Editing with the 2018 Mac mini

It’s hard to pigeonhole the new Mac mini into any specific market, since the size and modular design fit the needs of many different users. Data centers, servers, and Compressor encoding clusters come to mind, but it’s also ideal for many location productions, such as DIT work, stage lighting and sound control. If you are replacing an aging computer, already own the other peripherals, and prefer the macOS ecosystem, then the Mac mini may be enticing.

The 2018 Mac mini features a familiar form factor that’s been revamped with a new thermal architecture, bigger fans, and redesigned power supply. It features eighth-generation Intel Core quad-core and six-core processor options, RAM that tops out at 64GB, and flash storage (SSD) up to 2TB. Connectivity includes four Thunderbolt 3 / USB-C ports (two internal buses), HDMI 2.0, two standard USB 3.1 ports, Bluetooth, wi-fi, a headphone jack, and an ethernet port. The latter can be bumped up to 10GigE in build-to-order machines. RAM is technically upgradeable, but Apple recommends Apple-certified service centers and not user replacement. Apple loaned me a six-core 3.2 GHz i7 model with 32GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD. Mac minis start at $799, but this configuration would cost you $2,499.

Getting started

Many have asked online, “Why is the only GPU choice an Intel UHD Graphics 630?” We are now in the era of external GPU devices and Apple has clearly designed the mini with that in mind. There are many applications where a powerful GPU simply isn’t necessary, such as standard desktop computing, like surfing the web, home accounting, and writing. But also, most pro audio, most graphics and photography, and creative editing that isn’t effects-intensive will work just fine with this Mac. If you need or want more GPU horsepower, then add an eGPU to the mix. (An upcoming review will assess the performance of the Mac mini together with a Blackmagic eGPU Pro.)

When you first unbox the Mac you will need to figure out how to connect an external display. A Thunderbolt 3 display, like the LG UltraFine 5K on Apple’s website, or a low-end display that uses HDMI are both clear options. However, if you already own a monitor that connects via Mini DisplayPort, DisplayPort, VGA, or DVI, then you’ll need to purchase a Thunderbolt 3 adapter specific to that connection standard. Other possibilities include connecting your monitor through an eGPU or a Thunderbolt dock that has the correct ports. I tested both CalDigit and OWC docks with 27″ Apple Retina and Dell displays and everything worked fine. A minor issue, but something to consider before you can even start using your Mac mini.

I put the Mac mini through its paces with Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro X, DaVinci Resolve, and Pixelmater Pro to cover editing, color correction, and photo manipulation. Although I didn’t test the Mac mini extensively with Logic Pro X, this computer would also be a good choice for sound design, mixing, and music creation. My initial impressions are that this is a very capable computer for creative pros and that the Intel GPU is more than adequate for most tasks.

Real-world testing

I’ve been testing the Mac mini with an episode from a real production that I work on, which is a nine-minute-long travel segment edited in Premiere Pro and graded in Resolve. I also brought the Premiere sequence into FCPX for comparison testing. To me that’s more telling than any artificial benchmark score. The native media sources are 4K in a 1080p/23.98 timeline. Footage covers a mix of cameras and codecs, including ProResHQ, XAVC, H.264, and H.265. Sequence clip effects include resizing, speed changes, Lumetri color correction (or FCPX’s color tools), plus an audio mix. In short, everything that the offline/creative editor used. The Resolve grade consists of 145 clips averaging three to five nodes on every clip. To keep my render tests consistent across several machines, all media and project files were loaded to an external LaCie Rugged portable drive connected over USB-3.

ProRes and H.264 exports from each application were used to compare the Mac mini against two other Macs – my mid-2014 Retina MacBook Pro (the last series using Nvidia GPU cards) and a current 10-core iMac Pro. Premiere Pro and Resolve rendering was set to OpenCL, an open GPU standard, which still seems to yield the fastest results for these apps. Final Cut Pro X uses Metal, Apple’s method to leverage the combined power of the GPU and CPU.

Naturally the iMac Pro bested all of the times by half or more. The mini’s times – using only the Intel GPU – were actually similar to the older MacBook Pro, though noticeably faster with Resolve. The general editing experience was good, but video was a bit “sticky” when scrubbing/skimming through 4K media – thanks to the slow external drive. Once I moved the media onto the Mac mini’s blazingly fast SSD (around 2800 MB/s read-write speeds), the result was a super-responsive editing experience. I don’t recommend working with your raw camera footage on the internal drive, so if you edit large projects with a lot of media, then adding a fast, external Thunderbolt 3 drive or RAID array is the way to go. The 1TB size of the internal flash drive is the sweet spot for most editors. Companies with ethernet-based NAS shared storage systems will want to get the 10GigE upgrade when purchasing a Mac mini if they intend to edit with it.

That’s not to say the Mac mini is the most powerful without the extra GPU power. There are some GPU-accelerated effects that will definitely cause stuttering playback and dropped frames. Blurs are an obvious example. When I tested some blurs, playback generally held up until I added a mask to the effect in Premiere. But remember, I’m working with 4K media in native codecs. As a rule, Premiere Pro simply doesn’t handle this type of content as fluidly as Final Cut Pro X. I was able to push FCPX a bit farther without issues than I could Premiere. And, of course, if you want to use it, FCPX can aid the situation with background rendering.

Speaking as an editor and colorist, I’ve been happy with how the Mac mini performs. While not the most powerful Mac made, the mini is still a robust creative tool. Do you edit commercials, corporate video, or entertainment programming? If so, then there’s very little you’ll find issue with in daily operation. The mini presents a good price/performance bargain for editors, musicians, sound designers, graphic artists, photographers, and others. That’s even more the case if you already own the rest of the package.

I think it’s worth making a cost comparison before I close. You can certainly beef up the Mac mini quite a bit; however, in doing so, you should compare the other Mac options before buying. For example, let’s say you completely option out the mini and then add all the Apple store peripherals, including Apple keyboard/mouse, the LG 5K display, and a BMD eGPU Pro. That total would run $6945. Naturally those items from Apple are going to cost a bit more than third-party options. But to compare, the equivalent package in an eight-core iMac Pro with the base GPU, 64GB RAM, and a 2TB SSD would run $6599. That’s the same Vega 56 GPU as in the eGPU Pro, plus you have an eight-core Xeon instead of a Core i7 CPU. Clearly the iMac Pro would be the better choice, because you aren’t buying three enclosures, cooling systems, and power supplies. But if you don’t need that horsepower, already own some of the peripherals, or are better served by the modular design of the Mac mini, then the calculation shifts.

