Furthermore, once you get the hang of using nodes, you can begin to work out your order of corrections in advance in a classic programmer’s tactic; flowchart your way through a complicated series of operations in order to think them through, except in this case, the flowchart is also the result!

I’ve been discussing node based operations with my friend and colleague Robbie Carman, who’s another DaVinci Resolve beta user, and in the process thought that it might be interesting to share some of my favorite operational aspects of Resolve’s method of node-based correction organization.

#0—A Quick Orientation

Similarly to the node-based Color FX room of Apple Color, node-based corrections in Resolve aren’t for the actual compositing of multiple images with one another. They’re for organizing and combining the different corrections you want to make to your image. Before I dive in, here’s a quick overview of how Resolve uses nodes.

Every clip has a corresponding set of corrections within a “Clip” tab. This tab is Resolve’s node view, where each correction is represented as a rectangular node, with a single input and a single output, which can be seen as little yellow dots to the left and right of each node.

A node tree in the Clip tab of DaVinci Resolve

The flow of image data goes like this: The left-hand bar is the source image on Disk. Connection lines (with small directional arrows) feed image data to the first node in the tree, represented by a thumbnail showing what that node is up to (literally; the correction performed by each node is represented by its tiny thumbnail if your eyes are sharp enough). Connection lines also connect each node you use to one another, feeding image data down the line until the last node is connected to the right-hand bar, which represents the final output.

#1—Organizing My Image Processing

In a very real way, a serial cascade of image processing nodes like that shown above is like a stack of filters in After Effects, Final Cut Pro, or Avid. The output of the top filter feeds the next one in the stack, and so on until you reach the bottom.

You can think of nodes as a similar series of image processing operations. More poetically, you can think of nodes as individual waterfalls along a stream of image processing. Each waterfall alters the flow of data, which in turn feeds the next part of the stream, until you reach the end.

The key thing to remember is that, depending on what type of image processing operations you’re doing, your order of operations matters, a lot. One of the most frustrating things about working in Color is the occasional instance where I discover my order of operations isn’t quite right, usually after I’ve done several corrections. For example, let’s say a primary correction (the first node seen below) blows out the highlights in the sky.

Three nodes, a primary correction, a secondary sky operation, and a third primary for tweaking the color

I don’t really care until my client complains, but then I can’t retrieve it using a secondary correction (the second node in the tree above) because the image data is already clipped. As a result, my secondary HSL Qualifier only succeeds only in creating a bizarre darkened area in the sky:

Attempting to lower the level of the sky fails to retrieve clipped detail

When using Apple Color, my solution in these cases has been to save the Primary correction to the bin, reset the Primary In room, open the Primary Out room, and apply the correction that I saved there, effectively swapping the PI and PO rooms. At that point I can use a secondary of some kind to lower the highlights before I boost the rest of the shot, and so I get to preserve maximum image detail.

In Resolve, this is an even easier operation. All I do is either add a node with which to perform a secondary sky isolation operation before my primary correction (or, if I’d already tried a later secondary correction with no success, swap the two node’s positions in the tree).

Swapping the secondary and primary operations

This allows me to isolate and duck the levels of the sky before boosting the overall levels of the shot in the next node. The result is smoother, more natural, and preserves all the image data that’s available, which is always a bonus.

Lowering the level of the sky before boosting the whole shot preserves detail

This gives me exactly what I need in terms of image processing organization. Now, I grant you there are several other ways of dealing with this particular scenario, but the point is that, using nodes, I control the order of operations, not the application.

Here’s the other nice thing—you can use as many nodes as you like to organize your grades. I like to keep significant operations within separate nodes, so I know where I need to go when I want to make an alteration. That means I might have one node doing a basic corrective grade, a second node adding a bit more warmth and contrast for stylistic effect (as I’ve done in node 3 of the previous example), and then a third node where I add a perhaps questionable alteration that was requested by the client, that I think they might backpedal on later. I could have done the entire series of operations within a single node, but by keeping these three operations separate, I’ve got more options regarding which aspects of the grade I want to continue tweaking, and which I can turn off entirely without affecting the rest of the grade.

#2—Serial and Parallel Organization

So that’s fun with serial node organization. However, Resolve also has Parallel node organization. This is another way of putting nodes together, so that instead of having a single long tree branch, you can stack up simultaneous corrections whereever it makes sense. For example, if you’re planning on using three secondary operations to affect an image at once, you could apply them as a serial operation, like so:

A serial node tree, organized as a linear set of image processing operations

Or you could apply them as a parallel operation, with three stacked nodes feeding a Parallel node.

A series of secondary operations organized as a parallel node tree

Resolve overlays the corrections to produce the result you’d expect, and the tree organizationally makes a lot more sense. However—and this is a big deal—the parallel node structure ensures that each secondary correction node samples the same version of the image. This is important, because I like…

#3—Choosing What My Key Source Is

This one’s easy. Remember I mentioned that the leftmost bar in the Clip tab represents the original state of the image? Well, if you’re adding a secondary operation via a parallel node structure, you can choose whether you want to pull your key off of the original state of the media, or from a particular node of the tree, simply by connecting that node’s input to the source you want to sample.

For example, suppose my look for the primary correction performed by node 1 results in a high-contrast, low saturation image.

