Telestream Switch 4

Once Apple pulled the plug on QuickTime Player Pro 7, the industry started to look elsewhere for an all-purpose media tool that could facilitate the proper playback, inspection, and encoding of media files. For many, that new multipurpose application has become Telestream’s Switch, now in version 4. Telestream offers a range of desktop and enterprise media solutions, including Vantage, ScreenFlow, Flip4Mac, Episode, and others. Switch fills the role of a media player with added post-production capabilities, going far beyond other players, such as QuickTime Player or VLC.

Switch is offered in three versions: the basic Switch Player ($9.99), Switch Plus ($199) and Switch Pro ($499). Pricing for Plus and Pro covers the first year of support, which includes upgrades and assistance. There is also a free demo version with watermarking. All versions are available for both macOS (10.11-13) and Windows (7-10).

Playback support

The first attraction to Switch is its wide support of “consumer”, broadcast, and professional media formats and codecs. For Mac users, some of these are supported in QuickTime Player, too, but require a conversion step before you can play them. Not so with Switch. Of particular importance to editors will be the MPEG-2 and MXF variations. Some formats do require an upgrade to at least the Plus version, so check Telestream’s tech specs for specifics.

One area where Switch shines is file inspection. This has made it to the go-to quality assurance tool at many facilities. File metadata is exposed, along with proper display and reporting of interlaced video. It supports JKL transport control and frame advance using the arrow keys. Since closed captioning is important for all terrestrial and set-top channel broadcasters, you must have a way to check embedded captions. In the case of QuickTime Player, it will only display a single track of embedded captions and then, only the lower track. So, for example, if you have a file with both English and Spanish captions on CC1 and CC3, QuickTime Player will only display the English captions and not even let you verify that more captions are present. With Switch Plus and Pro, the full range of embedded channels are presented and you have the ability to do a check on any of the caption tracks.

Switch Plus likely covers the needs of most users; but Pro adds additional functionality, such as metering for multi-channel audio and loudness compliance. Pro also lets you open up to sixteen different files for comparison. It is the only version that supports external monitoring through Blackmagic Design or AJA i/o hardware. Finally, Pro lets you QC DPP (Digital Production Partnership) files from the desktop and display AS-11 MXF metadata.

Content encoding

Beyond these powerful player and inspection functions, Switch Plus and Pro are also full-fledged media encoders. You can change metadata, reorder audio channels, and export a new media file in various formats. Files can be trimmed, cropped, and/or resized in the export. Do you have a ProRes master file and need to generate an MPEG-2 Transport Stream file for broadcast? No problem.

I had a situation where I received a closed caption master file of a commercial from the captioning facility. It needed to have the ends of the file (slate and black) trimmed to meet the delivery specs. Normally when you edit or convert a file with embedded captioning, it will break the captions on the new file. Not so with Switch. I simply set the in and out points, set my encode specs to video pass-through, and generated the new file. The encode (essentially a file copy in this case) was lightning fast and the captions stayed intact.

Switch Plus and Pro include publishing presets for Vimeo, YouTube, and Facebook. In addition, the Pro version also lets you create an iTunes Store package, necessary to be compliant when distributing via the iTunes Store. Switch is a cross-platform application, but ProRes encoding support is limited to the Mac version. However, the iTunes Store package feature is the exception. ProRes asset creation is available to Windows users when creating the .itms files used by the iTunes Store.

Although Switch Plus or Pro might seem pricy to some when they compare these to Apple Compressor or Adobe Media Encoder; however, the other encoders can’t do the precision media functions that Switch offers. Telestream has built Switch to be an industrial-grade media tool that covers a host of needs in a package that’s easy for anyone to understand. If you liked QuickTime Player Pro 7, then Switch has become its 21st century successor.

Originally written for RedShark News.

©2018 Oliver Peters

Advertisements

What’s up with Final Cut’s Color Wheels?

Apple Final Cut Pro X 10.4 introduced new, advanced color correction tools to this editing application, including color wheels, curves, and hue vs. saturation curves. These are tools that users of other NLEs have enjoyed for some time – and, which were part of Final Cut Studio (FCP 7, Color). Like others, my first reaction was, “Super! They’ve added some nice advanced tools, which will improve the use of FCPX for higher-end users.” But, as I started to primarily use the Color Wheels with real correction work, I quickly realized that something wasn’t quite right in how they operated. Or at least, they didn’t work in a way that we’ve come to understand.

In trying to figure it out, I reached out to other industry pros and developers for their thoughts. Naturally this led to some spirited discussions at forums like those at Creative COW. However, other editors have noticed the same problems, so you can also find threads in the Facebook FCPX group and at FCP.co. It is certainly easy to characterize this as just another internet kerfuffle, surrounding Apple’s “think different” approaches to FCPX. But those arguments fall flat when you actually try to use the tools as intended.

The FCPX Color Wheels panel includes four wheels – Master, Shadows, Midtones, and Highlights. The puck in the center of each wheel is a hue offset control to push hues in the direction that you move the puck. The slider to the right of the wheel controls the brightness of that range. The left slider controls the saturation. One of the main issues is that when you adjust luminance using one of these controls, the affected range is too broad. Specifically, in the case of the Midtones control, as you adjust the luminance slider up or down, you are affecting most of the image and not just the midrange levels. This is not the way this type of control normally works in other tools, and in fact, it’s not how FCPX’s Color Board controls work either.

“What’s the big deal?” you might ask. Fair enough. I see two operational issues. The first is that to properly grade the image using the Color Wheels, you end up having to go back-and-forth a lot between wheels, to counteract the changes made by one control with another. The second is that using the Midtones slider tends to drive highlights above 100 IRE, where they will be clipped if any broadcast limiting is used. This doesn’t happen with other color tools, notably Apple’s own Color Board.

A lot of the discussion focuses on luma levels and specifically the Midtones slider, since it’s easy to see the issue there. However, other controls are also affected, but that’s too much to dissect in a single post. Throughout this post, be sure to click on the images to see the full view. I have presented various samples against each other and you will only get the full understanding if you open the thumbnail (which is small but also cropped) to the full image. I have compared the effect using five different tools – the Color Board, the Color Wheels, a color corrector plug-in that I built as a Motion template using Motion effects, Rubber Monkey Software FilmConvert (the wheels portion only), and finally, the Adobe Lumetri controls in Premiere Pro.

I am using three different test images – a black-to-white ramp, a test pattern, and a demo video image. The ramp without correction will appear as a diagonal line (0-100 IRE) on the scope, which makes it easy to analyze what’s happening. The video image has definite shadow and highlight areas, which lets us see how these controls work in the real world. For example, if you want to brighten the area of the shot where the man is in the shadows, but don’t want to make the highlights any brighter, this would normally be done using a Midtones control. Be aware that these various tools certainly aren’t calibrated the same way and some have a greater range of control than others. The weakest of these is FilmConvert’s wheels, since this plug-in has additional level controls in other parts of its interface.

