Hello! Looking for advice. Magic Bullet have their annual 40% discount sale coming on 5th Dec and I was debating whether to get a copy of Looks. Bearing in mind that the imminent version of FCPX is slanted heavily towards colour correction would this be a wise move?
Not really what I was asking for. I've already got a father but thanks for the advice on the perils of impulsiveness
I'm a pro user since FCP 1.3 came out and worked on numerous brands so not a newbie question. To clarify what I'm asking:
Does the functionality in the imminent version of FCPX that some people here have had the opportunity to use make Looks a bit redundant? Specifically, the use of preset (tweakable) looks that aid speed in fast turnaround jobs. Was there anything that people saw that might make that unnecessary? Yes, of course we should all grade from scratch for each job, etc but I do a number of jobs that are set price, quick turnaround which I'm wondering if it might be useful for.
If you ask for advice, you get advice, sorry for giving advice. I also sincerely apologize for not being psychic and thus not knowing what you do or don't know, what you have or haven't done in your life.
The new color tools in 10.4 are excellent, and far more powerful than what you might see at a first glance. You should be able to go a very long way with them, and of course you can save any custom look as a preset. In the long run, this will make you save a lot of time.
But to re-use custom looks, you first need to create them. And this is where the real question lies. If you are familiar with grading (not the same as color correction), you won't have any trouble at all creating stunning looks with the new color tools and saving them up until you have your own Looks collection. If you are not so comfortable with grading, it might be better (at least faster) to purchase a third-party collection.
That said: I have the MB Looks collection and, just like Ben, I rarely use it.
We have had Looks on our system since Version 2 and now in Version 4 it seems much better. We actually don't use it that often, and not so much as a grading tool as just another creative coloring application. It works quite well and allows you to grade easily on a separate monitor and even a large 3rd monitor via BMD decklink. This app contains a lot of prebuilt looks, all of which can be customized, and sometimes those are helpful. The multitude of scopes and curves and other adjustments would probably allow you to do more sophisticated grading than the new FCPX color controls might, but that is yet to be determined until the new release is actually out and final. If you do a lot of heavy custom color grading and also need a wide variety of starting points, it's certainly something to consider. The interface is very nice and it works well on Sierra - haven't tried it on HS. I would suggest you download the trial and check it out before the 40% sale. With that discount, it would be relatively inexpensive anyway.
Thanks all you guys. Some useful info here. Interesting to hear how many have it but don't use it. I'm pretty comfortable colour correcting and grading in general (I use Colour Finale Pro a lot at the mo) so I think what I'm going to do is pass on Looks and, instead, use their discount to get Plural Eyes which is I think will speed up my syncing workflow.
FernKraft wrote: I suggest using the trial of Plural Eyes before you commit. I've had trouble with it in the past with certain workflows. Try before you buy!
In line with this: I use Plural Eyes and it is very powerful -- it can sync almost anything, even hunt across hundreds of files looking for a waveform match. However FCPX if used properly is quite capable. If the clips are properly tagged with camera angle or camera name metadata, FCPX does pretty well at syncing. BTW it's generally best to use a multicam clip, not a sync clip, even for a single A/V video and external audio source:
While powerful, Plural Eyes (PE) has some workflow issues with FCPX. It is not designed with the typical FCPX workflow of ingesting everything, tagging content and then round-tripping difficult sync cases to PE. This is understandable since PE works with multiple editors, and the organizational tools of other editing software is so limited that you typically must first organize and cull the material before import.
With other editors you whittle down the material using slow laborious means before ingest, and at this phase you could identify the multicam or sync clips, handle them with PE, then import. Or you could import, make a non-synced timeline, then round trip to PE from the timeline. The timeline is about the only tool other editors have, so they use timelines for everything. But with FCPX the goal is initially using the Event Browser, you normally sync clips from the Browser, and PE does not support export from this. PE/FCPX workflow limitations:
(1) Export from Event Browser is not allowed (2) Export from a multicam clip is not allowed (3) Export from a single timeline with all clips in one lane is not allowed.
IOW to go from FCPX to PE, you must build a timeline by hand with connected clips to get PE to accept the XML, or do a "Reveal in Finder" for each clip and drag them one-by-one to PE. Going from PE to FCPX works OK, but this implies you do a fair amount of folder/file level organization before PE sync and importing to FCPX.
I have mentioned this to Red Giant, but they are not currently interested in improving the PE workflow just for the sake of FCPX.