A high-contrast, desaturated grade is the starting point

If I wanted to add a second node and use HSL qualification to boost the color of the dress, I could do the simple thing and add another serial node:

Adding a serial node for HSL Qualification

Unfortunately, the image is so desaturated and stylized that it’s really difficult to pull a decent key. Here’s an example of my first sampling click:

Terrible isolation due to a poor source selection

Even though node 1 is doing what you want it to, the result is that the image is in a crummy state to have to pull a key off of.

However, there’s a better solution, which is to use the parallel node structure described previously, connecting the input of node 2 that’s pulling the key to the media source bar, instead of the previous node:

Pulling a key off the original state of the image using parallel node construction

Now, using the original state of the media, it’s easy to pull a great key. Here’s an example of my first sampling click using this new node structure:

A better key, sampling from the source media

Now that we can get a better key, it’s easy to manipulate the color of the dress however we like, and then feed it back into the image.

Adding color back to the image, after the fact

So there you have it, complete control of image sampling, all through the power of selective node connectivity. I love me some nodes.

Image Credits

Photography by Kaylynn Raschke. Special thanks to Gal Friday and Sasha Nialla for modelling. Images excerpted from my new book, Color Correction Handbook: Professional Techniques for Video and Cinema.

Yes, it’s “the last month of writing my book,” and just like every other book’s last month, it’s a round-the-clock marathon of typing, research, setting up example projects that look good and explain the topic at hand, screenshot-taking, and illustration making; all amidst a vague feeling that I should be getting more sleep.

And the periodic beer.

However, amidst all the toil, there are still magic moments, and today was the culmination of a plan I’ve long had to more fully examine and portray the possibilities of human skin tone (one of the chapters of the book I’ve put particular emphasis on). After I identified the list of complexions I wanted to document, photographer Sasha Nialla assembled a terrific roster of models, and with me playing client shot all of them under controlled lighting conditions, allowing me to show an apples to apples comparison within the book of the basic categories of complexion, for analysis and consideration.

Photographer Sasha Nialla shoots our redhead sample subject. It's the sexiest science you're going to see...

My personal criteria for how good a technical book I’m writing is, happens to be the same as that I use for screenplays—if I’m having fun writing it, then it’s probably turning out well. It eases my mind that I’ve been getting solid feedback from Joe Owens, who generously agreed to be my tech editor, lending his experience (and subtle humor) in the evaluation of my assertions and techniques. And I must give credit to Peachpit Press, and my editors Karyn Johnson and Stephen Nathans, for continuing to provide the time, encouragement, and editorial support to get things right. These damn books aren’t easy to make, and I’m glad that PeachPit has lent their support.

Furthermore, I’ve been getting terrific support from DaVinci (who also graciously let me into their beta for Resolve on OS X), FilmLight, Iridas, Assimilate, Quantel, Tangent, DSC Labs, X-Rite, Light Illusion (Steve Shaw), and of course various friends at Apple, alongside others I am to my shame forgetting. All of which has enabled me to meet my goal of creating a color correction handbook that is truly platform agnostic, and aimed squarely at the budding professional colorist (and the casual colorist who aspires to professionalism). If you’re a complete beginner, this book should orient you with a foundation in color theory and basic operations; if you’ve been grading for a while, this book may fill in some conceptual gaps, provide additional theoretical food for thought, and toss out some nice tricks that you might find useful.

My criteria for which applications to discuss in the book has been based on color control surface compatibility, on the premise that a) if you’re a dedicated colorist, you’ll be wanting to use one, and b) most grading applications that are dedicated to the task are compatible with one or another, either custom made (Resolve, Baselight, Quantel) or off-the-shelf (such as a JLCooper, Euphonix, or Tangent Wave surface). On the other hand, most of the techniques discussed can be implemented using Colorista, Final Cut Pro’s Color Corrector 3-way, After Effects, Color Finess, or any plugin with 3-way color balance, HSL Qualifiers, and Masks. No matter where you’re making your corrections, there’s bound to be some information that will be useful to you.

So that’s why I’ve somewhat fallen off the edge of the earth. I’m due to finish soon, and look forward to getting my weekends back, getting the book out to the public, and maybe doing a book tour or something and seeing what you folks think of it.

For a change of pace, I thought I’d toss out a small nugget of pure speculation (this time I’m really thinking aloud). However, in the event history proves me to be right, I thought it’d be fun to commit this thought to the internet.

I was originally going to rant about how much of a “#$%@ you” I felt the latest rev of the Mac Pro line is to the postproduction power-user. In fact, I was going so far as to compose an email to someone I know who might actually care, when for due diligence sake I decided to do a bit of research to find out just how far behind the specs of the Mac Pros are from our Windows and Linux workstation bretheren. In particular, I wanted to find out whether there was a better version of PCIe that we were missing out on.

Popping over to good ‘ol Wikipedia, I found the following nugget of information (emphasis mine):

The final specification PCI Express 3.0 has been delayed until 2011 and will be backwards compatible with existing PCIe implementations.^[15]

So, the next major architectural update that will be useful to me (in the form of faster data throughput, faster GPU data pushing, etc.) isn’t going to be finalized until 2011.

Oh, and one other thing… I keep wanting faster FireWire. After all, FireWire 1600 and 3200 were announced back in 2008 as a response to USB 3, right? Well, here’s what Wikipedia has to say about that (again, emphasis mine):

S1600 (Symwave ^[23]) and S3200 (Dap Technology ^[24]) development units have been made, with the latter promising a consumer version by late 2010.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, it seems entirely plausible that maybe, just maybe, somebody is waiting for PCIe 3.0 and FireWire 1600/3200 to become finalized/implementable before committing a ton of resources to redesigning and retooling the Mac Pro in a significant way. At least, that’s what I’d like to think.

