Looking for detailed explanations. I hope someone can indulge me.

Hello all,
I’ve come a long way in my journey to produce moving pictures, but there are two basic nagging questions that I’d love to gain understanding on:

1. I would love to understand the difference between color grading in FCPX vs. Resolve. I can do nice grading in FCPX but see so many people using Resolve that I would really like to know what I’m missing out on. I mean, the back and forth between FCPX and Resolve must add a ton of time/micromanagement to each project so why go through the hassle when you can see instant results inside FCPX? I would like to thoroughly understand the difference without committing all the hours to learn Resolve. Is there any video out there that compares the two? What little I’ve seen from Resolve looks like the same thing with color wheels and a different naming convention. I do know that Resolve has color curves and nodes, neither of which FCPX has. But I don’t understand what are the advantages of those two features. Whatever it is that those two feature do, why can’t I recreate the same look using the FCPX tools? (I do have the SliceX so I can do Beziers shape masks and track them inside FCPX)

2. For shooting in low light: What is the difference between shooting at a high ISO which gives a bright noisy picture, to shooting at regular ISO and then bumping the exposure in post, which also results in a bright noisy picture. Why choose one over the other?

Thanks in advance.

1. You'd only go out to Resolve once or twice. Resolve has much more sophisticated, professional tools for color grading and correction. You'd not touch it until you were relatively sure you had picture lock (edit was locked in place, no or very little changes). That's the normal Hollywood workflow. If you can do what you need in FCPX, there's no reason for Resolve. In Resolve, you can finesse adjustments in much more detail, use masks in more sophisticated ways, do more color grading effects in it. It is light years beyond what FCPX can do. But again, if FCPX is working for you, stick with it. When your productions and your skill level advance, you may find FCPX falling short, and be ready to move to Resolve. Its basics are not that hard to learn.

2. You can get a cleaner, less noisy image by adjusting in-camera during the shoot. You'll retain more detail in the darker areas of the image. Adjusting exposure in post should be a last resort, as it adds much more noise, and can not bring out detail in the dark areas that were never recorded in the first place. Once shot, you're stuck with the image data you've got. So do it in camera to start with.

I really would like to avoid learning Resolve but your “once your kill levels advance…” and “light years ahead of FCPX” comments ain’t helpin’. If only I could see a video showing me what Resolve can do that FCPX can’t. Then I could see if it was worth the time for me. I’m a freak for high quality, so if the quality of an image graded in Resolve looks better than one graded in FCPX that would probably be reason enough. The problem is it would have to be the same image graded by the same colorist and making and honest attempt with both apps.

Also, I always carry this thought in the back of my mind where I think that in a future update FCPX will update the Color tools to make them more powerful. (Though admittedly I don’t know what “more powerful” looks like since I don’t know Resolve.) Thereby reducing the need to use Resolve even further. I say this because since Resolve is adding editing tools, I would expect Apple to strike back by adding coloring tools.

Thanks for your reply Ben.

I can give you a couple of practical examples where Resolve is a much more capable color corrector. Now, as Ben said, if you can do it fine inside FCPX, it's better to just do it in there. It's capable, but there are something things missing.

1. Resolve has a great tracker for its masks (called power windows). It's fast and can track nearly any kind of movement easily. If you want to tweak the lighting on someone's face, and their head is moving around, it's easy to do and looks great. You can do this somewhat in FCPX, but you need a third-party tracker and the interface for doing so is much clunkier, not to mention slower.

2. Resolve has level curves which is pretty much mandatory for any footage shot in a flat profile, but you'd want it even if you don't. Again, there are plugins for this which are basic and slow in FCPX.

3. You can stack a crazy number of nodes like this in Resolve and it will still play real-time on a capable machine. If you start putting third-party masks and things in FCPX, it will start to chug pretty quickly. Also, the way nodes can be linked is a lot more flexible than a simple stacking order.

4. You can manage different grades more easily, and have different versions for shots more organized.

5. You have a lot more control over secondary color correction (called the qualifier) where you can fine-tune your color mask. FCPX secondaries can be very coarse in comparison.

6. You can use a hardware interface for Resolve which facilitates grading. Trackballs are way better than moving those pucks around.

Those things I think are the biggest practical differences. There are a TON of other little, more advanced things you can do, but those are the mains things.

I don't think Resolve is anywhere near a capable NLE yet, and actually I would not do the final online in there yet either. Its interface is not there yet, and clip organization is very behind FCPX. It's promising, and there are things like keyframing which are better than in FCPX. However, using the two together is great because the interchange between Resolve and FCPX is the best of any NLE.

1. I can do that with SliceX. But you are right, it is clunky as hell.

2. This is very worrisome for me as I always shoot in flat profiles. The only two cameras I own are Blackmagic Pocket and GoPro Hero3+. I would love if you could elaborate on why level curves are mandatory for flat profiles. I remember trying some LUTS in FCPX and coming away very unimpressed. Sometimes it would just blow up parts of the image. I don’t use LUTS, but most of the time crank the global saturation all the way up. And in some cases, I‘ve had to add another correction to crank it up some more after my first correction has global saturation at max. But I like the results better than applying a LUT; and I see the gradual changes in the image rather than a sudden change to something that will need to be corrected anyway. I don’t see the point of LUTS to be honest.

3. Don’t know how nodes work but yes, FCPX chugs very quickly when adding masks, object removal, and those type of things.

4. FCPX does not let me rename each correction, so that sucks.

5. This I can visualize. The color mask is crying for a zoom feature. Though now that I think of it, I don’t think anything prevents me from setting the viewer window to 300% before attempting to sample a color mask. Will need to test when I get home.

6. Makes sense, but I don’t have the workload to justify purchasing hardware for grading. I don’t have a calibrated monitor either, I just grade on the retina display of my 2012 macbook pro.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question Jesús.