Color science models

In the various forum threads, the argument is made that Apple is simply using a different color science method or a different weighing of some existing models. That’s certainly possible, since not all color correctors are built the same way. The most common approaches are Lift/Gamma/Gain and Shadows/Mids/Highlights. Be careful with naming. Just because something uses the terminology of Shadows, Midtones, and Highlights, does not mean that it also uses the SMH color science model. Many tools use the Lift/Gamma/Gain model, but in fact, call the controls shadows (Lift), mids (Gamma), and highlights (Gain). Another term you may run across is Set-up in some correction tools. This is typically used for control of shadows (equal to Lift), but can also function is an offset control that raises the level of the entire image. Avid Symphony employs this solution. Finally, both Symphony and Adobe SpeedGrade use what has been dubbed a 12-way color corrector. Each range is further subdivided into its own subset of shadows, mids, and highlights controls.

An LGG model provides broad control of shadows and highlights, with the midtones control working like a curve that covers the whole range, but with the largest effect in the middle. An SMH model normally divides the levels into three distinct, precisely overlapping ranges. This is much like a three-band audio equalizing filter. A number of the color correctors add a luma range control, which gives the user the ability to change how much of the image a specific range will affect. In other words, how broad is the control of the shadows, mids, or highlights control? This is like a Q control in an audio equalizer, where you change the shape of the envelope at a certain frequency.

Red Giant’s Magic Bullet Looks offers both color correction models with two different tools – the 4-way color corrector (SMH) and the Colorista color corrector (LGG). When you adjust the midrange control of their 4-way, the result is a graceful S-shaped curve to the levels on the waveform.

To study the effect of an LGG-based corrector, test the ramp. The shadows control (Lift) will raise or lower the dark areas of the image without changing the absolute highlights. The diagonal line of the ramp on the waveform essentially pivots, hinged at the 100 IRE point. Conversely, change the highlights control (Gain) pivots the line pinned to 0 IRE (at black). When you adjust the midtones control (Gamma), you create a curve to the line, which stays pinned at 0 and 100 IRE at either end. In this way you are effectively “expanding” or “compressing” the levels in the middle portion of your image without changing the position of your black or white points.

How the various color correction tools react

Looking at the luma control for the Midtones, two things are clear. First, all of these tools are using the LGG color science model. It’s not clear what the Color Wheels are using, but it isn’t SMH, as there is no bulge or S-curve visible in the scope. Second, the Color Wheels quickly drive the image levels into clipping, while the other tools generally keep black and while levels in place. In essence, the Midtones control affects the image more like a master or offset control would, than a typical mids or Gamma control. Yet, clearly Apple’s Color Board controls adhere to the standard LGG model. The concern, of course, is clipping. In the test image of the man walking on the village street, the sunlit building walls on the opposite side of the street will become overexposed and risk being clipped when the Color Wheels are used.

What about color? As a simple test, I next shifted the Midtones puck to the yellow. Bear in mind that the range of each of these controls is different, so you will see varying degrees of yellow intensity. Nevertheless, the way the control should work is that some pure black and white should be preserved at the top and bottom of the video levels. All of these tools maintain that, except for the Color Wheels. There, the entire image is yellow, effectively making the hue offset puck function more like a tint control.

One other issue to note, is that the Color Wheels offer an extraordinarily control range. The hue offset control RGB intensity values go from 0 (center of the wheel) to 1023. However, the puck icon can only go to the rim of the wheel, which it hits at about 200. With a mouse (or numerical entry), you can keep going well past the stop of the wheel icon – five times farther, in fact. The image not only becomes very yellow in this case, but you can easily lose the location of your control, since the GUI position in no longer relevant.

The working theory

The big question is why don’t the Color Wheels conform to established principles, when in fact, the Color Board controls do? Until there is some further clarification from Apple, one possible explanation is with HDR. FCPX 10.4 introduced High Dynamic Range (HDR) features. One of the various HDR standards is Rec. 2020 PQ. In that color space, the 0-100 IRE limitations of Rec. 709 are expanded to 0-10,000 nits. 0-100 nits is roughly the same brightness as we are used to with Rec. 709.

Looking at this image of the man walking along the street – where I’ve attempted to get a pleasing look with all of the tools – you’ll see that the Color Wheels in Rec. 709 don’t react correctly and will drive the highlights into a range to be clipped. However, in the bottom pane, which is the same image in Rec. 2020 PQ color space, the grade looks pretty normal. And, in practice, the Color Wheels controls work more or less the way I would have expected them to work. Yes, the same controls work differently in the different color spaces – properly in 2020 PQ and not in 709.

But why is that the case? I have no answer, but I do have a wild guess. Maybe, just maybe, the Color Wheels were designed for – or intended to only be used for – HDR work. Or maybe there’s conversion or recalibration of the controls that hasn’t taken place yet in this version. If the tool is only calibrated for HDR, then its range and weighing will be completely wrong for Rec. 709 video. If you increase the Midtones luma of the ramp in both Rec. 709 and Rec. 2020 PQ, you’ll see a similar curve. In fact, if you overlay a screen shot of each waveform, placing the full Rec. 709 scope image over the bottom portion of the Rec. 2020 PQ scale, you’ll notice that these sort of align up to about 100 IRE and nits. It’s as if one is simply a slice out of the other.

Regardless of why, this is something where I would hope Apple will provide a white paper or other demonstration of what the best practices will be for using this tool effectively. If it isn’t intentional, and actually is a mistake, then I presume a fix will be forthcoming. In either case, put in your feedback comments to Apple.

A word about HDR

Over the course of testing this tool and this theory, I’ve done a bit of testing with the HDR color spaces in FCPX. If you want to know more about HDR, I would encourage you to check out these contrary blog posts by Stu Maschwitz and Alexis Van Hurkman. I tend to side with Stu’s point-of-view and am not a big fan of HDR.

The way Apple has implemented these features in Final Cut Pro X 10.4 is to allow the user to set and override color spaces. If you set up your project to be Rec. 2020 PQ (and set preferences to “show HDR as raw values”), then the viewer and a/v output (direct from the Mac, not through a hardware i/o device) are effectively dimmed through the Mac’s color profile system. When you grade the image based on the 0-10,000 nits scale, you’ll end up seeing an image that looks pleasing and essentially the same as if you were working in Rec. 709. However – and I cannot over-emphasize this – you are not going to be able to produce an image that’s truly compatible with Dolby Vision and actually look correct as HDR, unless you have the correct AJA i/o hardware and a proper display. And by display, I mean a top-end Dolby, Canon, or Sony unit, costing tens of thousands of dollars.

As I understand the PQ specs, the bulk of the higher range is for the highlights that are normally constrained or clipped in our current video systems. However, that 10,000 nits scale is weighed, so that about 50% of the image value is in the first 100 nits, making it of comparable brightness to the current 100 IRE. The rest of that range is for brighter information, like specular highlights. You don’t necessarily get more brightness in the shadow detail. Therefore, if you are grading a shot in FCPX in a 2020 PQ color space and you only have the computer display to go by, you’ll grade by eye as much as by scope. This means that to get a pleasing image, you will end up making the average appearance of the image brighter than it really should be. When this is viewed on a real HDR monitor, it will be painfully bright. Having a higher-nits computer display, like on the iMac Pro (up to 500 nits), won’t make much difference, unless maybe, you crank the display brightness to its maximum (ouch!).  “Mine goes the 11!”