When I work on my own, it’s either with the MacBook Pro or an aging Mac Pro tower. My home editing demands are not as taxing as when I work freelance at other shops. I certainly would have no qualms about shifting projects like those to a Mac mini as a replacement computer, because it can deliver a reliable level of performance without breaking the bank.

Originally written for RedShark News.

For more on the Mac mini and editing, check out this coverage at FCP.co.

©2019 Oliver Peters

Advertisements

The State of the NLE 2019

It’s a new year, but the doesn’t mean that the editing software landscape will change drastically in the coming months. For all intents and purpose, professional editing options boil down to four choices: Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premiere Pro, Apple Final Cut Pro X, and Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve. Yes, I know Vegas, Lightworks, Edius, and others are still out there, but those are far off on the radar by comparison (no offense meant to any happy practitioners of these tools). Naturally, since blogs are mainly about opinions, everything I say from here on is purely conjecture. Although it’s informed by my own experiences with these tools and my knowing many of the players involved on the respective product design and management teams – past and present.

Avid continues to be the go-to NLE in the feature film and episodic television world. That’s certainly a niche, but it’s a niche that determines the tools developed by designers for the broader scope of video editing. Apple officially noted two million users for Final Cut Pro X last year and I’m sure it’s likely to be at least 2.5M by now. Adobe claims Premiere Pro to be the most widely used NLE by a large margin. I have no reason to doubt that statement, but I have also never seen any actual stats. I’m sure through the Creative Cloud subscription mechanism Adobe not only knows how many Premiere Pro installations have been downloaded, but probably has a good idea as to actual usage (as opposed to simply downloading the software). Bringing up the rear in this quartet is Resolve. While certainly a dominant color correction application, I don’t yet see it as a key player in the creative editing (as opposed to finishing) space. With the stage set, let’s take a closer look.

Avid Media Composer

Editors who have moved away from Media Composer or who have never used it, like to throw shade on Avid and its marquee product. But loyal users – who include some of the biggest names in film editing – stick by it due in part to familiarity, but also its collaborative features and overall stability. As a result, the development pace and rate of change is somewhat slow compared with the other three. In spite of that, Avid is currently on a schedule of a solid, incremental update nearly every month – each of which chips away at a long feature request list. The most recent one dropped on December 31st. Making significant changes without destroying the things that people love is a difficult task. Development pace is also hindered by the fact that each one of these developers is also chasing changes in the operating system, particularly Apple and macOS. Sometimes you get the feeling that it’s two steps forward, one step back.

As editors, we focus on Media Composer, but Avid is a much bigger company than just that, with its fingers in sound, broadcast, storage, cloud, and media management. If you are a Pro Tools user, you are just as concerned about Avid’s commitment to you, as editors are to them. Like any large company, Avid must advance not just a single core product, but its ecosystem of products. Yet it still must advance the features in these products, because that’s what gets users’ attention. In an effort to improve its attraction to new users, Avid has introduced subscription plans and free versions to make it easier to get started. They now cover editing and sound needs with a lower cost-of-entry than ever before.

I started nonlinear editing with Avid and it will always hold a spot in my heart. Truth be told, I use it much less these days. However, I still maintain current versions for the occasional project need plus compatibility with incoming projects. I often find that Media Composer is the single best NLE for certain tasks, mainly because of Avid’s legacy with broadcast. This includes issues like proper treatment of interlaced media and closed captioning. So for many reasons, I don’t see Avid going away any time soon, but whether or not they can grow their base remains an unknown. Fortunately many film and media schools emphasize Avid when they teach editing. If you know Media Composer, it’s an easy jump to any other editing tool.

Adobe Premiere Pro CC

The most widely used NLE? At least from what I can see around me, it’s the most used NLE in my market, including individual editors, corporate media departments, and broadcasters. Its attraction comes from a) the versatility in editing with a wide range of native media formats, and b) the similarity to – and viable replacement for – Final Cut Pro “legacy”. It picked up steam partly as a reaction to the Final Cut Pro X roll-out and users have generally been happy with that choice. While the shift by Adobe to a pure subscription model has been a roadblock for some (who stopped at CS6), it’s also been an advantage for others. I handle the software updates at a production company with nine edit systems and between the Adobe Creative Cloud and Apple Mac App Store applications, upgrades have never been easier.

A big criticism of Adobe has been Premiere’s stability. Of course, that’s based on forum reads, where people who have had problems will pipe up. Rarely does anyone ever post how uneventful their experience has been. I personally don’t find Premiere Pro to be any less stable than any other NLE or application. Nonetheless, working with a mix of oddball native media will certainly tax your system. Avid and Apple get around this by pushing optimized and proxy media. As such, editors reap the benefits of stability. And the same is true with Premiere. Working with consistent, optimized media formats (transcoded in advance) – or working with Adobe’s own proxies – results in a more stable project and a better editing experience.

Avid Media Composer is the dominant editing tool in major markets, but mainly in the long-form entertainment media space. Many of the top trailer and commercial edit shops in those same markets use Premiere Pro. Again, that goes back to the FCP7-to-Premiere Pro shift. Many of these companies had been using the old Final Cut rather than Media Composer. Since some of these top editors also cut features and documentaries, you’ll often see them use Premiere on the features that they cut, too. Once you get below the top tier of studio films and larger broadcast network TV shows, Premiere Pro has a much wider representation. That certainly is good news for Adobe and something for Avid to worry about.

Another criticism is that of Adobe’s development pace. Some users believed that moving to a subscription model would speed the development pace of new versions – independent of annual or semi-annual cycles. Yet cycles still persist – much to the disappointment of those users. This gets down to how software is actually developed, keeping up with OS changes, and to some degree, marketing cycles. For example, if there’s a big Photoshop update, then it’s possible that the marketing “wow” value of a large Premiere Pro update might be overshadowed and needs to wait. Not ideal, but that’s the way it is.

Just because it’s possible, doesn’t mean that users really want to constantly deal with automatic software updates that they have to keep track of. This is especially true with After Effects and Premiere Pro, where old project files often have to be updated once you update the application. And those updates are not backwards compatible. Personally, I’m happy to restrict that need to a couple of times a year.