And while that still doesn’t excuse the lack of USB 3, 10-gig ethernet, or port-multiplied eSATA (okay, so that’s really wishful thinking), I suppose I can understand. I mean, why do a bunch of redesign work when next year you’re just going to redo it all from scratch?

Guess we’ll see…

When Stu Maschwitz started beating the drum for Colorista II, I had mixed feelings. I’m always happy about shiny new tools that threaten to make my life easier, but to be honest I wasn’t a particular fan of the original Colorista. However, software evolves, and a new version deserves a new look, so I downloaded the demo for Final Cut Pro, and gave it a whirl on a short scene from an old project.

Before I dive into the details of my first look, let me just give you my resulting impressions right up front. I feel that Colorista II is a worthwhile addition to the NLE colorists’s toolkit, and will live alongside the other plugins you’ve been using very nicely. Its ample feature set may even replace some plugins you’ve been using with a better mousetrap.

However, as well-thought out as it is overall, I do find some of the controls to be a bit unwieldy. Also, through no fault of its own, Colorista II is chained to the performance, effects interface, shot comparison mechanisms, and grade management capabilities, not to mention control surface compatibility, of your host NLE’s interface. Personally, as a colorist using dedicated applications, I don’t find that Colorista II provides a persuasive argument for me to abandon Apple Color’s efficiencies, especially for client work, to go back to NLE grading.

However, this is ultimately an unfair comparison. If you’re a DIY filmmaker with more time then money, who likes to color correct your own work, and you like the workflow of keeping it real inside of your NLE, you should absolutely download the demo and give it a try. You’ll probably like what you see.

That said, here are my more detailed observations.

The Color Balance Control

The heart of any color correction interface is the Color Balance Control UI. At a superficial level, I like the design of the wheels, with individual H, S, and L handles that are easy to understand and manipulate.

However, in practical use I find that the balance controls feel too granular. I dont know if this is simply the implementation on Final Cut Pro, or if it’s a limitation of my system (although my 8-core Mac Pro has no such problems with FCP’s Color Corrector 3-way or with Color’s) but there’s no smooth update within the image as I drag the color balance handle. Instead, the image color changes in pops, jumping from one set of values to another, which for me is unacceptable for making nuanced adjustments.

The color balance control UI also retains something I disliked in the original Colorista–the color balance handle jumps immediately to wherever you click within the color balance control. While this is fine for making massive corrections, its not that useful when you’re trying to make subtle re-adjustments to an existing setting and you don’t want to have to target the tiny balance handle to drag it relative to the previous correction. The jump-to behavior would be fine as a Command-click option, but as the default behavior, I don’t like it.

My last knock on the color balance controls is probably not Colorista’s fault, but I dislike the small size of the 3-way controls, and they don’t seem to scale up. I suspect this is a function of the API they’re using and the developers probably can’t do anything about it, but for a mouse-only color corrector it’s too bad the wheels can’t be enlarged for a more detail-oriented experience.

Time for something positive. I really like the calculator button that reveals a numeric UI (available for other controls in the plugin, too). It’s a very nice touch. It’s also an interesting design decision to express the color balance numeric controls in RGB values, more options are always good.

However, it would also have been good to provide an option for alternate HSL parameters for the balance controls. Furthermore, the lack of numeric UI for the three contrast sliders is an oversight, as is the lack of scroll wheel manipulation for the numbers. Perhaps this isn’t a big deal for dedicated UI users, but you never know when you’re going to want to compare numbers.

Lastly, I have mixed feelings about the Auto Balance control implementation. I like that it’s designed for you to sample a highlight of the image manually (which I generally feel provides the most flexibility for good results). However, I don’t like that it balances the shadows automatically at the same time. I’d honestly prefer separate shadow sampling, at least as an option. There are plenty of times where I want to leave the highlights alone (or perhaps just make a manual adjustment), but would like to auto-balance the shadows by themselves.

Contrast Adjustments

Shadow/midtone/highlight contrast control implementation is good, with plenty of room for making large adjustments. Relatively fine control is available if you move very, very slowly (insert Elmer Fudd joke here). However, like the balance controls they’re jumpy in practical use–again, this doesn’t lend itself to making subtle adjustments.

The Exposure and Primary Density sliders are very nice additions to one’s video grading toolset. My test footage was too well exposed to give me an opportunity to try out Highlight Recovery, but other reviewers have extolled its virtues, so I’m happy to believe them.

However, these sliders bring me to one other issue. Using a mouse’s scroll wheel to adjust any of the sliders in the UI is not useful–rolling the scroll wheel by any amount results only in a jump from the extreme left to the extreme right of the slider. I use my mouse wheel to adjust parameters elsewhere in FCP all the time, as it’s much more comfortable then constant clicking and dragging (especially for controls youll be adjusting in every single clip you touch), so this is an unfortunate oversight that I hope is changed in future versions.

RT Performance

Since colorists in a hurry often restrict themselves to color and contrast adjustments, I’m going to step out of the UI for a moment, to talk about real-time playback. I found Colorista II’s playback in Unlimited RT mode to be perfectly acceptable, though it could be better. I haven’t found it to be full frame-rate in real time, but it’s close for basic corrections, which at this level of work is fine.