Right now, HDR is the wild, wild west. If you are smart, you’ll realize that you don’t know what you don’t know. While it’s nice to have these new features in FCPX, they can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

But that’s another matter. Right now, I just hope Apple (or one of the usual suspects, like Ripple Training, LumaForge, or Larry Jordan) will come out with more elaboration on the Color Wheels.

©2018 Oliver Peters

Stocking Stuffers 2017

It’s holiday time once again. For many editors that means it’s time to gift themselves with some new tools and toys to speed their workflows or just make the coming year more fun! Here are some products to consider.

Just like the tiny house craze, many editors are opting for their laptops as their main editing tool. I’ve done it for work that I cut when I’m not freelancing in other shops, simply because my MacBook Pro is a better machine than my old (but still reliable) 2009 Mac Pro tower. One less machine to deal with, which simplifies life. But to really make it feel like a desktop tool, you need some accessories along with an external display. For me, that boils down to a dock, a stand, and an audio interface. There are several stands for laptops. I bought both the Twelve South BookArc and the Rain Design mStand: the BookArc for when I just want to tuck the closed MacBook Pro out of the way in the clamshell mode and the mStand for when I need to use the laptop’s screen as a second display. Another option some editors like is the Vertical Dock from Henge Docks, which not only holds the MacBook Pro, but also offers some cable management.

The next hardware add-on for me is a USB audio interface. This is useful for any type of computer and may be used with or without other interfaces from Blackmagic Design or AJA. The simplest of these is the Mackie Onyx Blackjack, which combines interface and output monitor mixing into one package. This means no extra small mixer is required. USB input and analog audio output direct to a pair of powered speakers. But if you prefer a separate small mixer and only want a USB interface for input/output, then the PreSonus Audiobox USB or the Focusrite Scarlett series is the way to go.

Another ‘must have’ with any modern system is a Thunderbolt dock in order to expand the native port connectivity of your computer. There are several on the market but it’s hard to go wrong with either the CalDigit Thunderbolt Station 2 or the OWC Thunderbolt 2 Dock. Make sure you double-check which version fits for your needs, depending on whether you have a Thunderbolt 2 or 3 connection and/or USB-C ports. I routinely use each of the CalDigit and OWC products. The choice simply depends on which one has the right combination of ports to fit your needs.

Drives are another issue. With a small system, you want small portable drives. While LaCie Rugged and G-Technology portable drives are popular choices, SSDs are the way to go when you need true, fast performance. A number of editors I’ve spoken to are partial to the Samsung Portable SSD T5 drives. These USB3.0-compatible drives aren’t the cheapest, but they are ultraportable and offer amazing read/write speeds. Another popular solution is to use raw (uncased) drives in a drive caddy/dock for archiving purposes. Since they are raw, you don’t pack for the extra packaging, power supply, and interface electronics with each, just to have it sit on the shelf. My favorite of these is the HGST Deckstar NAS series.

For many editors the software world is changing with free applications, subscription models, and online services. The most common use of the latter is for review-and-approval, along with posting demo clips and short films. Kollaborate.tv, Frame.io, Wipster.io, and Vimeo are the best known. There are plenty of options and even Vimeo Pro and Business plans offer a Frame/Wipster-style review-and-approval and collaboration service. Plus, there’s some transfer ability between these. For example, you can publish to a Vimeo account from your Frame account. Another expansion of the online world is in team workgroups. A popular solution is Slack, which is a workgroup-based messaging/communication service.

As more resources become available online, the benefits of large-scale computing horsepower are available to even single editors. One of the first of these new resources is cloud-based, speech-to-text transcription. A number of online services provide this functionality to any NLE. Products to check out include Scribeomatic (Coremelt), Transcriptive (Digital Anarchy), and Speedscriber (Digital Heaven). They each offer different pricing models and speech analysis engines. Some are still in beta, but one that’s already out is Speedscriber, which I’ve used and am quite happy with. Processing is fast and reasonably accurate, given a solid audio recording.

Naturally free tools make every user happy and the king of the hill is Blackmagic Design with DaVinci Resolve and Fusion. How can you go wrong with something this powerful and free with ongoing company product development? Even the paid versions with some more advanced features are low cost. However, at the very least the free version of Resolve should be in every editor’s toolkit, because it’s such a Swiss Army Knife application.

On the other hand, editors who have the need to learn Avid Media Composer, need look no further than the free Media Composer | First. Avid has tried ‘dumbed-down’ free editing apps before, but First is actually built off of the same code base as the full Media Composer software. Thus, skills translate and most of the core functions are available for you to use.

Many users are quite happy with the advantages of Adobe’s Creative Cloud software subscription model. Others prefer to own their software. If you work in video, then it’s easy to put together alternative software kits for editing, effects, audio, and encoding that don’t touch an Adobe product. Yet for most, the stumbling block is Photoshop – until now. Both Affinity Photo (Serif) and Pixelmator Pro are full-fledged graphic design and creation tools that rival Photoshop in features and quality. Each of these has its own strong points. Affinity Photo offers Mac and Windows versions, while Pixelmator Pro is Mac only, but taps more tightly into macOS functions.

If you work in the Final Cut Pro X world, several utilities are essential. These include SendToX and XtoCC from Intelligent Assistance, along with X2Pro Audio Convert from Marquis Broadcast. Marquis’ newest is Worx4 X – a media management tool. It takes your final sequence and creates a new FCPX library with consolidated (trimmed) media. No transcoding is involved, so the process is lighting fast. Although in some cases media is copied without being trimmed. This can reduce the media to be archived from TBs down to GBs. They also offer Worx4 Pro, which is designed for Premiere Pro CC users. This tool serves as a media tracking application, to let editors find all of the media used in a Premiere Pro project across multiple volumes.

Most editors love to indulge in plug-in packages. If you can only invest in a single, large plug-in package, then BorisFX’s Boris Continuum Complete 11 and/or their Sapphire 11 bundles are the way to go. These are industry-leading tools with wide host and platform support. Both feature mocha tracking integration and Continuum also includes the Primatte Studio chromakey technology.

If you want to go for a build-it-up-as-you-need-it approach – and you are strictly on the Mac – then FxFactory will be more to your liking. You can start with the free, basic platform or buy the Pro version, which includes FxFactory’s own plug-ins. Either way, FxFactory functions as a plug-in management tool. FxFactory’s numerous partner/developers provide their products through the FxFactory platform, which functions like an app store for plug-ins. You can pick and choose the plug-ins that you need when the time is right to purchase them. There are plenty of plug-ins to recommend, but I would start with any of the Crumplepop group, because they work well and provide specific useful functions. They also include the few audio plug-ins available via FxFactory. Another plug-in to check out is the Hawaiki Keyer 4. It installs into both the Apple and Adobe applications and far surpasses the built-in keying tools within these applications.

