Last year FilmConvert, developers of the Nitrate film emulation plug-in, released CineMatch. It’s a camera-matching plug-in designed for multiple platforms – including operating systems and different editing/grading applications. The initial 2020 release worked with DaVinci Resolve and Premiere Pro. Recently FilmConvert added Final Cut Pro support. You can purchase the plug-in for individual hosts or as a bundle for multiple hosts. If you bought the bundled version last year, then that license key is also applicable to the new Final Cut Pro plug-in. So, nothing extra to purchase for bundle owners.
CineMatch is designed to work with log and raw formats and a wide range of camera packs is included within the installer. To date, 70 combinations of brands and models are supported, including iPhones. FilmConvert has created these profiles based on the color science of the sensor used in each of the specific cameras.
CineMatch for FCP works the same way as the Resolve and Premiere Pro versions. First, select the source profile for the camera used. Next, apply the desired target camera profile. Finally, make additional color adjustments as needed.
If you a shoot with one predominant A camera that is augmented by B and C cameras of different makes/models, then you can apply CineMatch to the B and C camera clips in order to better match them to the A camera’s look.
You can also use it to shift the look of a camera to that of a different camera. Let’s say that you want a Canon C300 to look more like an ARRI Alexa or even an iPhone. Simply use CineMatch to do that. In my example images, I’ve adjusted Blackmagic and Alexa clips so that they both emulate the color science of a Sony Venice camera.
When working in Final Cut Pro, remember that it will automatically apply Rec 709 LUTs to some log formats, like ARRI Alexa Log-C. When you plan to use CineMatch, be sure to also set the Camera LUT pulldown selector in the inspector pane to “none.” Otherwise, you will be stacking two LUT conversions resulting in a very ugly look.
Once camera settings have been established, you can further adjust exposure, color balance, lift/gamma/gain color wheels, saturation, and the luma curve. There is also an HSL curves panel to further refine hue, saturation, and luma for individual color ranges. This is helpful when trying to match two cameras or shots to each other with greater accuracy. FCP’s comparison viewer is a great aid in making these tweaks.
As a side note, it’s also possible to use CineMatch in conjunction with FilmConvert Nitrate (if you have it) to not only adjust color science, but then to subsequently emulate different film stocks and grain characteristics.
CineMatch is a useful tool when working with different camera types and want to achieve a cohesive look. It’s easy and quick to use with little performance impact. CineMatch now also supports M1 Macs.
In a former life, video deliverables were on videotape and no one seriously used the internet for any mission-critical media projects. TVs and high-quality video monitors used essentially the same display technology and standards. Every videotape started with SMPTE color bars used as a reference to set up the playback of the tape deck. Monitors were calibrated to bars and gray scale charts to assure proper balance, contrast, saturation, and hue. If the hardware was adjusted to this recognized standard, then what you saw in an edit suite would also be what the network or broadcaster would see going out over the air.
Fast forward to the present when nearly all deliverables are sent as files. Aesthetic judgements – especially by clients and off-site producers – are commonly made viewing MOV or MP4 files on some type of computer or device screen. As an editor who also does color correction, making sure that I’m sending the client a file that matches what I saw when it was created is very important.
Color management and your editing software
In researching and writing several articles and posts about trusting displays and color management, I’ve come to realize the following. If you expect the NLE viewer to be a perfect match with the output to a video display or an exported file playing in every media player, then good luck! The chances are slim.
There are several reasons for this. First, Macs and PCs use different gamma standards when displaying media files. Second, not all computer screens work in the same color space. For instance, some use P3-D65 while others use sRGB. Third, these color space and gamma standards differ from the standards used by televisions and also projection systems.
I’ll stick to standard dynamic range (SDR) in this discussion. HDR is yet another mine field best left for another day. The television display standard for SDR video is Rec. 709 with a 2.4 gamma value. Computers do not use this; however, NLEs use it as the working color space for the timeline. Some NLEs will also emulate this appearance within the source and record viewers in order to match the Rec. 709, 2.4 gamma feed going out through the i/o hardware to a video monitor.
