finalcolor inc.

The Need For Speed!

C
olor correction systems are so different that it can be
quite difficult to compare them in an objective way.
Consequently, many people settle for a simple test.
For better or worse hardware color correctors are most often
judged by how many windows they can do. It is usually a
flawed comparison, but it is easy to make. Software color
systems however, can have an infinite number of windows, so
a new method of evaluation is needed. One current favorite is
to compare speed. That seems simple enough, but actually it is
quite complicated.

What is Real Time?

I have always maintained that color correction needs to be real-time so that the hand
can correct faster than the eye adjusts. In video, real-time is easily defined as the correct
playback speed. Admittedly, there are an increasing number of correct playback speeds;
24fps for film, 25fps for PAL, 29.97 fps for NTSC and more recently 23.98 fps but the
speed of video is defined by the standard not the equipment.
Software systems are not limited to fixed standards and system speed is measured by
playback, transfer speed, render speed, control interactivity and workflow. Playback and
transfer speeds are directly related to the performance and number of processors, the
amount of RAM, and the performance of the storage. The render speed and control
interactivity are further affected by the efficiency of the software and the interface
design. All of these are useful ways to evaluate a system, but equally important is how
efficiently they integrate into the workflow.
Real-time control is most important of all. Most software systems
Changes must take effect as a knob is turned begin with real-time
because it is hard to fine-tune the image if there is interactive controls, but slow
any delay. When slow processing causes the delay, down as a project builds. A
changes step and are applied in bursts. When a few systems use the GPU to
buffer causes the delay, changes are smooth but not guarantee some real-time
immediate, which is not quite so bad. Real-time controls even after the most
control needs to be just fast enough and can be as demanding tasks.
little as twelve updates a second on a static frame.
www.finalcolor.com

Color Tools
Given real-time interactivity I, as a colorist, consider the color toolset the most
significant feature of a color corrector. I have to write such a truism because color tools
are often not given enough consideration, perhaps because they are so hard to compare.
The justification is usually that we can assume the color tools are great, but in truth
some are only just good enough, and others are awkward to use.
In 1868 Christopher Latham Sholes rearranged the letters on his invention, the
typewriter, so that the most common letter combinations were separated and their type
bars less likely to clash. Contrary to popular legend, the intention was not to slow down
typists by making the layout less intuitive, but to make them faster by avoiding jams.

Page 1 of 6
 finalcolor inc.

Over 130 years later we are still using the QWERTY layout on our computers.
What is the moral of the story? Good design does
improve speed, but there is a huge resistance to Colorist Kevin Shaw has
change. It is essential to optimize a design from the consulted on an innovative
beginning. Systems that use generic third party new control panel layout for
control surfaces cannot redesign the panel, but can Digital Vision. The Valhall
nevertheless design an efficient and intuitive layout. panels have been completely
However, since each system uses a different layout re-programmed for use with
it can be confusing for colorists, just like re- Nucoda Film Master
arranging the letters on a computer keyboard. software.
Several companies build their own panels, but fall
into other traps. Panels based on a graphic user
interface tend to group controls into logical groups, but a colorist might need to access
several of these groups to complete a single task. Some panels are re-purposed from
hardware color systems, and there is a natural temptation to map controls to familiar
places. This again is likely to be inefficient because newer software tools are likely to be
less accessible. An efficient control panel must be intuitive, and minimize key presses
and menu changes. In short it needs to be based on the workflow of experienced
colorists.

Comparing Tasks
Counting the number of layers that work real-time is a good speed test if the layers
are identical, but in practice they rarely are. The problem is that one system might use a

Task CC 1 Layer CC2 Layer

Overall Printer Lights 1 Primaries 1

balance
High contrast Color Curves 2 Primaries layer 2 3
effect
Over exposed Brightness 1 Secondaries 2
sky fix Regions
Shadow detail Brightness 1 Secondaries 2
stretch Regions
www.finalcolor.com

Saturation of Hue Curves 1 Secondaries 3

grass
Vignette Shape plus 3 Shape plus 4
Balance Primaries
Overall Saturation Out 2 Saturation layer 2 3
Saturation

Total Tasks = 8 Layers = 3 Layers = 4

Example Task List To Compare Two Color Correctors

Page 2 of 6
 finalcolor inc.

new layer for each tool, whereas another has multiple toolsets in every layer. Even the
concept of layers is questionable, since it implies that a system applies grades are built
up in stages. In fact some systems are built with tools in a fixed processing sequence so
that the tools themselves define the order of operations. Setting a number of common
tasks is a better performance test since it takes into account panel ergonomics, toolset
flexibility and processing speed.

Acceleration
Having established the speed of a system, it is also useful to figure how easily and
cheaply it can be accelerated. In terms of hardware, proprietary systems are typically
most expensive, multi-computer solutions are next
expensive and single computer, off the shelf systems While the colorist is making
are likely to be the cheapest to upgrade. From a decisions on one scene,
software point of view, simpler hardware software can do intelligent
configurations encourage the development of more background rendering of the
efficient code. Some systems depend heavily on others if necessary.
dedicating hardware to boost performance, while
others rely on optimized algorithms.
Using CPU clusters by tiling the image is an example of a hardware solution to
software performance. Clusters work well on basic color correction, but suffer from
increased over-heads, causing diminishing returns on many of the most intensive tasks.
Pan and scan, zoom, defocus and noise reduction need most or all the image to work
www.finalcolor.com

A comparison of CPU efficiency for single and multiple workstation systems.