The Crumplepop FxFactory plug-ins now includes Koji Advance, which is a powerful film look tool. I like Koji a lot, but prefer FilmConvert from Rubber Monkey Software. To my eyes, it creates one of the more pleasing and accurate film emulations around and even adds a very good three-way color corrector. This opens as a floating window inside of FCPX, which is less obtrusive than some of the other color correction plug-ins for FCPX. It’s not just for film emulation – you can actually use it as the primary color corrector for an entire project.

I don’t want to forget audio plug-ins in this end-of-the-year roundup. Most editors don’t feel too comfortable with a ton of surgical audio filters, so let me stick to suggestions that are easy-to-use and very affordable. iZotope is a well-known audio developer and several of its products are perfect for video editors. These fall into repair, mixing, and mastering needs. These include the Nectar, Ozone, and RX bundles, along with the RX Loudness Control. The first three groups are designed to cover a wide range of needs and, like the BCC video plug-ins, are somewhat of an all-encompassing product offering. But if that’s a bit rich for the blood, then check out iZotope’s various Elements versions.

The iZotope RX Loudness Control is great for accurate loudness compliance, and best used with Avid or Adobe products. However, it is not real-time, because it uses analysis and adaptive processing. If you want something more straightforward and real-time, then check out the LUFS Meter from Klangfreund. It can be used for loudness control on individual tracks or the master output. It works with most of the NLEs and DAWs. A similar tool to this is Loudness Change from Videotoolshed.

Finally, let’s not forget the iOS world, which is increasingly becoming a viable production platform. For example, I’ve used my iPad in the last year to do location interview recordings. This is a market that audio powerhouse Apogee has also recognized. If you need a studio-quality hardware interface for an iPhone or iPad, then check out the Apogee ONE. In my case, I tapped the Apogee MetaRecorder iOS application for my iPad, which works with both Apogee products and the iPad’s built-in mic. It can be used in conjunction with FCPX workflows through the integration of metadata tagging for Keywords, Favorites, and Markers.

Have a great holiday season and happy editing in the coming year!

©2017 Oliver Peters

HP Z1 G2 Workstation

df_hpz1g2_heroHewlett-Packard is known for developing workstations that set a reliability and performance standard, characterized by the Z-series of workstation towers. HP has sought to extend what they call the “Z experience” to other designs, like mobile and all-in-one computers. The latest of these is the HP Z1 G2 Workstation – the second generation model of the Z1 series.

Most readers will associate the all-in-one concept with an Apple iMac. Like the iMac, the Z1 G2 is a self-contained unit housing all electronics and the display in one chassis. Whereas the top-end iMacs are targeted at advanced consumers and pros with less demanding computing needs, the HP Z1 G2 is strictly for the serious user who requires advanced horsepower. The iMac is a sealed unit, which cannot be upgraded by the user (except for RAM), and is largely configured with laptop-grade parts. In contrast, the HP Z1 G2 is a Rolls-Royce. The build is very solid and it exudes a sense of performance. The user has the option to configure their Z1 G2 from a wide range of components. The display lifts like a car hood for easy accept to the “engine”, making user upgrades nearly as easy as on a tower.

Configuration options

df_hpz1g2_hero_touchThe HP Z1 G2 offers processor choices that include Intel Core i3, Core i5 and three Xeon models. There are a variety of storage and graphics card choices and it supports up to 32GB of RAM. You may also choose between a Touch and non-Touch display. The Touch screen adds a glass overlay and offers finger or stylus interaction with the screen. Non-touch screens are a matte finish, while Touch screens are glossy. You have a choice of operating systems, including Windows 7, Windows 8 and Linux distributions.

I was able to specify the built-to-order configuration of the Z1 G2 for my review. This included a Xeon E3 (3.6GHz) quad-core, 16GB of RAM, optical drive and the NVIDIA K4100M graphics card. For storage, I selected one 256GB mSATA boot drive (“flash” storage), plus two 512GB SSDs that were set-up in a RAID-0 configuration. I also ordered the Touch option with 64-bit Windows 8.1 Pro. Z1 G2 models start at $1,999; however, as configured, this system would retail at over $6,100, including a 20% eCoupon promo discount.

An important, new feature is support for Thunderbolt 2 with an optional module. HP is one of the first PC manufacturers to support Thunderbolt. I didn’t order that, but reps from AJA, Avid and Blackmagic Design all confirmed to me that their Thunderbolt units should work fine with this workstation, as long as you install their Windows device drivers. One of these would be required for any external broadcast or grading monitor.

In addition to the custom options, the Z1 G2 includes wireless support, four USB 2.0 ports, two USB 3.0 ports, Gigabit Ethernet, a DisplayPort connector for an secondary computer monitor, S/PDIF, analog audio connectors, a webcam and a media card reader.

Arrival and set-up

df_hpz1g2_openThe HP Z1 G2 ships as a single, 57 pound package, complete with a wireless mouse and keyboard. The display/electronics chassis is attached to an adjustable arm that connects to the base. This allows the system to be tilted at any angle, as well as completely flat for shipping and access to the electronics. It locks into place when it’s flat (as in shipping), so you have to push down lightly on the display in order to unlock the latch button.

The display features a 27” (diagonal) screen, but the chassis is actually 31” corner-to-corner. Because the stand has to support the unit and counter-balance the weight at various angles, it sticks out about 12” behind the back of the chassis. Some connectors (including the power cord) are at the bottom, center of the back of the chassis. Others are along the sides. The adjustable arm allows any angle from vertical to horizontal, so it would be feasible to operate in a standing or high-chair position looking down at the monitor – a bit like a drafting table. I liked the fact that the arm lets you drop the display completely down to the desk surface, which put the bottom of the screen lower than my stationary 20” Apple Cinemas.

First impressions

df_hpz1g2_win81I picked the Touch option in order to test the concept, but quite frankly I decided it wasn’t for me. In order to control items by touch, you have to be a bit closer than the full length of your arm. As a glasses-wearer, this distance is uncomfortable for me, as I prefer to be a little farther away from a screen of this size. Although the touch precision is good, it’s not as precise as you’d get with a mouse or pen and tablet – even if using an iPad stylus. Only menu and navigation operations, but no drawing tools, worked in Photoshop – an application that seems natural for Touch. While I found the Touch option not to be that interesting to me, I did like the screen that comes with it. It’s glossy, which gives you nice density to your images, but not so reflective as to be annoying in a room with ambient lighting.

The second curiosity item for me was Windows 8.1. The Microsoft “metro” look has been maligned and many pros opt for Windows 7 instead. I actually found the operating system to function well and the “flat” design philosophy much like what Apple is doing with Mac OS X and iOS. The tiled Start screen that highlights this release can easily be avoided when you set-up your preferences. If you prefer to pin application shortcuts to the Windows task bar or on the Desktop, that’s easily done. Once you are in an application like Premiere Pro or Media Composer, the OS differences tend to disappear anyway.

df_hpz1g2_bmdtestSince I had configured this unit with an mSATA boot/applications drive and RAID-0 SSDs for media, the launch and operation of any application was very fast. Naturally the difference from a cold start on the Z1 G2, as compared to my 2009 Mac Pro with standard 7200RPM drives, was night and day. With most actual operations, the differences in application responsiveness were less dramatic.