As with still photos, a color profile is assigned when you export a video file, regardless of file wrapper or codec. This color profile is metadata that any media player software can use to interpret how a file should be displayed to the screen. For example, if you edit in Premiere Pro, Adobe uses a working SDR color space of Rec. 709 with 2.4 gamma. Exported files are assigned a color profile of 1-1-1. They will appear slightly lighter and less saturated in QuickTime Player as compared with the Premiere Pro viewer. That’s because computer screens default to a different gamma value – usually 1.96 on Macs. However, if you re-import that file back into Premiere, it will be properly interpreted and will match the original within Premiere. There’s nothing wrong with the exported file. It’s merely a difference based on differing display targets.
The developer’s conundrum
A developer of editing software has several options when designing their color management system. The first is to assume that the viewer should match Rec. 709, 2.4 gamma, since that’s the television standard and is consistent with legacy workflows. This is the approach taken by Adobe, Avid, and Blackmagic, but with some variations. Premiere Pro offers no alternate SDR timeline options, but After Effects does. Media Composer editors can set the viewer based on several standards and different video levels for Rec. 709: legal range (8-bit levels of 16-235) versus full range (8-bit levels of 0-255). Blackmagic enables different gamma options even when the Rec. 709 color space is selected.
Apple has taken a different route with Final Cut Pro by utilizing ColorSync. The same image in an FCP viewer will appear somewhat brighter than in the viewer of other NLEs; however, it will match the playback of an exported file in QuickTime Player. In addition, the output through AJA or Blackmagic i/o hardware to a video display will also match. Not only does the image look great on Apple screens, but it looks consistent across all apps on any Apple device that uses the ColorSync technology.
You have to look at it this way. A ton of content is being delivered only over the internet via sites like Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube rather than through traditional broadcast. A file submitted to a large streamer like Netflix will be properly interpreted within their pipeline, so no real concerns there. This begs the question. Should the app’s viewer really be designed to emulate Rec. 709, 2.4 gamma or should it look correct for the computer’s display technology?
The rubber meets the road
Here’s what happens in actual practice. When you export from Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro, or Media Composer, the result is a media file tagged with the 1-1-1 color profile. For Premiere and Media Composer, exports will appear with somewhat less contrast and saturation than the image in the viewer.
In Resolve, you can opt to work in Rec. 709 with different gamma settings, including 2.4 or 709-A (“A” for Apple, I presume). These two different output settings would look the same until you start to apply a color grade (so don’t switch midstream). If you are set to 2.4 (or automatic), then the exported file has a color profile of 1-2-1. But with 709-A the exported file has a color profile of 1-1-1. These Resolve files will match the viewer and each other, but will also look darker than the comparable Premiere Pro and FCP exports.
All of the major browsers use the color profile. So do most media players, except VLC. These differences are also apparent on a PC, so it’s not an Apple issue per se. More importantly the profile determines how a file is interpreted. For instance, the two Resolve ProRes exports (one at 1-1-1, the other at 1-2-1) look the same in this first generation export. But let’s say you use Adobe Media Encoder to generate H.264 MP4 viewing copies from those ProRes files. The transcoded MP4 of the 709-A export (1-1-1 color profile) will match its ProRes original. However, the transcoded MP4 of the 2.4 export (1-2-1 color profile) will now look a bit brighter than its ProRes original. That’s because the color profile of the MP4 has been changed to 1-1-1.
Gamma changes mostly affect the midrange and shadow portion of a video signal. Therefore, differences are also more or less apparent depending on content. The more extreme your grading, the more apparent (and to some, obnoxious) these differences become. If these really bother you, then there are several ways to create files that are “enhanced” for computer viewing. This will make them a bit darker and more saturated.
You can tweak the color correction by using an adjustment layer to export a file with a bit more contrast and saturation. In Premiere Pro, you can use a Lumetri effect in the adjustment layer to add a slight s-curve along with a 10% bump in saturation.
You can use a QT Gamma Correction LUT (such as from Adobe) as part of the export. However, in my experience, it’s a bit too dark in the shadows for my taste.
You can pass the exported file through After Effects and create a separate sRGB version.
These approaches are not transparent. In other words, you cannot re-import these files and expect them to match the original. Be very careful about your intentions when using any of these hacks, because you are creating misadjusted files simply for viewing purposes.
