Shiny Red Skin

I've recently been working on a video that contains footage I shot with a Sony HD camera and I've combined this footage with other "clips" from external sources. It looks great and I'm pleased with the results when I watch it on my 27" iMac screen. When I watch it on my Samsung SyncMaster though, people's faces become over-saturated, glossy and display unnatural shades of red, yellow, pink etc. Of course, it's ONLY on the footage I shot.

A lot of things come to mind as to why this may be happening however, I don't really have a clue.

Is there a process that videos go through that compensate for different monitors, colors, etc.?

In the Pro Audio world, we have many processes to ensure that audio plays back properly on different systems. Many of these "fixes" come during the mastering process. Things such as phase relations, overall loudness, and of course spectral EQ processing come to mind. Is there anything similar in the FCPX world?

Thanks in advance for reading this!

P

pwillis wrote: … Is there a process that videos go through that compensate for different monitors, colors, etc.? …

No.

… but … :
Diff. monitors have diff. settings and 'profiles'. Just have a look in your SysPrefs: click monitor, click colours, click profile ... tons of 'settings' (on cheaper monitors there're little things you can actively 'set').

the expensive pro ones come with calibration hard- and software.-

… and next hurdle is TVs, which come with tons of 'enhancers'.

Color is a tricky one … for me, as hobbyist no issue :lol:

Makes sense for sure. In the audio world, monitors (speakers) are all different but there are relative standards in the studio, i.e.: Yamaha NS-10's, Genelec's, etc. that are considered to be reliable standards by which the world listens to music. Mixing gear is designed according to the everyday hurdles one may expect to face with recorded audio. There are metering systems available which are designed to either warn or assure you that you're not doing anything sonically ridiculous to your music.

I suppose I've been "scared straight" over the years about complying (hate that word) to certain standards so . . . when I see my video looking completely different on alternate systems it raises the red flag, naturally.

I just assumed (incorrectly?) that there would exist some type of meter that you'd run your video through which may result with a message saying something to the effect of "You moron! You can't do that. It'll look ridiculous." Hehehe

Thanks for your reply! Good luck with your hobby there!

pwillis wrote: …. I just assumed (incorrectly?) that there would exist some type of meter …

sure there is:
help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.0.6/#ver761cb1ff

the SCOPE even has a 'flesh line' to find the correct skin tone.
(ok, my skin tone varies as you see in my profile pic here, diff. shades of grey, but the Scope says :ohmy: ...... )

again, Color is a tricky one, two examples:
• what color has a banana in red light?
our brain says yellow, a scope would tell black.

• or, you've probably have seen the movie TRAFFIC ?
scenery is extreeeemly graded, but it looks 'natural' ....

for a start (as mentioned: just a hobby…) spend some hours here:
www.colorgradingcentral.com/final-cut-pr...ng-table-of-contents

and to get-down-to-earth: visit any huge electronic-supplier selling TVs - there are NO two ones matching colours, nor showing 'natural' colours :lol:

Thanks for that link Karsten. I'll definitely be hanging around there a bit now too.

Yeah, Traffic has a great look about it. Very distinct.
You're correct about the TV stores and the vast amount of differences seen on screens, even within the same manufacturer. I suppose I'm just searching for a relative starting point but I feel a little more comfortable and will heed your "get down to earth" advice and just go for it!

Thanks again for your input!!

If you are producing for broadcast there would be certain guidelines to follow. No such requirements exist for web and other media file delivery. In either case it will be nearly impossible to produce something that will appear uniform in color tone on all of the many computer monitors. television sets, projector systems, etc. that exist in the market.

Depending on how crucial your color process is to you will typically dictate how much you are willing to spend on monitoring gear to ensure color accuracy. This, however, would still not guarantee the equipment people are viewing your films on are adjusted sufficiently to achieve the intended coloring.

Hello again dgwvideo! Thanks for your reply.

I think the main concern I have is that, the footage I shot versus the footage (other people shot) which I've included in my video stands out as being different in that the skin tones vary in my footage whereas they do not in the other footage. My 1st thought was that all the other footage was sent through some type of rendering process which protected against such things happening. I'm totally guessing on that one as I'm sure you know.

What you said about broadcasting though does beg the question: If there are standards for that, why not for everything else too? I mean, really . . . it makes sense from a broadcaster's perspective that there should be some standards in place but, why not across the board? Also, to meet those broadcast standards, what sort of devices or plugins are utilized?

Thanks again very much for taking time out of your day to address my topic. Greatly appreciated!

P

pwillis wrote: … If there are standards for that, why not for everything else too? …

Very simple to answer: Convenience/costs!

In the 90ies I had the privilege being part of a daily TV-production - it needs 'hours' to (white)balance all studio-cams. and: those devices do have the 'knobs' to turn to adjust such a complex device as an electronic camera.

as the 'no-budget-guy' here: I'm a fan of FCPX auto correction! it's a bit tricky to find a good 'pattern', example: I'm doing the soccer game reports for my lil' son, using 4 cams simultaneously = 4 diff. greens :lol: btw, because 3 of these 40$ cams only offer an 'full auto mode', nothing to adjust, no 5400°k set-up etc etc etc

now, using the auto correction, if I pick a frame with too much sky (blue) in it, the target gets a purple field ... so, by concept the 'related'/before after clips should reference, but in some cases a completely other shot works better.

Again: the pros on this board will get t last a hickup on such a simple attitude :woohoo:

But using diff. cams for a single project isn't 'pro' either ....