Users have the fear that a manufacturer is going to end-of-life their favorite application at some point. For video users, this was made all too apparent by Apple and FCPX. Neither Apple nor Adobe has been exempt from killing off products that no longer fit their plans. Markets and user demands shift. Photography is an obvious example here. In recent years, smart phones have become the dominant photographic device, which has enabled cloud-syncing and storage of photos. Adobe and Apple have both shifted the focus for their photo products accordingly. If you follow any of the photo blogs, you’ll know there’s some concern that Adobe Lightroom Classic (the desktop version) will eventually give way completely to Lightroom CC (the cloud version). When a company names something as “classic”, you have to wonder how long it will be supported.

If we apply that logic to Premiere Pro, then the new Adobe Rush comes to mind. Rush is a simpler, nimbler, cross-platform/cross-device NLE targeted as users who produce video starting with their smart phone or tablet. Since there’s also a desktop version, one could certainly surmise that in the future Rush might replace Premiere Pro in the same way that FCPX replaced FCP7. Personally, I don’t think that will happen any time soon. Adobe treats certain software as core products. Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects are such products. Premiere Pro may or may not be viewed that way internally, but certainly more so now than ever in the past. Premiere Pro is being positioned as a “hub” application with connections to companion products, like Prelude and Audition. For now, Rush is simply an interesting offshoot to address a burgeoning market. It’s Adobe’s second NLE, not a replacement. But time will tell.

Apple Final Cut Pro X

Apple released Final Cut Pro X in the summer of 2011 – going on eight years now. It’s a versatile, professional tool that has improved greatly since that 2011 launch and gained a large and loyal fan base. Many FCPX users are also Premiere Pro users and the other way around. It can be used to cut nearly any type of project, but the interface design is different from the others, making it an acquired taste. Being a Mac-only product and developed within the same company that makes the hardware and OS, FCPX is optimized to run on Macs more so than any cross-platform product can be. For example, the fluidity of dealing with 4K ProRes media on even older Macs surpasses that of any other NLE.

Prognosticating Apple’s future plans is a fool’s errand. Some guesses have put the estimated lifespan of FCPX at 10 years, based in part on the lifespan of FCP “legacy”. I have no idea whether that’s true of not. Often when I read interviews with key Apple management (as well as off-the-record, casual discussions I’ve had with people I know on the inside), it seems like a company that actually has less of a concrete plan when it comes to “pro” users. Instead, it often appears to approach them with an attitude of “let’s throw something against the wall and see what sticks”. The 2013 Mac Pro is a striking example of this. It was clearly innovative and a stellar exhibit for Apple’s “think different” mantra. Yet it was a product that obviously was not designed by actually speaking with that product’s target user. Apple’s current “shunning” of Nvidia hardware seems like another example.

One has to ask whether a company so dominated by the iPhone is still agile enough to respond to the niche market of professional video editors. While Apple products (hardware and software) still appeal to creatives and video professionals, it seems like the focus with FCPX is towards the much broader sphere of pro video. Not TV shows and feature films (although that’s great when it comes) – or even high-end commercials and trailers – but rather the world of streaming channels, social media influencers, and traditional publishers who have shifted to an online media presence from a print legacy. These segments of the market have a broad range of needs. After all, so called “YouTube stars” shoot with everything from low-end cameras and smart phones all the way up to Alexas and REDs. Such users are equally professional in their need to deliver a quality product on a timetable and I believe that’s a part of the market that Apple seeks to address with FCPX.

If you are in the world of the more traditional post facility or production company, then those users listed above may be market segments that you don’t see or possibly even look down upon. I would theorize that among the more traditional sectors, FCPX may have largely made the inroads that it’s going to. Its use in films and TV shows (with the exception of certain high-profile, international examples) doesn’t seem to be growing, but I could be wrong. Maybe the marketing is just behind or it no longer has PR value. Regardless, I do see FCPX as continuing strong as a product. Even if it’s not your primary tool, it should be something in your toolkit. Apple’s moves to open up ProRes encoding and offering LumaForge and Blackmagic eGPU products in their online store are further examples that the pro customer (in whatever way you define “pro”) continues to have value to them. That’s a good thing for our industry.

Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve

No one seems to match the development pace of Blackmagic Design. DaVinci Resolve underwent a wholesale transformation from a tool that was mainly a high-end color corrector into an all-purpose editing application. Add to this the fact that Blackmagic has acquired and integrated a number of companies, whose tools have been modernized and integrated into Resolve. Blackmagic now offers a post-production solution with some similarities to FCPX while retaining a traditional, track-based interface. It includes modes for advanced audio post (Fairlight) and visual effects (Fusion) that have been adapted from those acquisitions. Unlike past all-in-one applications, Resolve’s modal pages retain the design and workflow specific to the task at hand, rather than making them fit into the editing application’s interface design. All of this in a very short order and across three operating systems, thus making their pace the envy of the industry.

But a fast development pace doesn’t always translate into a winning product. In my experience each version update has been relatively solid. There are four ways to get Resolve (free and paid, Mac App Store and reseller). That makes it a no-brainer for anyone starting out in video editing, but who doesn’t have the specific requirement for one application over another. I have to wonder though, how many new users go deep into the product. If you only edit, there’s no real need to tap into the Fusion, Fairlight, or color correction pages. Do Resolve editors want to finish audio in Fairlight or would they rather hand off the audio post and mix to a specialist who will probably be using Pro Tools? The nice thing about Resolve is that you can go as deep as you like – or not – depending on your mindset, capabilities, and needs.

On the other hand, is the all-in-one approach better than the alternatives: Media Composer/Pro Tools, Premiere Pro/After Effects/Audition, or Final Cut Pro X/Motion/Logic Pro X? I don’t mean for the user, but rather the developer. Does the all-in-one solution give you the best product? The standalone version of Fusion is more full-featured than the Fusion page in Resolve. Fusion users are rightly concerned that the standalone will go away, leaving them with a smaller subset of those tools. I would argue that there are already unnecessary overlaps in effects and features between the pages. So are you really getting the best editor or is it being compromised by the all-in-one approach? I don’t know the answer to these questions. Resolve for me is a good color correction/grading application that can also work for my finishing needs (although I still prefer to edit in something else and roundtrip to/from Resolve). It’s also a great option for the casual editor who wants a free tool. Yet in spite of all its benefits, I believe Resolve will still be a distant fourth in the NLE world, at least for the next year.