The Fantastic HSL Controls

The HSL controls are extremely clever—in fact I feel this is the standout feature of Colorista II. They do the same thing as the Hue Curves or Secondary Curves in apps like Color, Scratch, and Baselight, but in a different way. I particularly like how control of Hue and Saturation has been unified within a single UI control, and unlike the Sat curve in Color (which I use all the time), it’s easy to boost saturation in targeted areas of the image by a large amount.

It’s worth noting that using using the Lightness HSL control breaks up highly compressed images a lot, but that’s no fault of Colorista, it’s a fact of life that’s true of any hue curve interface I’ve used when applied to highly compressed footage (this is one major pitfall of compression in grading). This feature fares no better or worse then any other comparable control I’ve used.

A minor nit, when comparing these controls to their curve equivalents in other apps, is that true curves allow additional control points to be added to finely sculpt hue and saturation. Colorista II’s controls, while fast and intuitive, lack this fine-tuning ability. However, I’m happily willing to concede that the majority of hue adjustments I typically make don’t really require that level of detail, so people will find these controls opening new vistas in creative (and quality control-fixing) possibility.

Personally, I feel that Colorista II is worth buying for this feature alone.

Bypass and Mix for Each Set of Controls

Bypass buttons for each set of controls (Primary, Secondary, Master) is a very nice touch, as you’ll probably find yourself doing before-and-after comparisons for specific secondary and mastering adjustments quite a lot. Even better, mix sliders also let you moderate how much each particular group of adjustments contributes to the overall correction. This is a small thing that will be extremely useful to anyone doing subtle work.

I also like the Mix slider at the very bottom of the filter, that lets you mix the overall filtered effect with the state of the image at that point of your filter stack. A very nice touch.

The Keyer

The keyer presents an evolved and forward-looking UI, that appears modally within its own window when invoked. I’m personally not convinced that it’s night-and-day better (as a UI) then the standard HSL controls found within every other color correction UI I’ve used (other then Avid), but on the assumption that the keyer is algorithmically unique and the UI supports this enhanced functionality, Im glad to see someone pushing the envelope.

More succinctly, I like it, particularly the vectorscope handles. Also, while they took some getting used to, I was glad to see the implementation of separate and de-selectable hue, saturation, and lightness controls over the key–pulling dedicated luma keys for various adjustments is a valuable technique.

For the click-to-sample crowd, the selection, add, and remove scrubber controls are well implemented, with a unique method of sampling initial image values via a bounding box, rather then as a drag operation. Other standout features of the keyer include the Clip slider that lets you adjust the contrast of the key to make it more solid, and the high quality blur of the Softness control.

One thing I miss, however, is the ability to play through a clip that I’m keying while adjusting the key; the keyer’s modal window prevents this. This is not insignificant, as keys that look perfectly fine on a still image often fall apart once you start playing the clip. At the very least, it would be nice to have a way to scrub through the clip while you’re working, to see how the key holds up when, for example, the camera pans towards the sun.

Knowing full well this is a feature request, something else I miss that I use frequently in Color is the ability to apply separate color and contrast adjustments both inside and outside of a key and/or mask. While the keyer provides an Invert button, that simply means you can choose whether to grade the outside or inside of the key, rather then being able to work on both with different settings.

Masking

The simple built-in Power Mask controls are handy, interface limitations aside. However, I can’t hold that against Colorista II since the shape UI is no less kludgy then that of any other FCP plugin. That said, I’d dearly wish for some type of outline in the Canvas as an additional View Mode, should that be possible.

Being able to combine the mask and keyer is a fundamental feature that’s nicely implemented, with several options for different boolean combinations of the two (an innovation as this isn’t a feature you often see).

Lastly, the Master Mask provides an additional mask you can use, with boolean options for using it to either restrict the Master controls (thereby providing one more secondary), or combine it in boolean fashion with the mask thats already being used in the existing secondary. This flexibility is a nice touch, even if the resulting stack of parameters and controls is a bit unwieldy.

Pop Slider

The pop slider is great, and when used positively it makes a nice little contrast bump to increase image definition that I typically accomplish using luma curves. Reverse pop is also a nice effect for lightly feathering harsh image definition, although I can unfortunately see this feature get tediously overused in undiscriminating hands.

Master Controls

I really like that there’s a post-processing set of 3-way, saturation, and HSL controls at the end of the Colorista image processing pipeline. This provides a built-in way of trimming a correction that you’ve made, although depending on the context of the operation being performed, there are still ample times where you’ll want to do such trimming with an additional plugin (such as applying a single adjusting filter to an entire pre-balanced scene worth of clips).

Workflow issues aside, it’s good to have the ability to further modify the sum of primary and secondary corrections, or to use these controls with the Master Mask to have a second secondary correction.

Curve Controls

The curve controls are clever, given the limitations of the FCP environment. While it’s no substitute for a true, customizable multi-point curve UI, it’s a nice addition and quite useful for making those contrast-a-riffic s-curves.

I’ll go ahead and take the liberty of making a feature-request aside now–a bias control for controlling the midpoint of the contrast curve would be a handy addition in future versions.

Options

There are some interesting utilitarian options available at the bottom of Colorista II’s parameter stack. Flip Image is nice to have, except for the lack of independent control over vertical and horizontal orientation. As a result, it’s only good when you need to flip something in both dimensions. Of course, there are many other ways you can do this, so it’s not that big a deal.