Convenience and cost have massively altered the audio/music biz too so, I hear ya! As unfortunate as it is, it's a reality we all have to deal with these days and I suspect that it'll only get worse.

I'm one of those idiots who will invest my own time to ensure my work is as good as possible. It's a double edged sword for sure: once you invest in standards for yourself, it becomes expected of you regardless of cost. As frustrating as it can be, I do sleep better (when I sleep).

I've never relied much on the "awesome" button. You know those one's . . . Push it and everything gets fixed automatically. There's generally a catch, and you end up sacrificing something and its not always an acceptable compromise.

What do I know though? Perhaps this is a good opportunity for me to learn how to "fudge" a bit more and reach for the "awesome" button.

Thanks Karsten! Great to get your input!

In the pro audio world, which I grew up in, there is no magic way to make an album of music sound exactly the same on all speakers. Pro studios have several sets of monitors, some very cheap stereo speakers from K-Mart. We test on a variety of speakers before releasing the final mastered album. There is no way to make all speakers sound the same. So we mix to a lowest common denominator while keeping the fidelity as much as we can. Sound waves are analog, and are our final delivery. Can't get it the same on all hardware/software, just physically won't work.

Broadcast is the same thing. Light is an analog source, it is also our final output. Physically won't look the same on every output device.

So we use video scopes to get Broadcast Safe and balanced using a professional broadcast monitor. I use an AJA Kona LHi and Flanders LM-2453W. Computer monitors, HDTVs, and broadcast monitors all use different hard/software technologies under the hood. They all have very different purposes. Even all HDTVs have internal circuitry to enhance the images to look their best on that companies specific, proprietary hardware. So no two will look exactly alike, no matter how much you adjust them.

Same with computer monitors.

Broadcast monitors are designed and built to show you the raw image signal, no manipulations at all. From there, you do your best.

In fact, the most recent technologies allow for better quality, better quality assurance, cheaper, and wider distribution. It's all great. Lower cost and convenience has actually improved things.

Every camera will look different because you're taking an analog source (light waves, audio waves), digitizing it. Right there, no two digitizing devices will ever be exactly the same. Then there's software manipulation inside the cameras, which will give different results. Audio is the same way. No two mics sound exactly the same. There is no way to physically impose some industry standard to achieve that.

So we use video scopes to get Broadcast Safe and balanced using a professional broadcast monitor. I use an AJA Kona LHi and Flanders LM-2453W.

Yes, this is the kinda thing I'm talking about. I too come from Audioland and agree with what you've said. Interestingly, it's quite easy to draw analogies between the two worlds: audio and video and it seems logical to me that the video world would have some type of "phase meter" or "VU" or at least an output standard for color etc.

With my initial question, being a noob and all, I was just asking if there were any plugins, or FCPX native software that monitors such things and/or even provides alerts when you're encroaching on . . . I don't know, dangerous color abuse or something like that.

For the general public, after you've tasted 3 different glasses of wine, it's difficult to recognize the subtleties. Loudspeakers and TV's are not so different to most but if I had to guess, I'd say that the differences on a TV are more revealing. That said, when the average consumer listens too, watches or tastes anything, unless there's a readily available comparison to be had, many are quite happy to settle with whatever's in front of them.

I was just alarmed at the differences that my two screens were offering and assumed that I did something really extreme and wrong.

This could be a whole new topic in and of itself here!

Thanks so much for your input Ben!

pwillis wrote: … This could be a whole new topic in and of itself here! …

indeed, I get 'a little' off topic now, but, for example, you've heard of or seen this?
www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011
(and don't miss the 'revenge 2012'!)

one scene (no, many different ones), perfectly lit, a dozen cameras (>50k$ range)
=> very different results!

in the 80ies, I was 'live' aside, when the Print industry changed to digital - and the next decades, 'color proof' was and still is an issue. ok, delivery in print is much more complex than 'beams of light' .....

we have a German saying "Vom Hölzchen zum Stöckchen" meaning 'getting lost in detail' .... I'm afraid to say, as a one-man-warship, you have no chance to solve that.

even a simple task as white-balancing would make it necessary to use a professional colour-card for each recording on set etc etc etc.

no, here, auto-mode of "in livin' colours!" :silly:

We have video scopes to check luma and chroma values. Learning to use them is vital to any color work. I actually did a full course on color grading workflow which talks about monitors, scopes, even how to set up your workstation for pro color grading work. There is a lot to color grading.

Things like MB Looks are great time savers, but it also helps to actually learn the proper workflow to create all of that from scratch. When issue arise, you'll have less headache.

When I was a kid coming up in the bid recording studios, mono audio was still a vital part of the process. Television, which was leagues behind audio back then, depended solely on the use of mono masters. Stereo sounded so great and frankly, it was a massive drag to have to work in mono. We were getting into out of phase stereo-izing (false imaging) with some of our stereo music projects and discipline really came into play: do we say f#&$ it and go with the awesome sound and let the TV guys sweat it out or do we "do the right thing" and mono-tize our mixes responsibly? Well . . . I was 18 and that stuff sounded awesome! Needless to say, TV guys hated me!

The scoldings I received scared me straight. Now, when I sense any possibility for technical failures (or just looking like an idiot) I try to cover my ass, hence this post and ensuing conversations.

Sounds good Ben. Thanks very much for posting the link. I'll be watching this for sure!