In the end, is it really right to use Rec. 709 2.4 gamma as the standard for an NLE viewer? Personally, I think Apple used the better and more modern approach. Should you do any of these hacks? Well, that’s up to you. More and more people are reviewing content on smart phones and tablets – especially iPhones and iPads – all of which show good-looking images. So maybe these concerns are simply much ado about nothing.
Or paraphrasing Dr. Strangelove – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Color Profiles.
Apple’s innovative Final Cut Pro editing software has passed its tenth year and for many, the development pace has become far too slow. As a yardstick, users point to the intensity with which Blackmagic Design has advanced its flagship DaVinci Resolve application. Since acquiring DaVinci, Blackmagic has expanded the editing capabilities and melded in other acquisitions, such as EyeOn Fusion and Fairlight audio. They’ve even integrated a second, FCP-like editing model called the Cut page. This has some long-time Final Cut editors threatening to jump ship and switch to Resolve.
Let’s dig a bit deeper into some of the comparisons. While Resolve has a strong presence as a premier color correction tool, its actual adoption as the main editor within the post facility world hasn’t been very strong. On the other hand, if you look outside of the US to Europe and the rest of the world, you’ll find quite a few installations of Final Cut Pro within larger media operations and production companies. Clearly both products have found a home servicing professional workflows.
Editing versus finishing
When all production and post was done with film, the picture editor would make all of the creative editing decisions by cutting workprint and sound using a flatbed or upright editing machine. The edited workprint became the template for the optical house, negative cutter, film timer, and lab to produce the final film prints. There was a clear delineation between creative editing and the finishing stages of filmmaking.
Once post moved to videotape, the film workflow was translated into its offline (creative editing) and online (finishing) video counterparts. Offline editing rooms used low-res formats and were less expensive to equip and operate. Online rooms used high-res formats and often looked like the bridge of a starship. But it could also be the other way around, because the offline and online processes were defined by the outcome and not the technology. Offline = creative decisions. Online = finished masters. Of course, given proper preparation or a big budget, the offline edit stage could be skipped. Everything – creative edit and finishing – was all performed in the same online edit bay.
Early nonlinear editing supplemented videotape offline edit bays for a hybrid workflow. As computer technology advanced and NLE quality and capabilities improved, all post production shifted to workstation-based operations. But the offline/online – editing/finishing – workflows have persisted, in spite of the fact that most computers and editing applications are capable of meeting both needs. Why? It comes down to three things: personality, kit, and skillset.
Kit first. Although your software might do everything well, you may or may not have a capable computer, which is why proxy workflows exist today. Beyond that comes monitoring. Accurate color correction and sound mixing requires proper high-quality audio and video monitoring. A properly equipped finishing room should also have the right lighting environment and/or wall treatments for sound mixing. None of this is essential for basic editing tasks, even at the highest level. While having a tool like Resolve makes it possible to cover all of the technical aspects of editing and finishing, if you don’t have the proper room, high-quality finishing may still be a challenge.
Each of the finishing tasks requires its own specialized skillset. A topnotch re-recording mixer isn’t going to be a great colorist or an award-winning visual effects compositor. It’s not that they couldn’t, but for most of us, that’s not the way the mind works nor the opportunities presented to us. As we spend more time at a specialized skill – the “10,000 hour” rule – the better we are at it.
Finally, the issue of personality. Many creative editors don’t have a strong technical background and some aren’t all that precise in how they handle the software. As someone who works on both sides, I’ve encountered some of the most awful timelines on projects where I’ve handled the finishing tasks. The cut was great and very creative, but the timeline was a mess.
On the flipside, finishing editors (or online editors before them) tend to be very detail-oriented. They are often very creative in their own right, but they do tend to fit the “left-brained” description. Many prefer finishing tasks over the messy world of clients, directors, and so on. In short, a topnotch creative editor might not be a good finisher and vice versa.
The all-in-one application versus the product ecosystem
Blackmagic Design’s DaVinci Resolve is an all-in-one solution, combining editing, color, visual effects, and sound mixing. As such, it follows in the footsteps of other all-in-ones, like Avid|DS (discontinued) and Autodesk Flame (integrated with Smoke and Lustre). Historically, neither of these or any other all-in-ones have been very successful in the wider editing market. Cost coupled with complex user interfaces have kept them in more rarified areas of post.