Show Skin Overlay is a fun addition, although this is the kind of idiot-light I usually try to discourage people from leaning on too heavily, as it encourages overly specific skin tone manipulations that don’t necessarily interact with the illuminant of the scene in a convincing way (something I’ve been meaning to write an article about, but haven’t gotten to yet). I’d need more testing, but I’m also curious to see how much of the possible range of human skin tone hue this overlay encompasses–the tyranny of an overly strict adherence to the I-bar’s angle is also something I try to discourage in students.

I find it interesting that there’s a pop-up menu that lets you specify whether to render using your computers GPU or CPU. As there are usually subtle image processing differences when using different GPUs, this gives the potential for rendering reliably predictable grades in multi-computer shops with different graphics cards. I’ve not tested to see what the performance penalty is, if any, when switching between GPU and CPU on a more capable workstation with a beefier graphics card, but it’d be interesting to see if anyone cares to try.

Other Observations

The wealth of features in Colorista II is impressive, but they also reveal a deficiency of the FCP filter interface, which is the inevitable big stack of UI elements that necessitate endless scrolling up and down the Filter tabs list to make various adjustments. This isn’t Coloristas fault, it’s a foible of FCP, but Colorista’s numerous options force one to deal with it. It’s perhaps an unfair observation as the developers do their best to manage the clutter with disclosure triangles for each set of parameters, but even so I’m just not a fan of all the scrolling.

Another deficiency is the seeming lack of keyframing for the fancier UI controls (3-Way, HSL, Keyer). The keyer I can overlook (though keyframing the HSL controls of a Key has saved me once or twice in the past), but not being able to keyframe the 3-Way, and by extension the 3-way contrast controls, is a huge drag for instances where I’m correcting for an in-camera auto-control exposure change, or any one of innumerable instances where animating a correction is important. Hopefully I’m either overlooking the way to do this (although I’ve looked hard), or this feature makes its way into future releases.

Finally, in one last feature-request aside, I’d like to see a dedicated reset button for each stage of correction in addition to the plugin-wide reset (similar to the reset button on the Master Curves). It’s a small thing, but would be helpful since going into numeric mode and resetting a bunch of numbers one by one is kind of a drag.

In Conclusion

So those are my thoughts, good and bad. I’ll probably pick up a copy sometime down the road for instances where I’m working inside of Final Cut Pro on specific sections of a program. However, as I mentioned in my preamble, I remain a fan of the dedicated grading app. Specific color adjustment features are only part of the picture; the overall color correction environment provides many additional benefits in terms of session organization, working speed, operator comfort and efficiency, and artistic subtlety.

However, to end on a positive note, I want to emphasize that as critical as I am of specific features, I still think that Colorista II is a useful plugin that aims high, and will absolutely expand the range of creative possibility available to you from within your NLE of choice (or AE, if you swing that way). Give it a look.

UPDATE—I broke down and did what I should’ve in the first place—added some screenshots of the Colorista II interface and a link to the Red Giant website, and a few more edits for clarity.

A paper look-up-table

I let myself get pulled into responding to a thread at Creative Cow’s DaVinci forum on 3D LUT calibration, but felt that the subject might benefit from a bit more elaboration. I’ve been researching LUT calibration of prosumer display devices in greater detail for a small section of my upcoming book, which I hope will cast some more light on an admittedly arcane subject about which there’s a bit of confusion. However, LUTs are an example of high-end tools and methodologies that are increasingly within the reach of smaller facilities who aren’t afraid of a bit of research, and 3D LUT calibration, once the domain of high-end film facilities, is worth knowing more about if you require color critical monitoring.

To massively oversimplify, a 3D LUT is a three-dimensional look-up-table for taking incoming image data and converting it to another set of image data—in other words it’s a color and contrast transformation. 1D LUTs are suitable for calibrating a monitor’s gamma response, but a 3D LUT is required for changing the gamut, or range of color that a display shows.

LUTs can be used for many purposes, but in the case of monitor calibration, the process of using a 3D LUT is one of using software and a monitor probe to analyze your monitor, to figure out exactly what the difference is between your uncalibrated display and the ideal video standard that you want it to show. Once the software has figured out the difference, it generates a 3D LUT that can transform an incoming video signal in such a way so that it will appear, on the analyzed display, as if it has the perfect gamut (red, green, and blue primaries) and gamma response.

It’s a bit of a mathematical hat trick, but it works, is accurate, and is an accepted means of display calibration throughout the postproduction industry. Using 3D LUTs for outboard monitor calibration of any display requires three things:

1. An outboard LUT calibration device (usually taking HD-SDI in from your workstation’s video-out and putting HDMI out to your display)
2. Software for analyzing the monitor (using a probe) and generating a LUT that’s appropriate to your calibration device (there are many different formats)
3. A probe for doing the analysis (good probes aren’t inexpensive)

Keep in mind that outboard 3D LUT calibration only works if the display you’re calibrating is capable of the color gamut that’s required by the standard you’re trying to calibrate to. In the case of Plasma displays, a 3D LUT will bring the typically oversaturated primaries back into line with, say the standard Rec. 709 RGB primaries that you want to be monitoring with, as well as setting proper gamma for the display.

