and so on.

I have used Baselight 4.2, BTW, but you still have to create a layer, then hit the shapes button, then select which specific shape you want. With daVinci, it's one button to add a new node and create an inside window. There are things I prefer about the way Baselight allows you to add bezier curves to a shape, which (as far as I can see) you can't do to a circular power window in Resolve.