One area that I think needs improvement is screen calibration. The display is not a DreamColor display, but color accuracy seems quite good and it’s very crisp at 2560 x 1440 pixels. Unfortunately, both the HP and NVIDIA calibration applications were weak, using consumer level nomenclature for settings. For instance, I found no way to accurately set a 6500-degree color temperature or a 2.2 gamma level, based on how the sliders were labelled. Some of the NVIDIA software controls didn’t appear to work at all.

Performance stress testing

I loaded up the Z1 G2 with a potpourri of media and applications, including Adobe CC 2014 (Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, SpeedGrade), Avid Media Composer 8, DaVinci Resolve 11 Lite (beta) and Sony Vegas Pro 13. Media included Sony XAVC 4K, Avid DNxHD175X, Apple ProRes 4444, REDCODE raw from an EPIC Dragon camera and more. This allowed me to make some direct comparisons with the same applications and media available on my 2009 eight-core Mac Pro. Its configuration included dual Xeon quad-core processors (2.26GHz), 28GB RAM, an ATI 5870 GPU card and a RAID-0 stripe of two internal 7200RPM spinning hard drives. No I/O devices were installed on either computer. While these two systems aren’t exactly “apples-to-apples”, it does provide a logical benchmark for the type of machine a new Z1 G2 customer might be upgrading from.

df_hpz1g2_4kIn typical, side-by-side testing with edited, single-layer timelines, most applications on both machines performed in a similar fashion, even with 4K media. It’s when I started layering sequences and comparing performance and render times that the differences became obvious.

My first test compared Premiere Pro CC 2014 with a 7-layer, 4K timeline. The V1 track was a full-screen, base layer of Sony XAVC. On top of that I layered six tracks of picture-in-picture (PIP) clips consisting of RED Dragon raw footage at various resolutions up to 5K. Some clips were recorded with in-camera slomo. I applied color correction, scaling/positioning and a drop shadow. The 24p timeline was one minute long and was exported as a 4K .mp4 file. The HP handled this task at just under 11 minutes, compared with almost two hours for the Mac Pro.

My second Premiere Pro test was a little more “real world” – a 48-second sequence of ARRI Alexa 1080p ProRes 4444 log-C clips. These were round-tripped through SpeedGrade to add a Rec 709 LUT, a primary grade and two vignettes to blur and darken the outer edge of the clips. This sequence was exported as a 720/24p .mp4 file. The Z1 G2 tackled this in about 14 minutes compared with 37 minutes for the Mac Pro.

df_hpz1g2_appsPremiere Pro CC 2014 uses GPU acceleration and the superior performance of the NVIDIA K4100M card in the HP versus the ATI 5870 in the Mac Pro is likely the reason for this drastic difference. The render times were closer in After Effects, which makes less use of the GPU for effects processing. My 6-layer After Effects stress test was an 8-second composition consisting of six layers of 1080p ProRes clips from the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. I applied various Cycore and color correction effects and then moved them in 3D space with motion blur enabled. These were rendered out using the QuickTime Animation codec. Times for the Z1 G2 and Mac Pro were 6.5 minutes versus 8.5 minutes respectively.

My last test for the HP Z1 G2 involved Avid Media Composer. My 10-layer test sequence included nine PIP video tracks (using the 3D warp effect) over a full-screen background layer on V1. All media was Avid DNxHD175X (1080p, 10-bit, 23.976fps). No frames were dropped in the medium display quality, but in full quality frames started to drop at V6. When I added a drop shadow to the PIP clips, frames were dropped starting at V4 for full quality and V9 for medium quality.

Conclusion

The HP Z1 G2 is an outstanding workstation. Like any alternative form factor, you have to weigh the options of legacy support for older storage systems and PCIe cards. Thunderbolt addresses many of those concerns as an increasing number of adapters and expansion units hits the market. Those interested in shifting from Mac to Windows – and looking for the best in what the PC side has to offer – won’t go wrong with HP products. The company also maintains close ties to Avid and other software vendors, to make sure the engineering of their workstations matches the future needs of the software.

Whether an all-in-one is right for you comes down to individual needs and preferences. I was very happy with the overall ease of installation, operation and performance of the Z1 G2. By adding MacDrive, QuickTime and ProRes software and codecs, I could easily move files between the Z1 and my Mac. The screen is gorgeous, it’s very quiet and the heat output feels less than from my Mac tower. In these various tests, I never heard any fans kick into high. Whether you are upgrading from an older PC or switching platforms, the HP Z1 G2 is definitely worth considering.

Originally written for Digital Video magazine / CreativePlanetNetwork.

©2014 Oliver Peters

The Hobbit

df_hobbit_1Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was one of the most anticipated films of 2012. It broke new technological boundaries and presented many creative challenges to its editor. After working as a television editor, Jabez Olssen started his own odyssey with Jackson in 2000 as an assistant editor and operator on The Lord of the Rings trilogy. After assisting again on King Kong, he next cut Jackson’s Lovely Bones as the first feature film on which he was the sole editor. The director tapped Olssen again for The Hobbit trilogy, where unlike the Rings trilogy, he will be the sole editor on all three films.

Much like the Rings films, all production for the three Hobbit films was shoot in a single eighteen month stretch. Jackson employed as many as 60 RED Digital Cinema EPIC cameras rigged for stereoscopic acquisition at 48fps – double the standard rate of traditional feature photography. Olssen was editing the first film in parallel with the principal photography phase. He had a very tight schedule that only allowed about five months after the production wrapped to lock the cut and get the film ready for release.

To get The Hobbit out on such an aggressive schedule, Olssen leaned hard on a post production infrastructure built around Avid’s technology, including 13 Media Composers (10 with Nitris DX hardware) and an ISIS 7000 with 128TB of storage. Peter Jackson’s production facilities are located in Wellington, New Zealand, where active fibre channel connections tie Stone Street Studio, Weta Digital, Park Road Post Production and the cutting rooms to the Avid ISIS storage. The three films combined, total 2200 hours (1100 x two eyes) of footage, which is the equivalent of 24 million feet of film. In addition, an Apace active backup solution with 72TB of storage was also installed, which could immediately switch over if ISIS failed.