Apple took the opposite approach with the interaction of Final Cut Pro X. They opted for a simpler, more approachable interface without many features editors had grown used to in the previous FCP 7/FCP Studio versions. This stripped-down application was augmented by other Apple and third-party applications, extensions, and plug-ins to fill the void.
If you want the closest equivalent to Resolve’s toolkit in the Final Cut ecosystem, you’ll have to add Motion, Logic Pro, Xsend Motion, X2Pro Audio Convert, XtoCC, and SendToX at a very minimum. If you want to get close to the breadth of Adobe Creative Cloud offerings, also add Compressor, Pixelmator Pro (or Affinity, Photo, Publisher, and Designer), and a photo application. Resolve is built upon a world-class color correction engine, but Final Cut Pro does include high-quality grading tools, too. Want more? Then add Color Finale 2, Coremelt Chromatic, FilmConvert Nitrate, or one of several other color correction plug-ins.
Yes, the building block approach does seem messy, but it allows a user to tailor the software toolkit according to their own particular use case. The all-in-one approach might appear better, but that gets to personality and skillset. It’s highly unlikely that the vast majority of Resolve users will fully master its four core capabilities: edit, color, VFX (Fusion), and mixing (Fairlight). A good, full-time editor probably isn’t going to be as good at color correction as a full-time colorist. A great colorist won’t also be a good mixer.
In theory, if you have a team of specialists who have all centralized around Resolve, then the same tool and project files could bounce from edit to VFX, to color, and to the mix, without any need to roundtrip between disparate applications. In reality it’s likely that your go-to mograph/VFX artist/compositor is going to prefer After Effects or maybe Nuke. Your favorite audio post shop probably won’t abandon Pro Tools for Fairlight.
Even for the single editor who does it all, Resolve presents some issues with its predefined left-to-right, tabbed workflow. For example, grading performed in the Color tab can’t be tweaked in the Edit tab. The UI is based on modal tabs instead of fly-out panels within a single workspace.
If you boil it all down, Resolve is the very definition of a finishing application and appeals best to editors of that mindset and with the skills to effectively use the majority of its power. Final Cut Pro is geared to the creative approach with its innovative feature set, like metadata-based organization, skimming, and the magnetic timeline. It’s more approachable for less-experience editors, hiding the available technical complexity deeper down. However, just like offline and online editing suites, you can flip it around and do creative editing with Resolve and finishing with Final Cut Pro (plus the rest of the ecosystem).
The intangibles of editing
It’s easy to compare applications on paper and say that one product appears better and more feature-rich than another. That doesn’t account for how an application feels when you use it, which is something Apple has spent a lot of time thinking about. Sometimes small features can make all the difference in an editor’s preference. The average diner might opine that chef’s knives are the same, but don’t tell that to a real chef!
Avid Media Composer editors rave about the trim tool. Many Adobe Premiere Pro editors swear by Dynamic Link. Some Apple Final Cut Pro editors get frustrated when they have to return to a track-based, non-magnetic NLE. It’s puzzling to me that some FCP stalwarts are vocal about shifting to Resolve (a traditional track-based NLE) if Apple doesn’t add ‘xyz’ feature. That simply doesn’t make sense to me, unless a) you are equally comfortable in track-based versus trackless architectures, and/or b) you truly have the aptitude to make effective use out of an all-in-one application like Resolve. Of course, you can certainly use both side-by-side depending on the task at hand. Cost is no longer an impediment these days. Organize and cut in FCP, and then send an FCPXML of the final sequence to Resolve for the grade, visual effects, and the mix.
It’s horses for courses. I recently read where NFL Films edits in Media Composer, grades in DaVinci Resolve, and conforms/finishes projects in Premiere Pro. That might seem perplexing to some, but makes all the sense in the world to me, because of the different skillsets of the users at those three stages of post. In my day gig, Premiere Pro is also the best choice for our team of editors. Yet, when I have projects that are totally under my control, I’ll often use FCP.
Ultimately there is no single application that is great at each and every element in post production. While the majority of features might fit all of my needs, that may not be true for you or anyone else. The divide between creative editing and finishing is likely to continue – at least at the higher end of production. In that context, Final Cut Pro still makes more sense for a frictionless editing experience, but Resolve is hard to beat for finishing.