Page 3 of 6
 finalcolor inc.

from, so the actual benefits are diminished. Clusters are of course more expensive to
upgrade too. With the realistic expectation of a single pc unit with eight quad core
processors and two graphics cards in the near future, investment in cluster based image
enhancement is debatable.

Workflow
The workflow integration of hardware is straightforward to assess. Connect a video
source, color correct it, and then record it. For the least demanding jobs, such as one-
light dailies, the job time is little more than the running time.
Software systems that need to import material, color correct, render, and then record,
would seem to need at least three times as long. So how can software possibly be as
fast, or faster than hardware?
In fact the linear hardware workflow has a lot in common with the typewriter. Put in
paper, type and take out the finished article. Using this analogy, software DI workflow
is more like a word processor. Information can be input from a variety of sources,
modified, re-arranged, reviewed and then finally sent to a printer.

Truly future proof systems

should use standard files
such as. Dpx or .tif, on
local, shared or networked
storage. They should not
need to import scans to
proprietary storage or re-
format them.

The different workflows for open architecture shared storage and closed network
www.finalcolor.com

local storage facilities.

In the future software might well be faster than video hardware because the real-time
speed, which seems impressive now, will one day be a limitation. In the data world
transfers can be faster than real time, so one-light dailies could theoretically be assessed,
processed, rendered and transferred in less than the playback time. Sounds fantastic
perhaps, but film laboratories have been printing at faster than running time for decades.
However, a more useful workflow example is long-form broadcast. The traditional
video route is best light from film, offline edit, online edit, color correction and then a
final edit for titles. It is very time efficient, but can compromise quality because final

Page 4 of 6
 finalcolor inc.

grading is often from compressed videotape and is dependent on the initial best light
grade. Visual effects and transitions also complicate the final grading. Software based
digital intermediate (DI) workflow is very similar to this model, except that the initial
transfer is a calibrated log scan that does not involve colorist decisions, the final grade is
from uncompressed data with greater dynamic range than standard video, and the
effects and transitions are graded as elements, not a flattened, rendered sub-master. So
DI has all the benefits and none of the disadvantages. Software has other workflow
advantages that make it attractive. For example when working with random access of
scenes arranged in context it is convenient to do a base grade on each shot, taking note
of which shots need most attention. A colorist can easily review and refine a project
many times. In a telecine or tape environment, reviewing the project is time consuming,
especially if the material is on several rolls of film. As a result the traditional workflow
involves spending a long time on each shot, minimizing the need to repeatedly shuttle or
change rolls. This makes it difficult to know in advance which shots need the most
work, and slow if a decision later in the session affects a scene that was graded earlier.
Another significant advantage of the software DI workflow is multi-tasking. In
typical video workflows, each stage of the post-production process needs to be
completed and approved before going on to the next. For example, selected takes must
be cleaned and graded before online editing, whereas in the DI workflow grading, dust
busting and editing can all happen simultaneously and the results easily updated by any
of the operators. This not only reduces the overall project time, but it also eases the
pressure on scheduling. There is a caveat though. Systems that do not work from open
architecture shared storage cannot properly multi-task. As a guide, any system that has
to load material on to its own local storage requires at least one extra data transfer, and
cannot benefit from different operators working in parallel.
Although the usual workflow for short form
productions is quite different, there are a growing Todays software color
number of facilities using software color correctors must have regular
enhancement for commercials and music videos. video inputs and outputs to
This could be explained by the lower cost of a fit into current workflows.
software suite. However, these new color suites They should also be able to
must be competitive to exist at all, and since they organize selected shots in
are competing with existing rooms that are already their original sequence, and
paid for, cost cannot explain the trend. Clearly the re-generate the original
principal benefits of better tools, in context grading, timecode. However, in the
random access, resolution independence, and future I anticipate that all
www.finalcolor.com

workflow flexibility outweigh any concerns about post production will be done
speed. One opinion is that clients are so accustomed in the data realm and more
to working in non real-time editing and compositing efficient workflows will
suites that they are not averse to rendering for color evolve.
enhancement. It is indeed the colorist who needs
reassurance that software can replace hardware, but those that have already switched are
setting new standards that are hard to match in the traditional suites. Some of the usual
benefits of DI do not apply fully to a commercial workflow where selected scenes are
graded with handles, transferred with original time code and then finished in an online
workstation. However, software developers are now developing features that help
commercial and video orientated users.

Page 5 of 6
 finalcolor inc.

Productivity
Measuring speed without considering workflow is futile. Imagine buying a car for
daily use, based only on the criteria of speed. Without doubt, the quickest cars around
are drag racers. They accelerate much faster, and they reach higher top speeds than the
cars we usually drive. However, they are designed to race in a straight line, (dare I say
they are linear?), over short distances and would be useless for shopping trips, vacations
or rush hour traffic.
The most realistic way to compare color
correction systems is to repeat the same tasks on the Color enhancement systems
same material. The results can be surprising. Good are usually in use for a
workflow, like clever design, improves speed, but minimum of five years.
there is a reluctance to change. The new Many of them provide
technologies that have made software DI grading service for over ten years.
realistic, offer a unique opportunity to re-evaluate
workflow. In my mind there is no doubt that the DI workflow is the only way we will
work in the future, so it’s worth getting it correct now. After all, how many typewriters
are in use today? Most of us use a computer instead, and we usually choose our
software based on functionality and compatibility.
I feel the need for speed, how fast can I go?
Happy Coloring!
Kevin Shaw is a freelance colorist, instructor and consultant for film, video and data projects.
Commissioned by Digital Vision March 2006
First published by Asia Image, April 2006

© Kevin Shaw 2006 www.finalcolor.com kevs@finalcolor.com

www.finalcolor.com

Page 6 of 6