The editorial team – headed up by first assistant editor Dan Best – consisted of eight assistant editors, including three visual effects editors. According to Olssen, “We mimicked a similar pipeline to a film project. Think of the RED camera .r3d media files as a digital negative. Peter’s facility, Park Road Post Production, functioned as the digital lab. They took the RED media from the set and generated one-light, color-corrected dailies for the editors. 24fps 2D DNxHD36 files were created by dropping every second frame from the files of one ‘eye’ of a stereo recording. For example, we used 24fps timecode with the difference between the 48fps frames being a period instead of a colon. Frame A would be 11.22.21.13 and frame B would be 11:22:21:13. This was a very natural solution for editing and a lot like working with single-field media files on interlaced television projects. The DNxHD files were then delivered to the assistant editors, who synced, subclipped and organized clips into the Avid projects. Since we were all on ISIS shared storage, once they were done, I could access the bins and the footage was ready to edit, even if I were on set. For me, working with RED files was no different than a standard film production.”

df_hobbit_2Olssen continued, “A big change for the team since the Rings movies is that the Avid systems have become more portable. Plus the fibre channel connection to ISIS allows us to run much longer distances. This enabled me to have a mobile cart on the set with a portable Media Composer system connected to the ISIS storage in the main editing building. In addition, we also had a camper van outfitted as a more comfortable mobile editing room with its own Media Composer; we called it the EMC – ‘Editorial Mobile Command’. So, I could cut on set while Peter was shooting, using the cart and, as needed, use the EMC for some quick screening of edits during a break in production. I was also on location around New Zealand for three months and during that time I cut on a laptop with mirrored media on external drives.”

The main editing room was set up with a full-blown Nitris DX system connected to a 103” plasma screen for Jackson. The original plan was to cut in 2D and then periodically consolidate scenes to conform a stereo version for screening in the Media Composer suite. Instead they took a different approach. Olssen explained, “We didn’t have enough storage to have all three films’ worth of footage loaded as stereo media, but Peter was comfortable cutting the film in 2D. This was equally important, since more theaters displayed this version of the film. Every few weeks, Park Road Post Production would conform a 48fps stereo version so we could screen the cut. They used an SGO Mistika system for the DI, because it could handle the frame rate and had very good stereo adjustment tools. Although you often have to tweak the cuts after you see the film in a stereo screening, I found we had to do far less of that than I’d expected. We were cognizant of stereo-related concerns during editing. It also helped that we could judge a cut straight from the Avid on the 103” plasma, instead of relying on a small TV screen.”

df_hobbit_3The editorial team was working with what amounted to 24fps high-definition proxy files for stereo 48fps RED .r3d camera masters. Edit decision lists were shared with Weta Digital and Park Road Post Production for visual effects, conform and digital intermediate color correction/finishing at a 2K resolution. Based on these EDLs, each unit would retrieve the specific footage needed from the camera masters, which had been archived onto LTO data tape.

The Hobbit trilogy is a heavy visual effects production, which had Olssen tapping into the Media Composer toolkit. Olssen said, “We started with a lot of low resolution, pre-visualization animations as placeholders for the effects shots. As the real effects started coming in, we would replace the pre-vis footage with the correct effects shots. With the Gollum scenes we were lucky enough to have Andy Serkis in the actual live action footage from set, so they were easy to visualize how the scene would look. But other CG characters, like Azog, were captured separately on a Performance Capture stage. That meant we had to layer separately-shot material into a single shot. We were cutting vertically in the timeline, as well as horizontally. In the early stages, many of the scenes were a patchwork of live action and pre-vis, so I used PIP effects to overlay elements to determine the scene timing. Naturally, I had to do a lot of temp green-screen composites. The dwarves are full-size actors and for many of the scenes, we had to scale them down and reposition them in the shot so we could see how the shots were coming together.”

As with most feature film editors, Jabez Olssen likes to fill out his cut with temporary sound effects and music, so that in-progress screenings feel like a complete film. He continued, “We were lucky to use some of Howard Shore’s music from the Rings films for character themes that tie The Hobbit back into The Lord of the Rings. He wrote some nice ‘Hobbity’ music for those. We couldn’t use too much of it, though, because it was so familiar to us! The sound department at Park Road Post Production uses Avid Pro Tools systems. They also have a Media Composer connected to the same ISIS storage, which enabled the sound editors to screen the cut there. From it, they generated QuickTime files for picture reference and audio files so the sound editors could work locally on their own Pro Tools workstations.”

Audiences are looking forward to the next two films in the series, which means the adventure continues for Jabez Olssen. On such a long term production many editors would be reluctant to update software, but not this time. Olssen concluded, “I actually like to upgrade, because I look forward to the new features. Although, I usually wait a few weeks until everyone knows it’s safe. We ended up on version 6.0 at the end of the first film and are on 6.5 now. Other nonlinear editing software packages are more designed for one-man bands, but Media Composer is really the only software that works for a huge visual effects film. You can’t underestimate how valuable it is to have all of the assistant editors be able to open the same projects and bins. The stability and reliability is the best. It means that we can deliver challenging films like The Hobbit trilogy on a tight post production schedule and know the system won’t let us down.”

Originally written for Avid Technology, Inc.

©2013 Oliver Peters

Post Production Mastering Tips

The last step in commercial music production is mastering. Typically this involves making a recording sound as good as it possibly can through the application of equalization and multiband compression. In the case of LPs and CDs (remember those?), this also includes setting up the flow from one tune to the next and balancing out levels so the entire product has a consistent sound. Video post has a similar phase, which has historically been in the hands of the finishing or online editor.

That sounds so sweet

The most direct comparison between the last video finishing steps and commercial music mastering is how filters are applied in order to properly compress the audio track and to bring video levels within legal broadcast specs. When I edit projects in Apple Final Cut Pro 7 and do my own mixes, I frequently use Soundtrack Pro as the place to polish the audio. My STP mixing strategy employs tracks that route into one or more subgroup buses and then a master output bus. Four to eight tracks of content in FCP might become twenty tracks in STP. Voice-over, sync-sound, SFX and music elements get spread over more tracks and routed to appropriate subgroups. These subgroups then flow into the master bus. This gives me the flexibility to apply specific filters to a track and have fine control over the audio.

I’ll usually apply a compressor across the master bus to tame any peaks and beef up the mix. My settings involve a low compression ratio and a hard limit at -10dB. The objective is to keep the mix levels reasonable so as to preserve dynamic range. I don’t want to slam the meters and drive the signal hard into compression. Even when I do the complete mix in Final Cut, I will still use Soundtrack Pro simply to compress the composite mix, because I prefer its filters. When you set the reference tone to -20dB, then these levels will match the nominal levels for most digital VTRs. If you are laying off to an analog format, such as Betacam-SP, set your reference tone to -12dB and match the input on the deck to 0VU.

Getting ready for broadcast

The video equivalent is the broadcast safe limiting filter. Most NLEs have one, including Avid Media Composer and both old and new versions of Final Cut. This should normally be the last filter in the chain of effects. It’s often best to apply it to a self-contained file in FCP 7, a higher track in Media Composer or a compound clip in FCP X. Broadcast specs will vary with the network or station receiving your files or tapes, so check first. It’s worth noting that many popular effects, like glow dissolves, violate these parameters. You want the maximum luminance levels (white peaks) to be limited to 100 IRE and chrominance to not exceed 110, 115 or 120, depending on the specs of the broadcaster to whom you are delivering. In short, the chroma should stay within the outer ring of a vectorscope. I usually turn off any RGB limiting to avoid artifacts.