The good news is that there are four great editing options in the lead and even more coming from behind. There are no bad choices and with a lower cost than ever, there’s no reason to limit your knowledge to only one. After all, the products that are on top now may be gone in a decade. So broaden your knowledge and define your skills by your craft – not your tools!

©2019 Oliver Peters

Building the Alternative Creative Toolkit

In the past, software was bought in a shrink-wrapped package with a single license to run the application on one computer. But trends change, with options today ranging from a one-time purchase, or a purchase plus a subscription for updates, all the way over to a total subscription model. While Adobe is the company most associated with the subscription model for creative software, nearly every company from Avid to Microsoft offers some variation of this. Software subscription makes a ton of sense for both the developer and the user, but it clearly is something that doesn’t suit everyone’s needs. If you want a comprehensive set of creative tools – but seek suggestions for alternatives to subscription – then look no further.

Productivity. The written side of production is as important as everything else. That means word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations often come first. The king of the hill has been Microsoft Office, but there are others. Still around and being updated by Corel is Wordperfect Office – one of the originals. Naturally you have Google Docs, but there are also plenty of others, such as OpenOffice, LibreOffice, and NeoOffice. Mac users have Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. These cover 90% of my needs, including very good compatibility with Microsoft Office documents. If your focus is structured creative writing, then you might also wish to check out Scrivener.

Design, graphics, and photography. It’s hard to find an exact replacement for Photoshop and Illustrator, but Serif comes the closest with its Affinity brand for Mac and Windows. Affinity Photo, Designer, and Publisher are solid substitutes with good levels of compatibility. But if your design tastes are more whimsical and artistic, then consider Pixelmator Pro (Mac) or Painter (Windows or Mac). If you need photo processing and manipulation, then Apple Photos, which is included with Macs, has become more potent in recent versions, although still targeted towards consumers. It’s not the industrial strength tool that is Adobe Lightroom Classic. If that’s your need and subscription is a no-go, then Capture One or ON1 seem to have captured many a photographer’s attention. Both include raw processing support and cataloging/organizing features.

Audio production and post. Avid Pro Tools is the 800-pound gorilla when it comes to professional audio in studios and post houses. Offerings range from free to subscription to perpetual. But as an alternative, one of the most popular, full-featured tools for music creation, audio production, mixing, and post is Apple’s Logic Pro X. It’s a tool that just keeps getting better, with more virtual instruments and plug-ins being added with every version update. Naturally it’s only available for the Mac. If you are mainly a video editor and not a recording engineer, then another option would be Blackmagic Design’s DaVinci Resolve, which has integrated the Fairlight audio toolset. This makes it viable as an audio-only application, as well as other post needs. However, other strong contenders are also still around, including Steinberg Nuendo, and Magix Vegas Pro and Sound Forge Pro. The latter two had been Sony Software products before Magix picked them up. While the Vegas products are considered video editing tools, they originally started life in audio and continue to be very viable audio post products. Sound Forge is an advanced single clip (up to 32 channels) audio editor that’s great for voice-over production, podcasts, and audio mastering.

Visual effects and motion graphics. If you love and really need Adobe After Effects, this is probably the one area where you won’t find a suitable equivalent. That’s fine, because Adobe offers attractive single-app licensing. While there are other options, simply none offer the depth of After Effects in a track/layer-based compositor. Apple has Motion, which is a great tool, but doesn’t tick all the boxes. Fusion and the Fusion page inside of DaVinci Resolve tackle composting by using nodes. So you work in a node-based, flowchart-style layout, rather than layers and tracks. All of these tools are powerful, but the switch from After Effects to Fusion or Motion require a complete mindset change, which most users aren’t interested in.

Editing. The best for last and in some ways, the category with the most options. Avid Media Composer continues its dominance for narrative broadcast and film editing. Like Pro Tools, there are free, perpetual, and subscription choices. Apple has been battling it out for mindshare with Final Cut Pro X, but of the group, it’s the one that is most different from a traditional NLE’s design and operation. Among the other solutions, you’ll find familiar names, including Grass Valley Edius, Magix Vegas Pro, DaVinci Resolve, and Lightworks. Even the venerable Media 100 (now owned by BorisFX) is still available for the Mac and for free!

Originally written for RedShark News

©2018 Oliver Peters

CoreMelt PaintX

When Apple launched Final Cut Pro X, it was with a decidedly simplified set of video effects. This was enhanced by the easy ability for users to create their own custom effects, using Apple Motion as a development platform. The result has been an entirely new ecosystem of low-cost, high-quality video effects. As attractive as that is, truly advanced visual effects still require knowledgeable plug-in developers who are able to work within the FCPX and macOS architecture in order to produce more powerful tools. For example, other built-in visual effects tools, such as Avid Media Composer’s Intraframe Paint or the Fusion page in DaVinci Resolve, simply aren’t within the scope of FCPX, nor what users can create on their own through Motion templates.

To fill that need, developers like CoreMelt have been designing a range of advanced visual effects tools for the Final Cut Pro market, including effects for tracking, color correction, stabilization, and more. Their newest release is PaintX, which adds a set of Photoshop-style tools to Final Cut Pro X. As with many of CoreMelt’s other offerings, PaintX includes planar tracking, thanks to the licensing of Mocha tracking technology.

To start, drop the PaintX effect onto a clip and then launch the custom interface. PaintX requires a better control layout than the standard FCPX user interface has been designed for. Once inside the PaintX interface window, you have a choice of ten brush functions, including paint color, change color, blur, smear, sharpen, warp, clone, add noise, heal, and erase. These functions cover a range of needs, from simple wire removal to beauty enhancements and even pseudo horror makeup effects. You have control over brush size, softness, aspect ratio, angle, and opacity. The various brushes also have specific controls for their related functions, such as the blur range for the blur brush. Effects are applied in layers and actions. Each stroke is an action and both remain editable. If you aren’t the most precise artist, then the erase brush comes in handy. Did you color a bit too far outside of the lines? Simply use the erase brush on that layer and trim back your excess.

Multiple brush effects can be applied to the same or different areas within the image, simply by adding a new layer for each effect. Once you’ve applied the first paint stroke, an additional brush control panel opens – allowing you to edit the brush parameters, after the fact. So, if your brush size was too large or not soft enough, simply alter those settings without the need to redo the effect. Each effect can be individually tracked in either direction. The Mocha tracker offers additional features, such as transform (scale/position) versus perspective tracking, along with the ability to copy and paste tracking data between brush layers.