There are several software and hardware solutions, some expensive, some more affordable. Here’s a list for your own research:

Hardware (All capable of 3D LUT processing)

• Filmlight’s Truelight SDI
• Cine-Tal’s Davio
• Blackmagic’s HDLink Pro

Software

• Filmlight’s Truelight color management system (CMS)
• Cine-Tal’s Cinespace
• Light Illusion’s Lightspace CMS

Probes (different software supports different probes)

• Filmlight Truelight Probe (for Truelight CMS)
• X-Rite Hubble (works with Lightspace and Cinespace)
• Klein K-10 (works with Lightspace)
• Konica Minolta CS series (works with Cinespace)
• Photo Research PR series (works with Cinespace)

Cinespace and LIghtspace probe support has slowly expanded over time, these notes are true as of a quick look at the company websites today. Don’t take my list as gospel, you’ll want to re-check. Also, I’m not picking favorites, each of these systems is in use in different post houses.

If you’re interested in more information, check the company sites at http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk, http://www.lightillusion.com, and http://www.cine-tal.com. In particular, the Lightillusion site (run by colorist and developer Steve Shaw) has some great whitepapers that he’s written that should shed a lot more light on the subject than my brief overview here. Check it out.

I had some back and forth with friend and colleague Patrick Inhofer (Colorist and owner of FINI), about what the “official” peak luma setting should be for a monitor he’s evaluating. The long and short of my response was that SMPTE Recommended Practice document RP 166-1995 (now archived, but there’s no replacement just yet) calls for 35 footlamberts (ft-L) of light output for a calibrated CRT display, which when converted to cd/m2 is 119.92 nits (round up to 120). In other words, a 100 IRE white field, when measured, should be outputting 35 ft-L or 120 nits. This was decided in the CRT days, which are waning, but so far as I know it’s the only official peak luma standard in place for color critical monitoring on a self-illuminated display (the projection standard is 14 ft-L).

However, there are all sorts of posts where folks claim all sorts of peak luma values that they prefer to use for their own monitoring situation. When I’m asked to explain why, it’s always difficult to do so without either taking sides or wondering if one or another emerging monitor technologies really does merit revisiting the previous standard. For your amusement, my agnostic summary of the issue based on conversations I’ve witnessed over the years, is as follows:

Member of standards committee: “This is the standard.”

Random colorist guy: “But I like my number better.”

Member of standards committee: “I don’t care. This is the standard we experts chose for you. Use it.”

Random colorist guy: “But my monitor can’t handle your standard. I’m using my own number.”

Member of standards committee: “F@ck your monitor. We argued about this for years. We employed physics, math, and user studies. Use the standard.”

Random colorist guy: “No. And I’m telling all my colleagues that my way is better.”

Member of standards committee: “Fine. Guess what, we’re using new monitors now. They handle the standard just fine. Now f@cking use the standard already.”

Random colorist guy: “But me and all my friends got used to the number we were using before…”

Member of standards committee: “#@#$%#@ $@$*&# $%@%#…”

(continue ad nauseum)

Movie poster for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

…but 15 years ago it would’ve been.

This stands in stark contrast to several high-tech thrillers I’ve seen in recent years wherein any portrayal of competent computer use continues to be some kind of hyper-realized graphics and animation extravaganza, with characters pulling off ridiculous hijinks with the wave of a mouse and a few taps of the keyboard. Furthermore, “hackers” and computer experts are usually shown having superhuman analytical skills, with individual characters finding hidden codes and patterns that rooms full of Pentagon or government analysts and IT types have somehow missed. Also, the hands-on computer whizzes are typically guys.

Not so in GWTDT. I’m no command-line jockey, but I’ve had just enough experience with terminals, Unix, c-shell, and perl over the years for the computer usage montages and onscreen closeups to ring true. Even the hacking of someone’s computer remotely that constituted a significant plot point indicated nothing more esoteric then someone logging in remotely using VNC (or Screen Sharing in the parlance of Mac OS X, which all the characters were using). Sure, some clever off-screen social engineering was probably required to get the password, but that’s not implausible.

Furthermore, it’s incredibly gratifying to see the portrayal of a serious-minded young woman with intense computer and analytical skills shown in a truly modern context. She’s not a nerd, she’s not a ditz, and her mastery of technology isn’t even what distinguishes her individuality—she’s a seriously-styled goth keeping the world at arms length. Computers are what allow her to do her work, and she’s good at what she does. What makes this even more effective is the direct analogy drawn between her and the other main character, a newspaper reporter with a slightly different skillset who does exactly the same thing—deep research—sometimes using computers. In this context, the tatooed heroine’s use of technology is not shown as an obsession or lifestyle, simply a skill used to advance her other activities.

I could also rave about the rest of her portrayal, and go on and on about other absolutely terrific facets of the movie (great script, performances, and direction throughout). Sticking to the point, however, it’s simply good to see technology portrayed not gaudily, but realistically, and to see it used as a tool that helps to drive the narrative forward, and not as the point of the story. Networked technology has finally been around long enough to not seem so unusual to the average consumer, it’s high time that the movies finally caught up.

The south hall NAB show floor (where all the postproduction was) on Wednesday was packed.

Upon my return to New York and my first full night’s sleep in a week, I thought it would be good to follow up upon my last post and share some experiences from the rest of the show before they faded from memory. Overall, I had a great time visiting the different vendors of color correction hardware and software and comparing what they can do. Interestingly, the south hall (where most of the postproduction hardware/software vendors were located) was packed, much moreso then what I saw of the north and center halls, where all the production and distribution gear was located. With the abundance of tools now available to enable talented people to do increasingly incredible things, it’s a good time to be involved with post.