It’s often a good idea to reduce the overall video levels by about five percent prior to the application of a broadcast safe filter, simply so you don’t clip too harshly. That’s the same principle as I’ve applied to the audio mix. For example, I will often first apply a color correction filter to slightly lower the luminance level and reduce chroma. In addition, I’ll frequently use a desaturate highlights or lows filter. As you raise midrange or highlight levels and crush shadows during color correction, the chroma is also driven higher and/or lower accordingly. Red, blues and yellows are most susceptible, so it’s a good idea to tone down chroma saturation above 90 IRE and below 20 IRE. Most of these filters let you feather the transition range and the percentage of desaturation, so play with the settings to get the most subtle result. This keeps the overall image vibrant, but still legal.

Let me interject at this point that what you pay for when using a music mastering specialist are the “ears” (and brain) of the engineer and their premium monitoring environment. This should be equally true of a video finishing environment. Without proper audio and video monitoring, it’s impossible to tell whether the adjustments being made are correct. Accurate speakers, calibrated broadcast video monitors and video scopes are essential tools. Having said that though, software scopes and modern computer displays aren’t completely inaccurate. For example, the software scopes in FCP X and Apple’s ColorSync technology are quite good. Tools like Blackmagic Design Ultrascope, HP Dreamcolor or Apple Cinema Displays do provide accurate monitoring in lower-cost situations. I’ve compared the FCP X Viewer on an iMac to the output displayed on a broadcast monitor fed by an AJA IoXT. I find that both match surprisingly well. Ultimately it gets down to trusting an editor who knows how to get the best out of any given system.

Navigating the formats

Editors work in a multi-standard world. I frequently cut HD spots that run as downconverted SD content for broadcast, as well as at a higher HD resolution for the internet. The best production and post “lingua franca” format today is 1080p/23.976. This format fits a sweet spot for the internet, Blu-ray, DVD and modern LCD and plasma displays. It’s also readily available in just about every camera at any price range. Even if your product is only intended to be displayed as standard definition today, it’s a good idea to future-proof it by working in HD.

If you shoot, edit and master at 1080p/23.976, then you can easily convert to NTSC, 720p/59.94 or 1080i/29.97 for broadcast. The last step for many of my projects is to create deliverables from my master file. Usually this involves creating three separate broadcast files in SD and two HD formats using either ProRes or uncompressed codecs. I will also generate an internet version (without bars, tone, countdown or slate) that’s a high-quality H.264 file in the 720p/23.976 format. Either .mov or .mp4 is fine.

Adobe After Effects is my tool of choice for these broadcast conversions, because it does high-quality scaling and adds proper cadences. I follow these steps.

A) Export a self-contained 1080p/23.976 ProResHQ file from FCP 7 or X.

B) Place that into a 720×486, 29.97fps After Effects D1 composition and scale the source clip to size. Generally this will be letterboxed inside of the 4×3 frame.

C) Render an uncompressed QuickTime file, which is lower-field ordered with added 2:3 pulldown.

D) Re-import that into FCP 7 or X using a matching sequence setting, add the mixed track and format it with bars, tone, countdown and slate.

E) Export a final self-contained broadcast master file.

F) Repeat the process for each additional broadcast format.

Getting back there

Archiving is “The $64,000 Question” for today’s digital media shops. File-based mastering and archiving introduces dilemmas that didn’t exist with videotape. I recommend always exporting a final mixed master file along with a split-track, textless submaster. QuickTime files support multi-channel audio configurations, so building such a file with separate stereo stems for dialogue, sound effects and music is very easy in just about any NLE. Self-contained QuickTime movies with discrete audio channels can be exported from both FCP 7 and FCP X (using Roles).

Even if your NLE can’t export multi-channel master files, export the individual submixed elements as .wav or .aif audio files for future use. In addition to the audio track configuration, remove any titles and logos. By having these two files (master and submaster), it’s very simple to make most of the future revisions you might encounter without ever having to restore the original editorial project. Naturally, one question is which codec to use for access in the future. The preferred codec families these days are Avid DNxHD, Apple ProRes, uncompressed, OP1a MXF (XDCAM) or IMX. FCP editors will tend towards ProRes and Avid editors towards DNxHD, but uncompressed is very viable with the low cost of storage. For feature films, another option to consider would be image sequences, like a string of uncompressed TIFF or DPX files.

Whichever format you standardize on, make multiple copies. LTO data tape is considered the best storage medium, but for small files, like edited TV commercial masters, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray and XDCAM media are likely the most robust. This is especially true in the case of water damage.

The typical strategy for most small users who don’t want to invest in LTO drives is a three-pronged solution.

A) Store all camera footage, elements and masters on a RAID array for near-term editing access.

B) Back-up the same items onto at least two copies of raw SATA or SSD hard drives for longer storage.

C) Burn DVD-ROM or BD-ROM copies of edited master files, submasters, project files and elements (music, VO, graphics, etc.).

A properly polished production with audio and video levels that conform to standards is an essential aspect of delivering a professional product. Developing effective mastering and archiving procedures will protect the investment your clients have made in a production. Even better, a reliable archive routine will bring you repeat business, because it’s easy to return to the project in the future.

Originally written for DV magazine/Creative Planet/NewBay Media, LLC

©2012 Oliver Peters

Levels – Avid vs. FCP

One of the frequent misconceptions between Avid and Final Cut editors involves video levels. Many argue that FCP does not work within the proper video level standards, which is incorrect. This belief stems from the fact that FCP is based on QuickTime and permits a mixture of consumer and professional codecs. QuickTime Player often changes a file’s appearance as compared with FCP, when it is used to play the file directly. QuickTime Player is trying to optimize the file to look its best on your computer monitor; however, it isn’t actually changing the file itself. Furthermore, two identical clips will appear to be different within each NLE’s interface. Avid clips look flatter and more washed out inside Media Composer. FCP clips will be optimized for the computer display and appear to have more contrast and a different gamma value. This is explained well by Janusz Baranek in this Avid Community thread.

Contrary to popular opinion, both NLEs work within the digital video standards for levels and color space – aka Rec. 601 (SD) and Rec. 709 (HD). Digital video levels are generally expressed using an 8-bit/256-step scale. The nominal black point is mapped to 16 and the white point to 235, which permits level excursions without clipping: 0-16 for shadow detail and 235-255 for highlight recovery. This standard was derived from both camera design and legacy analog NTSC transmission. On most waveform monitors digital 0, analog 7.5 IRE and 16 on this scale are all the same level. Digital 100 (700 millivolts on some scopes), analog 100 IRE and 235 on the scale are also equal. Higher and lower levels will be displayed on a waveform as video above 100/100IRE/235 and below 0/7.5IRE/16.

I want to be clear that this post is not a right/wrong, good/bad approach. It’s simply an exploration in how each editing application treats video levels. This is in an effort to help you see where adjustments can be made if you are encountering problems.

