I have MB Suite 11, and just curious if other users out there have a preference between the two tools. I know Colorista is extremely powerful, but it is indescribably awesome to me that Looks has real scopes built in to the GUI. If you use both, do you have certain situations when you use one over the other?
To be honest, I started with Colorista 1, upgraded to 2, then soon got MBL. Colorista 2 is very powerful - almost too powerful unless you really know what you're doing with monitors that have been lined up. I'll freely admit to abandoning Colorista 2 for MBL.
I use them both. All my fine tweaking is done with Colorista II. Effectively my colour correction. All my grading is done with looks 2
I also use both, much in the same was as Philip actually. I color correct in Colorista II, and do most of my grading in Looks.
@ Philip & Mattijs - what features of Colorista 2 are you using that isn't in the Colorista inside Magic Bullet Looks 2?
Mainly the secondary color corrector in Colorista, since I don't have to edit the look in a new window (as opposed to Looks), I find it to be a faster way of working. This is especially true if you need multiple instances of Colorista, you can quickly tweak each of them. As opposed to closing and opening different instances of Looks all the time. Also, while you're in Looks, you can't move the timeline. So let's say you do your color correction, play back the clip, and find it's still a little too blue, you then have to open Looks again and tweak it. With Colorista, you can do it right there in your effect controls. In the end I would say Looks does pretty much anything that Colorista does, but some actions are definitely more time consuming.
That's really interesting - as soon as I posted, I got thinking about this: - Lots of little Primaries - Batch change groups of shots in one hit I work primarily in 'a general mash of shots from different places' and so each shot needs a little bit of this, a little bit of that. The wider community includes shooters who have a lot of rushes shot under a single setting which many need individual work, then one whole treatment on the scene. I can see that separation between Colorista and Looks working very well.
So Philip, if i understand correctly you use Colorista to even out the shots to get your whites white, and then do all of your creative color grading in Looks?
I used to start with Colorista II and then move to Looks. Now I only use only Looks for the whole process. If we follow the right task order: lift-gamma-gain, saturation, white balance, grading, you can do it all in Looks, plus, you can use the scopes which are critical in the first steps. I also have my doubts about what can you do with standalone Colorista that cannot be done with the Colorista feature (one or several instances) within Looks.
I use both - Looks to setup a certain color grade and mood... Colorista 2 to fine tune and correct it the way I want. I find it difficult for me to fine tune things in Looks (not that it can't be done). A lot of times I find myself stacking them. I think it just really comes down to the interface and user preference.
in my opinion, Color Correcting is the first step. upon importing and editing your footage you tweek your levels, color, tint, saturation, etc. but only to improve or bring the footage to normal, properly exposed, colored footage, that couldn't be captured initialy in camera. Color Grading is the last step. Grading is taking all that footage and applying a creative look to the film. for instance the Matrix, with the constant Green hue and feel, or 'the Losers' with it's High contrast and high saturation. Grading give the movie a creative edge that compliments the feel and intention the Director was trying to convey. i may be totally off, but this is how i interpret it.
thanks Jayson for the reply. I started watching these excellent tutorials and think I have a better idea now: http://vimeo.com/channels/coloristaii The 'grading' functions you're ascribing to Looks—contrast, color cast, and saturation—can all be accomplished in Colorista equally well (if not better). Colorista II shines in its keying and power masks; you have greater control over which parts of your shot you want to isolate and modify. That and the workflow advantages Mattijs points out above. Where Looks excels is in the special effects department: graduated filters, diffusion, tilt-shift, distortion, stars, noise etc... That and its vast presets library, a feature which appears to be absent in Colorista. Until now I've just been using MBL exclusively, but since learning of Colorista II I'm going to start applying it first. It seems to give a very fine degree of control.
yep. your right. Colorista is better for the color correcting phase, and Looks is great for the Grading phase.. although, i use premiere, and since ive never had colorista until recently, the native color controls in premiere have worked out well for me (with a bit of time and tweeking of course. not as fast and easy as colorista, but it can be acheived).