I got a fuller demo of the workflow involved with moving Avid and FCP projects to and from Baselight. Baselight has a clean, if packed, user interface, and as far as I can tell has pretty much every software tool ever devised for making color correction adjustments. It’s accompanied by an equally impressive price tag, but then if your clients really need that kind of horsepower, you should be able to afford it. I saw both AAF and XML project files round-trip without any drama, although I feel obligated to point out that although there’s support for multi-track timelines and speed effects, support for other effects (motion effects, still frames, generators, etc) is predictably absent, so anyone who has complained about the amount of project preparation required in moving a project from FCP to Apple Color isn’t going to find this any better.

However, it’s still better then a one-track EDL-only workflow for projects requiring multi-track media management. ProRes compatibility is a big deal, although the means for supporting ProRes on a Linux application is interesting; an Xserve works as an intermediary, reading the ProRes data and converting it to a data stream that’s sent to the Linux computer that’s actually running Baselight. It works well, and allows real-time work at full frame rates (though on the base system I was watching, the final corrections still had to be rendered before being output). Still, it seems like a lot to go through. Sure would be nice if Apple provided ProRes support for Linux (since there are now a ton of post platforms on that OS). Oh yeah, and Baselight has a great control surface.

One other thing of interest–Sony introduced a new version of HDCAM SR, that among other things is capable of storing CDL color correction metadata on tape. Baselight can read this data, and extract the on-camera color adjustments for each piece of media in the timeline to use as the starting point of the grade. Nice. I look forward to seeing how many other vendors use HDCAM SR CDL data for various workflows.

The control surface for Baselight will make your suite look like the bridge of the Enterprise.

In the spirit of fairness, I also had brief looks at Digital Vision’s Film Master (interesting compositing tools and AAF support) and Assimilate Scratch (new compositing operations that look to make multi-track FCP XML workflows even easier), and both are impressive platforms for their intended markets. Unfortunately I don’t have much more to say as I didn’t get full demos, but I hope to have closer looks at both systems in action in the coming months.

Incidentally, I also had another look at Davinci’s software Resolve product for Mac OS X. As this is a system I could actually afford to add to my suite in the near term, I was curious about the Mac Pro hardware configuration they were running on the showroom floor. I was told that of the two NVidia cards installed, the one doing the heavy lifting was the GTX 285 (the other being the base GT 120 card that’s handling the UI). This is definitely an affordable option, though it’ll be a change for all the Apple Color users (myself included) who’ve set up their systems based on the ATI graphics cards that have long been recommended.

I also got a nice look at Cintel’s diTTo film scanner. With some fancy-pants technology for dust and scratch elimination, this is actually a “portable” solution (it even has integrated storage so it’s completely self-contained) for situations where a film scanner needs to be taken to a film archival facility to scan prints that can’t be taken off premises.

It does 2K and 4K film scanning. Cintel seems to be positioning it as a jack-of-all-trades film scanner for preservation, effects work, and digital intermediate work. It’s not the fastest scanner around at 2 frames per second, but it’s relatively affordable (I believe it was around $300K–I said relatively) and what really impressed me was the lack of necessary infrastructure. Put it on a level surface in a clean and dust free environment, plug it in, and spool up your film. There are no special cooling, ventilation, or other installation or connection requirements to deal with. I had somehow expected film scanning equipment to be more hassle. Neat.

A "desktop" film scanner from Cinetal. Make sure it's a strong desktop.

I also took a look at Dolby Labs insanely spec’ed new PRM-4200 reference monitor. It’s an LCD-based panel that uses red/green/blue LED backlighting (similar to the Dreamcolor and Flanders Scientific displays) to deepen blacks and extend the gamut. It’s surprisingly deep (it’s a beast of a monitor), and rather large to look at too at 42″. Aside from full Rec. 709 color accuracy (for which this monitor is way, way overkill if you ask me) it has 100 percent support of the DCI/P3 colorspace required for digital cinema. For reference, the Dreamcolor and Flanders Scientific displays both say they support in the neighborhood of 97% of the P3 primaries (which really isn’t bad), so getting something other then a 2K projector that can do 100% of P3 means you can build a smaller cinema grading suite that still shows all the color of digital cinema.

I watched the darkened room demo, and it looks absolutely gorgeous. If it survives closer scrutiny from industry display experts, then it’ll probably be a big deal for large post houses with deep pockets.However, for the rest of us boutique sized grading facilities that primarily work within Rec. 709, this monitor is probably not a serious consideration considering its high price tag (I’ve read other blogs put the TBD price tag anywhere between $30 and $50K). I’ll be curious to see what the final pricing is, and who starts to deploy this model first.

So that was everything that made a big impression on me. I looked at a lot of SAN and direct-attached storage solutions, and while I saw lots of great high-performance drive systems, I’m disappointed that prices for Fibre-based systems stubbornly remain high. Otherwise, I find it impressive that support for ProRes is growing throughout the industry (the ability to record to ProRes 4444 in the new ARRI Alexa camera is simply stunning), as is FCP XML round-trip support, making it easier and easier to handle complicated edits from FCP in other grading solutions. It’s all good news for the midrange post facility trying to add services and improve capabilities in a tough economy.

Another year's pilgrimage to NAB, in Vegas...