As a Final Cut Pro X effect, PaintX works within the standard video pipeline. If you applied color correction upstream of your PaintX filter, then that grade is visible within the PaintX interface. But if the color correction is applied downstream of the PaintX effect, you won’t see it when you open the PaintX interface. However, that correction will still be uniformly applied to the clip, including the areas altered within the PaintX effect. If you’ve “punched into” a 4K clip on an HD timeline, when you open PaintX, you’ll still see the full 4K frame. Finally, you have additional FCPX control over the opacity and mix of the applied PaintX filter.

I found PaintX to be well-behaved even on a modest Mac, like my 3-year-old laptop. However, if you don’t have a beefy Mac, keep the effect simple. The more brush effects that you apply and track in a single clip, the slower the real-time response will become, especially on under-powered machines. These effects are GPU-intensive and paint strokes are really a particle system; therefore, simple, single-layer effects are the easiest on the machine. But, if you intend to do more complex effects like blurs and sharpens in multiple layers, then you will really want one of the more powerful Macs. Playback response is generally better, once you’ve saved the effect and exit back to Final Cut. I did run into one minor issue with the clone brush on a single isolated clip, while using a 2013 Mac Pro. CoreMelt told me there have been a few early bugs with certain GPUs and is looking into the anomaly I discovered. That model in particular has been notorious for GPU issues with video effects. (Update: CoreMelt sent me a new build, which has corrected this problem.)

Originally written for RedShark News

©2018 Oliver Peters

Apple 2018 MacBook Pro

July was a good month for Apple power users, with the simultaneous release of Blackmagic Design’s eGPU and a refresh of Apple’s popular MacBook Pro line, including both 13″ and 15″ models. Although these new laptops retain the previous model’s form factor, they gained a bump-up in processors, RAM, and storage capacity.

Apple loaned me one of the Touch Bar space gray 15” models for this review. It came maxed out with the 8th generation 2.9 GHz 6-core Intel Core i9 CPU, 32GB DDR4 (faster) RAM, Radeon Pro 560X GPU, and a 2TB SSD. The price range on the 15″ model is pretty wide, due in part to the available SSD choices – from 256GB up to 4TB. Touch Bar 15” configurations start at $2,399 and can go all the way up to $6,699, once you spec the top upgrade for everything. My configuration was only $4,699 with the 2TB SSD. Of course, that’s before you add Apple Care (which I highly recommend for laptops) and any accessories.

Apple also released premium leather sleeves for both the 13″ and 15″ models in three colors ($199 for the 15″ size). They are pricey, of course, but not out of line with other branded, luxury products, like bags and watch bands. They fit the unit snuggly and protect it when you are out and about. In addition, they serve as a good pad on rough desk surfaces or when you have the MacBook Pro on your lap. Depending on the task you are performing, the bottom surface of the MacBook Pro can get warm, but nothing to be concerned about.

Before you point me to the nearest Windows gaming machine instead, let me mention that this review really isn’t a comparison against Windows laptops, but rather advances by Apple within the MacBook Pro line. But for context, I have owned six laptops to date – 3 PCs and 3 Macs. I shifted to Mac in order to have access to Final Cut Pro and have been happy with that move. The first 2 PCs developed stress fractures at the lid hinges before they were even a year old. The third, an HP, was solid, but after I gave it to my daughter, the power supply shorted. In addition, the hard drive became so corrupt (thank you Windows) that it wasn’t worth trying to recover. In short, my Mac laptop experience, like that of others, has been one of good value. MacBook Pros generally last years and if you use them for actual billable work (editing, DIT, sound design, etc.), then the investment will pay for itself.

This is the fastest and best laptop Apple has made. Apple engineering has nicely balanced power, size, weight, and battery life in a way that’s hard to counter. It is expensive, but if you try to find an equivalent PC, it is hard to actually find one with these exact same specs or components, until you get into gaming PCs. Those a) look pretty ugly, b) tend to be larger and heavier, with lower battery life, and c) cost about the same. There’s also the sales experience. Try to navigate nearly any PC-centric laptop supplier in an effort to customize the options and it tends to become an exercise in frustration. On the other hand, Apple makes it quite easy to buy and configure its machines with the options that you want.

I do have to mention that when these MacBook Pros first came out there was an issue of performance throttling, which was quickly addressed by Apple and fixed by a supplemental macOS release. That had already been installed on my unit, so no throttling issues that affected any of my performance tests.

Likewise, there have been debris complaints with the first run of the “butterfly” keys used in this and the previous version of these laptops. As other reviewers have stated when tear-downs have been done, Apple has added a membrane under the keys to help with sound dampening. Some reviewers have speculated that this also helps mitigate or even eliminate the debris issues. Whatever the reason, I liked typing on this keyboard and it did sound quieter to me. I tend to bang on keys, since I’m not a touch typist. The feel of a keyboard to a typist can be very subjective and in the course of a day, I tend to type on several vintages of Apple keyboards. In general, the keyboard on this newest MacBook Pro felt comfortable to me, when used for standard typing.

What did Apple bring new to the mix?

When Apple introduced the Touch Bar in 2016, I thought ‘meh’. But after these couple of weeks, I’ve really enjoyed it, especially when an application like Final Cut Pro X extends its controls to the Touch Bar. You can switch the Touch Bar preferences to only be function keys if you like. But having control strip options makes it quick to adjust screen brightness, volume, and so on. In the case of FCPX, you also get a mini-timeline view in some modes. Even QuickTime player calls up a small movie strip into the Touch Bar screen for the file being played.

These units also include Apple’s T2 security chip, which powers the fingerprint Touch ID and the newly added “Hey Siri” commands. The Retina screen on this laptop is gorgeous with up to 500 nits brightness and a wide color gamut. Another new addition is True Tone, which adjusts the display’s color temperature for the surrounding ambient light. That may become a more important selling point in the coming years. There is growing concern within the industry that blue light emitted from computer displays causes long-term eyesight damage. Generally, True Tone warms up the screen when under interior lighting, which reduces eye fatigue when you are working with a lot of white documents. But my recommendation is that editors, colorists, photographers, and designers turn this feature off when working on tasks that require color accuracy. Otherwise, the color balance of media will appear too warm (yellowish).