Avid Media Composer/NewsCutter/Symphony

Video captured through Avid’s i/o hardware is mapped to this 16-235 range. Video imported from the computer, like stills and animation can have either a full range of 0-255 (so called “full swing”) or a digital video range of 16-235 (so called “studio swing”) values. Prior to AMA (Avid Media Access), Avid editors would determine these import values in the Media Composer settings, by selecting to import files with RGB values or 601/709 values. You can “cheat” the system by importing digital camera files with an expanded range (spreading the levels to “full swing” of 0-255). Doing so may appear to offer greater color grading latitude, but it introduces two issues. First, all clips have to be color corrected to adjust the levels for proper output values (legal for broadcast). Second, some filters, like the BCC effects, clip rendered files at 16 and 235, thus defeating the original purpose.

It has now become a lot more complex in the file-based world. The files you import are no longer just stills and animation, but also camera and master files from a variety of sources, including other NLEs, like FCP – or HDLSRs, like the Canon 5D. Thanks to AMA in Media Composer 5, this is now automatically taken care of. AMA will properly import files at the right levels based on the format. A digital graphic, like a 0-255 color bar test pattern, is imported at the full range without rescaling the color values from 0-255 to 16-235. A digital video movie from a Canon 5D will be imported with values fitting into the 16-235 range.

Because of the nature of how Avid handles media on the timeline, it is possible to have a full range (0-255) clip on the same timeline next to a studio range clip (16-235) and levels will be correctly scaled and preserved for each. Avid uses absolute values on its internal waveform (accessed in the color correction mode), so you are always able to see where level excursions occur above 235 (digital 100) and below 16 (digital 0).

I would offer one caveat about AMA importing.  Apparently some users have posted threads at the Avid Community Forums indicating some inconsistencies in behavior. In my case, everything is working as expected on multiple systems and from various Canon HDSLR cameras, but others haven’t been so lucky. As they say, “Your mileage may vary.”

Apple Final Cut Pro

If you capture video into FCP using one of the hardware options and a professional codec (uncompressed, ProRes, IMX, DV/DV50/DV100), then the media files will have levels mapped to 601/709 values (16-235). From here, the waters get muddy, because the way in which those levels are handled in the timeline is based on your processing settings. This affects all imported files, as well, including graphics, animation and media files from cameras and other NLEs.

Confusion is compounded by FCP’s internal waveform monitor, which always represents video with a relative 0-100 percent scale. These display numbers do not represent actual video levels in any absolute sense. When you process in YUV, then the full display area of the waveform from top to bottom equals a range of 0-255. The “legal” digital video standard of 16-235 is represented by the area within the 0-100% markings of the scope. However, when you process in RGB, then the portion within the 0-100% marks represents the full 0-255 range. Yes – in an effort to make it simple, Apple has made it very confusing!

When you set the sequence processing to YUV, with “white” as “white”, then all timeline video is mapped to a “studio swing” range of 16-235. On the scope 0% = 16 and 100% = 235. If you import a “full swing” color bar pattern (0-255), the values will be rescaled by the sequence processing setting to fall into the 16-235 range.

When you set the sequence processing to YUV, with “white” as “superwhite”, you’ve extended the upper end of the range, so that the 16-235 scale now becomes 16-255. The 0-255 color bar pattern is now effectively rescaled to 16-255; however, so is any video as well. Digital video that used to peak at 100% will now peak at 120%.

The YUV processing issues are also affected by the 8-bit, versus “high-precision” rendering options. When you elect to process all video as 8-bit, excursions above 100% and below 0% caused by color correction will be clipped. If you change to “high-precision YUV”, then these excursions are preserved, because they fall within the 0-16 and 235-255 regions. Unfortunately, certain effects and transition filters will still clip at 0% and 100% after rendering.

One way to fully protect “full swing” 0-255 levels is to work in RGB processing. A 0-255 color bar pattern will be correctly displayed, but unfortunately all video is spread to the full range, as well. This would mean that all clips would have to be color corrected to adjust for proper video levels. The only way that I’ve found for FCP to display both a 0-255 and a 16-235 clip on the same timeline and maintain correct levels is to apply a color correction filter to adjust the levels on one of these clips.

For general purposes, the best way to work with FCP is to use the ProRes family of codecs and set your sequence settings for YUV processing, white=white and high-precision rendering. This offers the most practical way of working. The only caveat to this is that any “full swing” file will be rescaled so that levels fall into the 0%-100% (16-235) “studio swing” range. If you need to preserve the full range, then FCP’s color correction filters will allow you to expand the range. The levels may appear to clip as you make the adjustment, but the rendered result will be full range.

Real world examples

I’ve done some quick examples to show how these level issues manifest themselves in actual practice. It’s important to understand that for the most part, the same clip would appear the same in either Media Composer of Final Cut as viewed on a broadcast monitor through output hardware. It will also look the same (more or less) when displayed to a computer screen using each app’s full screen preview function.

The following screen grabs from my tests include a 0-255 color bar chart (TIFF original) and a frame from an H.264 Canon 5D clip. The movie frame represents a good spread from shadow to highlights. I imported the files into both Avid Media Composer 5 (via AMA) and Apple Final Cut Pro 7. The FCP clips were rendered and exported and then brought into MC5 for comparison. The reason to do this last step was so that I could check these on a reasonably trustworthy internal scope, which displayed an 8-bit range in absolute values. It is not meant to be a direct comparison of how the video looks in the UI.

Click any image to enlarge.

Imported into Final Cut. ProResHQ with YUV processing. White as white. Note that the peak white of both images is 100%.

Imported into Final Cut. ProResHQ with YUV processing. White as SuperWhite. Note that peak white of both images exceeds 100%.

Imported into Final Cut. ProRes4444 with RGB processing. Note the boundary limits at 0% and 100%.

Imported into Media Composer 5 using AMA. Note that the color bars are a 0-255 range, while the Canon clip is 16-235.

FCP7 YUV export, imported into MC5 via AMA. Note that the color bar pattern has been rescaled to 16-235 and is no longer full range.

FCP7 YUV export with SuperWhite values, imported into MC5 via AMA. Note that the color bar pattern has been rescaled to 16-255 and is no longer full range. It has a higher top-end, but black values are incorrect. This also alters the scaling values of the levels for the Canon clip. Color correction filters would have to be applied in FCP for a “sort of correct” level match between the bars and the Canon clip.

FCP7 RGB export, imported into MC5 via AMA. Note that the color bar pattern exhibits the full 0-255 range. The Canon clip has also been rescaled to 0-255. Color correction filters would have to be applied in FCP to the Canon clip to bring it back into the correct relative range.

I have revisited the YUV settings in FCP7. This is a ProResHQ sequence rendered with high-precision processing. I have applied a color corrector to the color bars, expanded the range and rendered. Note the regions above 100% and below 0%.

FCP7 YUV export (color correction filter applied to the color bars), imported into MC5 via AMA. Note that the color bar pattern spreads from 0-255, while the Canon clip is still within the standard 16-235 range.

©2010 Oliver Peters