There is one final caveat to consider. The post world is changing and much is driven by the independent content creator, as well as the work-from-home transformation. That market segment is cost conscious and subscription business models are less appealing. So Resolve’s entry point at free is attractive. Coupling Resolve with Blackmagic’s low cost, high quality cameras is also a winning strategy for new users. While Resolve can be daunting in its breadth, a new user can start with just the tools needed to complete the project and then learn new aspects of the software over time. As I look down the road, it’s a toss up as to who will be dominant in another ten years.
Spend any time watching Resolve tutorials and you’ll see many different ways in which colorists approach the creation of the same looks. Some create a look with just a few simple nodes. Others build a seemingly convoluted node tree designed to achieve the same goal. Neither approach is right or wrong.
Often what can all be done in a single node is spread across several in order to easily trace back through your steps when changes are needed. It also makes it easy to compare the impact of a correction by enabling and disabling a node. A series of nodes applied to a clip can be saved as a PowerGrade, which is a node preset. PowerGrades can be set up for a certain look or can be populated with blank (unaltered) nodes that are organized for how you like to work. Individual nodes can also be labeled, so that it’s easy to remember what operation you will do in each node.
The following is a simple PowerGrade (node sequence) that can be used as a starting point for most color grading work. It’s based on using log footage, but can also be modified for camera RAW or recordings in non-log color spaces, like Rec 709. These nodes are designed as a simple operational sequence to follow and each step can be used in a manner that works best with your footage. The sample ARRI clip was recorded with an ALEXA camera using the Log-C color profile.
Node 2 (LUT) – This is the starting point, because the first thing I want to do is apply the proper camera LUT to transform the image out of log. You could also do this with manual grading (no LUT). In that case the first three nodes would be rolled into one. Alternately you may use a Color Space Transform effect or even a Dehaze effect in some cases. But for the projects I grade, which largely use ARRI, Panasonic, Canon, and Sony cameras, adding the proper LUT seems to be the best starting point.
Node 1 (Contrast/Saturation) – With the LUT added to Node 2, I will go back to Node 1 to adjust contrast, pivot, and saturation. This changes the image going into the LUT and is a bit like adjusting the volume gain stage prior to applying an effect or filter when mixing sound. Since LUTs affect how color is treated, I will rarely adjust color balance or hue offsets (color wheels) in Node 1, as it may skew what the LUT is doing to the image in Node 2. The objective is to make subtle adjustments in Node 1 that improve the natural result coming out of Node 2.
Node 3 (Primary Correction) – This node is where you’ll want to correct color temperature/tint and use the color wheels, RGB curves, and other controls to achieve a nice primary color correction. For example, you may need to shift color temperature warmer or cooler, lower black levels, apply a slight s-curve in the RGB curves, or adjust the overall level up or down.
Node 4 (Secondary Correction) – This node is for enhancement and the tools you’ll generally use are hue/sat curves. Let’s say you want to enhance skin tones, or the blue in the sky. Adjust the proper hue/sat curve in this node.
Node 5 (Windows) – You can add one or more “power windows” within the node (or use multiple nodes). Windows can be tracked to follow objects, but the main objective is a way to relight the scene. In most projects, I find that one window per shot is typically all I need, if any at all. Often this is to brighten up the lighting on the main talent in the shot. The use of windows is a way to direct the viewer’s attention. Often a simple soft-edged oval is all you’ll need to achieve a dramatic result.
Node 6 (Vignette) – The last node in this basic structure is to add a vignette, which I generally apply just to subtly darken the corners. This adds a bit of character to most shots. I’ll build the vignette manually with a circular window rather than apply a stock effect. The window is inverted so that the correction impacts the shot outside of the windowed area.
So there’s a simple node tree that works for many jobs. If you need to adjust parameters such as noise reduction, that’s best done in Node 1 or 2. Remember that Resolve grading works on two levels – clip and timeline. These are all clip-based nodes. If you want to apply a global effect, like adding film grain to the whole timeline, then you can change the grading mode from clip to timeline. In the timeline mode, any nodes you apply impact the whole timeline and are added on top of any clip-by-clip correction, so it works a bit like an adjustment layer.