The 2018 15” MacBook Pro has four Thunderbolt 3/USB-C ports and a headphone jack. The four ports (two per side) are driven by two internal Thunderbolt 3 (40Gb/s) buses. It appears that’s one for each side, which means that plugging in two devices on one side will split the available Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth on that bus in half. Although, this doesn’t seem to be much of a factor during actual use. The internal bus routing does appear to be different from the previous model, in spite of what otherwise is more or less the same hardware configuration.

Gone are all other connections, so plan on purchasing an assortment of adapters to connect peripherals, such as those ubiquitous USB thumb drives or hardware dongles (license keys). I do wish that Apple had retained at least one standard USB port. Thunderbolt 3 supports power, so no separate MagSafe port is required either. (Power supply and cable are included.) One minor downside of this is that there is no indicator LED when a full battery charge is achieved, like we used to have on the MagSafe plug.

If connected to a Thunderbolt 3 device with an adequate power supply (e.g. the LG displays or the Blackmagic eGPU sold through Apple), then a single cable can both transfer data and power the laptop. One caveat is that Thunderbolt 3 doesn’t pass a video signal in the same way as Thunderbolt 2. You cannot simply add a Thunderbolt 3-to-Thunderbolt 2 adapter and connect a typical monitor’s MiniDisplayPort plug, as was possible with Thunderbolt 2 ports. External monitors without the correct connection will need to go through a dock or monitor adapter in order to pass a video signal. (This is also true for the iMac Pros.)

Many users have taken to relying on their MacBook Pros as the primary machine for their home or office, as well on the road. The upside of Thunderbolt connectively is that when you get back to the office, connecting a single Thunderbolt 3 cable to the rest of your suite peripherals (dock, display, eGPU, whatever) is all you need to get up and running. Simple and clean. Stick the laptop in a cradle in the clamshell mode or on a laptop stand, connect the cable, and you now have a powerful desktop machine. MacBook Pros have gained enough power in recent years that – unless your demands are heavy – they can easily service your editing, photography, and graphic needs.

Is it time to upgrade?

I own a mid-2014 15” MacBook Pro (the last series with an NVIDIA GPU), which I purchased in early 2015. Three years is often a good interval for most professional users to plan on a computer refresh, so I decided to compare the two. To start with, the new 2018 machine boots faster and apps also open faster. It’s even slightly smaller and thinner than the mid-2014 model. Both have fast SSDs, but the 2018 model is significantly faster (2645 MB/s write, 2722 MB/s read – Blackmagic Speed Test).

As with other reviews, I pulled an existing edit project for my test sequence. This timeline could be the same in Final Cut Pro X, Premiere Pro, and Resolve – without effects unique to one specific software application. My timeline consisted of 4K Alexa ProResHQ files that had a LUT and were scaled into a 1080p sequence. A few 1080p B-roll shots were also part of this sequence. The only taxing effect was a reverse slomo 4K clip, using optical flow interpolation. Both machines handled 4K ProRes footage just fine at full resolution using various NLEs. Exports to ProRes and H.264 were approximately twice as fast from Final Cut Pro X on the newer MacBook Pro. The same exports from Premiere Pro were longer overall than from FCPX, but faster on the 2018 machine, as well (see the section at the end for performance by the numbers).

If you are a fan of Final Cut Pro X, this machine is one of the best to use it on, especially if you can store your media on the internal drive. However, as an equalizer of sorts, I also ran these same test projects from an external SSD connected via USB3. While fast (over 200+ MB/s read/write), it wasn’t nearly as fast as the internal SSDs. Nevertheless, performance didn’t really lag behind with either FCPX or Premiere Pro. However, the optical flow clip did pose some issues. It played smoothly at “best quality” in FCPX, but oddly stuttered in the “best performance” setting. It did not play well in Premiere Pro at either full or half resolution. I also believe it contributed to the slower export times evident with Premiere Pro.

I tested a second project made up of all 4K REDCODE raw footage, which was placed into a 4K timeline. The 2018 MacBook Pro played the individual files and edited sequences smoothly when set to “best performance” in FCPX or half resolution in Premiere Pro. However, bumping the settings up to full quality caused stuttering with either NLE.

My last test was the same DaVinci Resolve project that I’ve used for my eGPU “stress” tests. These are anamorphic 4K Alexa files in a 2K DCI timeline. I stripped off all of the added filters that I had applied for the test of the eGPU, leaving a typical editing timeline with only a LUT and basic correction. This sequence played smoothly without dropping frames, which bodes well for editors who are considering a shift to Resolve as their main NLE.

Speaking of the Blackmagic eGPU tests, I had one day of overlap between the loans of the MacBook Pro and the Blackmagic eGPU. DaVinci Resolve’s real-time playback performance and exports were improved by about a 2X factor with the eGPU connected to the 15” model. Naturally,  the 15” machine by itself was quite a bit faster than the 13” MacBook Pro, so the improvement with an eGPU attached wasn’t as dramatic of a margin as the test with the 13” demonstrated. Even with this powerhouse MacBook Pro, the Blackmagic eGPU still adds value as a general appliance, as well as providing Resolve acceleration.

A note on battery life. The spec claims about 10 hours, but that’s largely for simple use, like watching web movies or listening to iTunes. Most of these activities do not cause the graphics to switch over from the integrated Intel to the Radeon Pro GPU, which consumes more power. In my editing tests with the Radeon GPU constantly on – and most of the energy saving settings disabled – I got five to six hours of battery life. That’s even when an application like FCPX was open, but minimized, without any real activity being done on the laptop.

I also ran a “heavy load” test, which involved continually looping my sample 1080 timeline (with 4K source media) full screen at “best quality” in FCPX. This is obviously a worst case scenario, but the charge only lasted about two hours. In short, the battery capacity is very good for a laptop, but one can only expect so much. If you plan on a heavy workload for an extended period of time, stay plugged in.

The 2018 MacBook Pro is a solid update that creative professionals will certainly enjoy, both in the field and even as a desktop replacement. If you bought last year’s model, there’s little reason to refresh your computer, yet. But three years or more? Get out the credit card!

