FCPX - apply LUTs / color to original media or optimized ProRes?

[Hrvoje Simic]

I am pretty sure Marc needs no advocate, but this needs to be said.

Marc - you love to her yourself talk but you don't listen.

Really ? If one disregards the guesswork of who loves what, based on your rethoric in this thread alone, the listening part issue is of debatable origin.

Even if one also disregards the FCPX circus and same communicative issue a while back.

You answer questions people aren't asking.

He's saying what should be said. On top of what was being asked.

I'm sure you have good intentions and for the willingness to help I applaude you but if you don't like what he's saying just ignore it, starting a debate out of nothing and fillling a forum with perpetuated ping-pong doesn't help anyone.

Thats three P's.
Four if you count the second "p" in "perpetuated".

I never asked for your advice but you love to lecture.

He is giving advice to those willing to listen.

No, he's not "lecturing", he's sharing the knowledge and saying what many would confirm.

You assume people are ignorant rather than consider the fact that they have reasons to disagree with you.

You assume what Marc is assuming.

Accuracy probability level: Low

+

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

&

Little Johnny has a reason for doing number 2 in his diapers.
Which doesn't make that a preferred route.

That was not a comparison of you and little Johhny, that was analogy to the rethoric validity.

Consider the fact that people have read the books and studied the literature and come to a different conclusion because they have a different frame of reference.

That's all cool but you can be from Mars and OS internal calibration will still be unreliable for color critical work and iMac retina screen will still fail to display green gamut properly.

No, it is not a big drama and yes it is much better than it used to be, and yes it might be usable, but at the risk of issues and unexpected results.

Which does not have to be a big deal with own expressive routes and creative works but can be a big deal with authors and clients targeting an exact visual aesthetic to their audience. And can be a big deal if the "good enough" principle is not balanced with higher criteria within this community, leading to illlusion that Apple is actually providing all it takes in their all-in-one.

So...someone with experience and willing to help should be able to point this out to help a fellow Creative without having to go through a pointless perpetuated ping-pong.

That's 4 Ps.
Five if you count the second "p" in "perpetuated".

You strike me as someone who, instead of having 20 years of experience, has one year of experience 20 times over.

That is just your projection.

Let's see.
Projection-painted pointless perpetuated ping-pong.

That's 6 Ps of online time-wasting.
7 if you count the second "p" in "perpetuated".

As I tried to tell you, the advice you are giving is credible, it just isn't helpful.

It is both credible and helpful if there is a will to consider and capacity to understand.

 

[Marc Wielage]

You strike me as someone who, instead of having 20 years of experience, has one year of experience 20 times over.

Actually... I have 35 years' experience in post-production in LA. If I live to this coming July, I'll hit 43 continuous years working in Television (in general). My IMDB credits are incomplete, but I think the 400 citations there only go through 1983. There's way more than that omitted, since there's no credits for commercials, industrial films, music videos, shorts, and stuff like that. (Just as well -- there's a whole lot I'd like to forget.)

I only have one point: don't assume that what you see on an iMac is accurate. End of observation. Monitor accuracy is a huge, huge problem in our industry, and it may be worse now than it's ever been. The vast amount of ignorance on the client side is wearying and a constant hassle. What's worse is when a well-intentioned professional goes out and shoots something, assumes it's OK because of the on-set display (like an iMac), then they later see it on a halfway decent monitor and realize their own display has been lying to them. It's sad when this happens and can be catastrophic.

Quick side-story: I was at the Apple Store at The Grove in West LA today, and happened to see about 10 iMacs on display, each showing the same demo. All of them looked different. Which of them was correct? Chances are... none of them. And this is a fairly upscale, happening store. This is a big problem for TV, for film, for design professionals, artists, all kinds of people.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Andy, you and me can stay on topic:

I'm not sure I get your original question. FCPX will generate 'optimized media' to allow for better playback—normally this is ProRes 422.

You can then apply your edits and grades (I also highly recommend Color Finale) or LUTs. The ProRes files that FCPX created will help your computer perform better. But when you export, FCPX will use the original media as the underlying data to minimize unnecessary generation loss.

Same thing if you import 4k files but edit in a HD project: on export, FCPX will use the 4k original media to generate your exported files with all your corrections and edits.