I’m previously written about the challenge of consistent gamma and saturation across multiple monitoring points. Getting an app’s viewer, QuickTime playback, and the SDI output to all look the same can be a fool’s errand. If you work on a Mac, then there are pros and cons to using Mac displays like an iMac. In general, Apple’s “secret sauce” works quite well for Final Cut Pro. However, if you edit or grade in Resolve, Premiere Pro, or Media Composer, then you aren’t quite as lucky. I’ve opined that you might actually need to generate separate files for broadcast and web deliverables.
The extra step of optimized file creation isn’t practical for most. In my case, the deliverables I create go to multiple platforms; however, few are actually destined for traditional broadcast or to be played in a theater. In most cases, my clients are creating content for the web or to be streamed in various venues. I predominantly edit in Premiere Pro and grade with Resolve. I’ve been tinkering with color management settings in each. The goal is a reasonably close match across both app viewers, the output I see to a Rec 709 display, and the look of the exported file when I view it in QuickTime Player on the computer.
Some of this advice might be a bit contrary to what I previously wrote. Both situations are still valid, depending on the projects you edit or grade. Granted, this is based on what I see on iMac and iMac Pro displays, so it may or may not be consistent with other display brands or when using PCs. And this applies to SDR, Rec 709, or sRGB outputs and not HDR grading. As a starting point, leave the Mac display profile alone. Don’t change its default profile. Yes, I know an iMac is P3, but that’s simply something you’ll have to live with.
Adobe Premiere Pro
Premiere Pro’s Rec 709 timelines are based on 2.4 gamma, which is the broadcast standard. However, an exported file is displayed with a QuickTime color profile of 1-1-1 (1.96 gamma). The challenge is to work with the Premiere Pro viewer and see an image that matches the exported file. I have changed to disabling (unchecking) the Display Color Management in General Preferences. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it results in a setting where the viewer, a Rec 709 output to a monitor, and the exported image all largely look the same.
If you enable Display Color Management, you’ll get an image in the viewer with a somewhat closer match for saturation, but gamma will be darker than the QuickTime or the video monitor. If you disable this setting, the gamma will be a better match (shadows aren’t crushed); however, the saturation of reds will be somewhat enhanced in the Premiere Pro viewer. It’s a bit of a trade-off, but I prefer the setting to be off.
Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve
Resolve has multiple places that can trip you up. But I’ve found that once you set them up, the viewer image will be a closer match to the exported file and to the Rec 709 image than is the case for Premiere Pro. There are three sections to change. The first is in the Project Settings pane (gear menu). This is the first place to start with every new Resolve project. Under Color Management, set the Timeline color space to Rec. 709 (Scene). I’ve experimented with various options, including ACES. Unfortunately the ongoing ACES issue with fluorescent color burned me on a project, so I’ll wait until I really have a need to use ACES again. Hopefully it will be less of a work-in-progress then. I’ve gone back to working in Rec. 709, but new for me is to use the Scene variant. I also turn on Broadcast Safe, but use the gentler restricted range of -10 to -110.
The next adjustment is in Resolve Preferences. Go to the General section and turn on: Use 10-bit precision in viewers, Use Mac display color profiles, and Automatically tag Rec. 709 Scene clips as Rec. 709-A. What this last setting does is make sure the exports are tagged with the 1-1-1 QuickTime color profile. If this is not checked, the file will be exported with a profile of 1-2-1 (2.4 gamma) and look darker when you play it to the desktop using QuickTime Player.
The last setting is on the Deliver page. Data levels can be set to Auto or Video. The important thing is to set the Color Space Tag and Gamma Tag to Same as Project. By doing so, the exported files will adhere to the settings described above.
Making these changes in Premiere Pro and Resolve gives me more faith in what I see in the viewer of each application. My exports are a closer match with fewer surprises. Is it a perfect match? Absolutely not. But it’s enough in the ballpark for most footage to be functional for editing purposes. Obviously you should still make critical image and color adjustments using your scopes and a calibrated reference display, but that’s not always an option. Going with these settings should mean that if you have to go by the computer screen alone, then what you see will be close to what you get!