_________________________________________________

Performance by the numbers

Blackmagic Design eGPU test

DaVinci Resolve renders/exports
(using the same test sequence as used for my eGPU review)

13” 2018 MacBook Pro – internal Intel graphics only
Render at source resolution – 1fps
Render at timeline resolution – 4fps

13” 2018 MacBook Pro – with Blackmagic eGPU
Render at source resolution – 5.5fps
Render at timeline resolution – 17.5fps

15” 2018 MacBook Pro – internal Radeon graphics only
Render at source resolution – 2.5fps
Render at timeline resolution – 8fps

15” 2018 MacBook Pro – with Blackmagic eGPU
Render at source resolution – 5.5fps
Render at timeline resolution – 16fps

Standard performance tests – 2018 15” MacBook Pro vs. Mid-2014
(using editing test sequence – 4K ProResHQ media)

2018 export from FCPX to ProRes  :30
2018 export from FCPX to H.264 at 10Mbps  :57
2014 export from FCPX to ProRes  :57
2014 export from FCPX to H.264 at 10Mbps  1:42

2018 export from Premiere Pro to ProRes  2:59
2018 export from Premiere Pro to H.264 at 10Mbps  2:32
2014 export from Premiere Pro to ProRes  3:35
2014 export from Premiere Pro to H.264 at 10Mbps  3:25

2018 export from Resolve to ProRes :35
2018 export from Resolve to H.264 at 10Mbps  :35
(Mid-2014 MBP was not used in this test)

Originally written for RedSharkNews

©2018 Oliver Peters

Blackmagic Design eGPU

Power users have grown to rely on graphics processing units from AMD, Intel and Nvidia to accelerate a wide range of computational functions – from visual effect filters to gaming and 360VR, and even to bitcoin mining. Apple finally supports external GPUs, which can easily be added as plug-and-play devices without any hack. Blackmagic Design just released its own eGPU product for the Mac, which is sold exclusively through Apple ($699 USD). It requires macOS 10.13.6 or later, and a Thunderbolt 3 connection. (Thunderbolt 2, even with adapters, will not work.)

The Blackmagic eGPU features a sleek, aluminum enclosure that makes a fine piece of desk art. It’s of similar size and weight to a 2013 Mac Pro and is optimized for both cooling and low noise. The unit is built around the AMD Radeon Pro 580 GPU with 8GB of video memory. It delivers 5.5 teraflops of processing power and is the same GPU used in Apple’s top-end, 27” Retina 5K iMac.

Leveraging Thunderbolt 3

Thunderbolt 3 technology supports 40Gb/s of bandwidth, as well as power. The Blackmagic eGPU includes a beefy power supply that can also power and/or charge a connected MacBook Pro. There are two Thunderbolt 3 ports, four USB3.1 ports, and HDMI. Therefore, you can connect a Mac, two displays, plus various USB peripherals. It’s easy to think of it as an accelerator, but it is also an appliance that can be useful in other ways to extend the connectivity and performance of MacBook Pros. Competing products with the same Radeon 580 GPU may be a bit less expensive, but they don’t offer this level of connectivity.

Apple and Blackmagic both promote eGPUs as an add-on for laptops, but any Thunderbolt 3 Mac qualifies. I tested the Blackmagic eGPU with both a high-end iMac Pro and the base model 13” 2018 MacBook Pro with touch bar. This model of iMac Pro is configured with the more advanced Vega Pro 64 GPU (16GB VRAM). My main interest in including the iMac Pro was simply to see whether there would be enough performance boost to justify adding an eGPU to a Mac that is already Apple’s most powerful. Installation of the eGPU was simply a matter of plugging it in. A top menu icon appears on the Mac screen to let you know it’s there and so you can disconnect the unit while the Mac is powered up.

Pushing the boundaries through testing

My focus is editing and color correction and not gaming or VR. Therefore, I ran tests with and without the eGPU, using Final Cut Pro X, Premiere Pro, and DaVinci Resolve (Resolve Studio 15 beta). Anamorphic ARRI Alexa ProRes 4444 camera files (2880×2160, native / 5760×2160 pixels, unsqueezed) were cut into 2K DCI (Resolve) and/or 4K DCI (FCPX, Premiere Pro) sequences. This meant that every clip got a Log-C LUT and color correction, as well as aspect ratio correction and scaling. In order to really stress the system, I added several GPU-accelerated effect filters, like glow, film grain, and so on. Finally, timed exports went back to ProRes 4444 – using the internal SSD for media and render files to avoid storage bottlenecks.

Not many applications take advantage of this newfound power, yet. Neither FCPX nor Premiere utilize the eGPU correctly or even at all. Premiere exports were actually slower using the eGPU. In my tests, only DaVinci Resolve gained measurable acceleration from the eGPU, which also held true for a competing eGPU that I compared.

If editing, grading or possibly location DIT work is your main interest, then consider the Blackmagic eGPU a good accessory for DaVinci Resolve running on a MacBook Pro. As a general rule, lesser-powered machines benefit more from eGPU acceleration than powerful ones, like the iMac Pro, with its already-powerful, built-in Vega Pro 64 GPU.

Performance by the numbers (iMac Pro only)

To provide some context, here are the results I got with the iMac Pro:

Resolve on iMac Pro (internal V64 chip) – NO eGPU – Auto GPU config

Playback of timeline at real-time 23.976 without frames dropping

Render at source resolution – average 11fps (slower than real-time)

Render at timeline resolution – average 33fps (faster than real-time)

Resolve on iMac Pro – with BMD eGPU (580 chip) – OpenCL

Playback of timeline at real-time 23.976 without frames dropping

Render at source resolution – average 11fps (slower than real-time)

Render at timeline resolution – average 37fps (faster than real-time)

Metal

Apple’s ability to work with eGPUs is enabled by Metal. This is their framework for addressing hardware components, like graphics and central processors. The industry has relied on other frameworks, including OpenGL, OpenCL and CUDA. The first two are open standards written for a wide range of hardware platforms, while CUDA is specific to Nvidia GPUs. Apple is deprecating all of these in favor of Metal (now Metal 2). With each coming OS update, these will become more and more “legacy” until presumably, at some point in the future, macOS may only support Metal.

Apple’s intention is to gain performance improvements by optimizing the code at a lower level “closer to the metal”. It is possible to do this when you only address a limited number of hardware options, which may explain why Apple has focused on using only AMD and Intel GPUs. The downside is that developers must write code that is proprietary to Apple computers. Metal is in part what gives Final Cut Pro X it’s smooth media handling and real-time performance. Both Premiere Pro and Resolve give you the option to select Metal, when installed on Macs.

In the tests that I ran, I presume FCPX only used Metal, since there is no option to select anything else. I did, however, test both Premiere Pro/Adobe Media Encoder and Resolve with both Metal and again with OpenCL specifically selected. I didn’t see much difference in render times with either setting in Premiere/AME. Resolve showed definite differences, with OpenCL the clear winner. For now, Resolve is still optimized for OpenCL over Metal.