Well this year’s NAB is shaping up to be a doozy. Having spent the day chatting with representatives from various vendors of color correction software, color critical broadcast monitors, and accelerated storage systems, all of which I take a professional interest in, I thought I’d share some end of day thoughts.

Of course, the biggest news is Blackmagic/Davinci’s announcement of a $995 Mac OS X compatible, software-only license of their flagship color correction application, Resolve. Spending $30K gets you the overwhelmingly designed control surfaces (USB connected, by the way), while $50K gets you the control surface and a Linux license (and then you need to buy the appropriate CPU/multi-GPU configuration to run it).

A terrible picture of a terrific color correction system, Resolve for Mac OS X

Interestingly, on Mac OS X, you’ll end up installing two NVidia GPUs into your Mac Pro, one in the default slot that’s used to run the UI, and a second one to do the image processing. Coupled with an additional Blackmagic card for video I/O (they say they’ll introduce compatibility with other video I/O interfaces eventually), and another I/O card for whatever flavor of accelerated storage you’ll be wanting to use, you’ll have one full Mac Pro workstation. From what I saw on the showroom floor, you can do quite a bit with this configuration.

While they were at it, Davinci has refined the user interface of the new version to make it a cleaner, sharper, darker experience. Overall, it appears to be a powerful and efficiently designed product. Davinci has long been one of the top names in color correction systems, and having the Resolve software available on OS X is a big deal, never mind the exceptionally affordable price point. I look forward to having this tool in my suite.

Of course, there’s plenty of other news. Iridas is showing an update of their color correction software Speedgrade (for which there’s also an OS X version), which expands upon an already impressive array of native format compatibility.  Speedgrade has a lean, efficient interface with a useful and unique take on some common operations, and a really interesting field-to-post suite LUT-based workflow that’s very cinematographer-friendly. I’d like to get to know this product better.

I also checked out Discreet’s Autodesk’s color grading software, Lustre. From a distance, I’ve always been a bit put off by Lustre’s dense user interface, but watching the demo artist in action, and especially seeing some of the new shot sorting and grade management features they’ve put into the application for their new release, I was impressed. They’ve also put quite some thought into the stereo grading workflow, which I’m seeing is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls for colorists (left and right cameras not matching and with a lens flare in one eye but not the other, jeez!). Sure would be nice if they took a page from their Smoke playbook and brought Lustre to the Mac, but that’s just me thinking aloud.

At colleague and friend Robbie Carman’s suggestion, I also went to see the Flanders Scientific monitors. Having heard about these for years, this was my first view of them. Although the show floor is the worst possible place to evaluate a monitor, what with all the ambient glare killing the contrast, I was impressed at the gamut handling, the wide viewing angle, the visibility of full-range image data (super-white and super-chroma), and the properly presented interlace handling (there’s still plenty of 1080i programming being produced, it’s not all progressive frame yet). Coupled with true 10-bit processing and display, HD-SDI and 3G, and full-blown 3D LUT calibration, this is a righteously proper broadcast monitor for a mere $10K.

On the other hand, I finally had a look (after two years of wanting to see one) at HP’s Dreamcolor monitor. Again, it’s hard to judge fairly in the environment, but I liked what I saw, and at a mere $2K, it’s a nice solution for the right suite, and certainly priced to move. Not, however, necessarily a good solution if you’re needing to work with interlaced material for broadcast (the Dreamcolor engine can’t deinterlace and calibrate, so you need to feed the monitor a deinterlaced signal). Again, if all you do is progressive, then this is not a problem–it depends on the work you do.

I saw lots of other things (my Twitter feed has many more ramblings, if you’re into that sort of thing), but I’ll end with my one extravagant, yet unobtainable wish–the Konica Minolta CS-2000.

If only I had a spare $24K lying around...

It’s a spectroradiometer of extreme accuracy and low-light sensitivity. In my color correction writings I often like to spin off onto tangents of comparative research, and I wish I had a tool like this to go crazy with measuring real-world color phenomena.

And this was only the first day. Much more to see tomorrow, I hope to connect with Filmlight and Assimilate to see what they’re up to in their new releases. Oh, and I’ll be interviewed briefly on Larry Jordan’s Digital Production Buzz at 4:05. Whew!

I’m a week overdue in mentioning this, but after a month of preparation and two weeks of backbreaking work, I’ve moved my color correction suite to co-locate with Twitch Post, with whom I’m partnering to offer my color correction services to an even more diverse clientele.

For those of you who’ve already been working with me, nothing has changed. You can still reach me through correctionforcolor.com and contact me directly for inquiries and scheduling, and I offer the same range of color correction and compositing services as before. However, being located at Twitch means that additional editorial and finishing services are also available under the same roof, should you need them!

My new, larger suite offers many advantages, not the least of which is a huge 114″ front-projection screen (nearly 10′ diagonal), for an immersive grading theater experience suitable for any project. My HD-native projector is THX-calibrated, and the entire room has been constructed to conform to established digital cinema evaluation standards. Narrative and documentary features, shorts, and promos can be color corrected with complete confidence that what’s on the screen is what the audience will see.

And not only have I moved, but I’ve already completed the first project in the new space—color correction for artist John Pilson’s nine screen video installation “Frolic and Detour”—playing at the New York Museum of Modern Art.

Visit www.correctionforcolor.com for direct information about my color correction services, and to contact me for quotes and scheduling information.

Visit www.twitchpost.com to learn more about Twitch Post.