Power for the on-the-go editor and colorist

The MacBook Pro is where the Blackmagic eGPU makes the most sense. It gives you better performance with faster exports, and adds badly-needed connectivity. My test Resolve sequence is a lot more stressful than I would normally create. It’s the sort of sequence I would never work with in the real world on a lower-end machine, like this 13” model. But, of course, I’m purposefully pushing it through a demanding task.

When I ran the test on the laptop without the eGPU connected, it would barely play at all. Exports at source resolution rendered at around 1fps. Once I added the Blackmagic eGPU, this sequence played in real-time, although the viewer would start to drop frames towards the end of each shot. Exports at the source resolution averaged 5.5fps. At timeline resolution (2K DCI) it rendered at up to 17fps, as opposed to 4fps without it. That’s over 4X improvement.

Everyone’s set of formats and use of color correction and filters are different. Nevertheless, once you add the Blackmagic eGPU to this MacBook Pro model, functionality in Resolve goes from insanely slow to definitely useable. If you intend to do reliable color correction using Resolve, then a Thunderbolt 3 UltraStudio HD Mini or 4K Extreme 3 is also required for proper video monitoring. Resolve doesn’t send video signals over HDMI, like Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro X can.

It will be interesting to see if Blackmagic also offers a second eGPU model with the higher-end chip in the future. That would likely double the price of the unit. In the testing I’ve done with other eGPUs that used a version of the Vega 64 GPU, I’m not convinced that such a product would consistently deliver 2X more performance to justify the cost. This Blackmagic eGPU adds a healthy does of power and connectivity for current MacBook Pro users and that will only get better in the future.

I think it’s clear that Apple is looking towards eGPUs are a way to enhance the performance of its MacBook Pro line, without compromising design, battery life, and cooling. Cable up to an external device and you’ve gained back horsepower that wouldn’t be there in the standard machine. After all, you mainly need this power when you are in a fixed, rather than mobile, location. The Blackmagic eGPU is portable enough, so that as long as you have electrical power, you are good to go.

In his review of the 2018 MacBook Pro, Ars Technica writer Samuel Axon stated, “Apple is trying to push its own envelope with the CPU options it has included in the 2018 MacBook Pro, but it’s business as usual in terms of GPU performance. I believe that’s because Apple wants to wean pro users with serious graphics needs onto external GPUs. Those users need more power than a laptop can ever reasonably provide – especially one with a commitment to portability.”

I think that neatly sums it up, so it’s nice to see Blackmagic Design fill in the gaps.

UPDATE: The September 2018 release of Mojave has changed the behavior of Final Cut Pro X when an eGPU is connected. It is now possible to set a preference for whether the internal or external GPU is to be used with Final Cut Pro X.

Originally written for RedShark News.

©2018 Oliver Peters

Hawaiki AutoGrade

The color correction tools in Final Cut Pro X are nice. Adobe’s Lumetri controls make grading intuitive. But sometimes you just want to click a few buttons and be happy with the results. That’s where AutoGrade from Hawaiki comes in. AutoGrade is a full-featured color correction plug-in that runs within Final Cut Pro X, Motion, Premiere Pro and After Effects. It is available from FxFactory and installs through the FxFactory plug-in manager.

As the name implies, AutoGrade is an automatic color correction tool designed to simplify and speed-up color correction. When you install AutoGrade, you get two plug-ins: AutoGrade and AutoGrade One. The latter is a simple, one-button version, based on global white balance. Simply use the color-picker (eye dropper) and sample an area that should be white. Select enable and the overall color balance is corrected. You can then tweak further, by boosting the correction, adjusting the RGB balance sliders, and/or fine-tuning luma level and saturation. Nearly all parameters are keyframeable, and looks can be saved as presets.

AutoGrade One is just a starter, though, for simple fixes. The real fun is with the full version of AutoGrade, which is a more comprehensive color correction tool. Its interface is divided into three main sections: Auto Balance, Quick Fix, and Fine-Tune. Instead of a single global balance tool, the Auto Balance section permits global, as well as, any combination of white, black, and/or skin correction. Simply turn on one or more desired parameters, sample the appropriate color(s) and enable Auto Balance. This tool will also raise or lower luma levels for the selected tonal range.

Sometimes you might have to repeat the process if you don’t like the first results. For example, when you sample the skin on someone’s face, sampling rosy cheeks will yield different results than if you sample the yellowish highlights on a forehead. To try again, just uncheck Auto Balance, sample a different area, and then enable Auto Balance again. In addition to an amount slider for each correction range, you can also adjust the RGB balance for each. Skin tones may be balanced towards warm or neutral, and the entire image can be legalized, which clamps video levels to 0-100.

Quick Fix is a set of supplied presets that work independently of the color balance controls. These include some standards, like cooling down or warming up the image, the orange and teal look, adding an s-curve, and so on. They are applied at 100% and to my eye felt a bit harsh at this default. To tone down the effect, simply adjust the amount slider downwards to get less intensity from the effect.

Fine-Tune rounds it out when you need to take a deeper dive. This section is built as a full-blown, 3-way color corrector. Each range includes a luma and three color offset controls. Instead of wheels, these controls are sliders, but the results are the same as with wheels. In addition, you can adjust exposure, saturation, vibrance, temperature/tint, and even two different contrast controls. One innovation is a log expander, designed to make it easy to correct log-encoded camera footage, in the absence of a specific log-to-Rec709 camera LUT.

Naturally, any plug-in could always offer more, so I have a minor wish list. I would love to see five additional features: film grain, vignette, sharpening, blurring/soft focus, and a highlights-only expander. There are certainly other individual filters that cover these needs, but having it all within a single plug-in would make sense. This would round out AutoGrade as a complete, creative grading module, servicing user needs beyond just color correction looks.

AutoGrade is a deceptively powerful color corrector, hidden under a simple interface. User-created looks can be saved as presets, so you can quickly apply complex settings to similar shots and set-ups. There are already many color correction tools on the market, including Hawaiki’s own Hawaiki Color. The price is very attractive, so AutoGrade is a superb tool to have in your kit. It’s a fast way to color-grade that’s ideal for both users who are new or experienced when it comes to color correction.

(Click any image to see an enlarged view.)

©2018 Oliver Peters