Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: MichaelEzra on February 25, 2018, 10:05:20 am
-
What would be the best way to use monitor ICC with DaVinci Resolve to get accurate color-managed preview?
LUT made from ICC?
Any other options?
-
I looked into this problem when I was playing with Resolve. I was advised to get a separate display (depending where I wanted to see my final ourput this could be a small TV) driven by a separate display card to monitor how the final image would look on target output device. Well as I was only dabling in video this seemed an unnecessary expense so I switched my NEC multisync monitor to emulate a REC709 which is the HD telivision standard. However REC709 is similar to sRGB so for most purposes using Resolve simply setting your monitor to sRGB will be adequate.
-
Don't know that product under question but the first question would be, is it ICC aware? Does it recognize the ICC display profile and the numbers used in the data to produce a color managed preview? If not, then Dave's solution using a color reference display system that can target REC709 (among other calibration references) would be the next solution.
-
Don't know that product under question but the first question would be, is it ICC aware? Does it recognize the ICC display profile and the numbers used in the data to produce a color managed preview? If not, then Dave's solution using a color reference display system that can target REC709 (among other calibration references) would be the next solution.
In general, Davinci Resolve is not ICC profile aware. The standard practice is to use a Blackmagic video output card (blackmagic design owns Davinici) to a calibrated display. Most often this is done using a display that stores a 3dLUT for calibration. The Resolve software can also store the 3dLUT, or a LUT box can be added between the video card and Resolve. Using the blackmagic video card avoids any signal changes that might be present through the operating system/color management. And, selling these cards is how Blackmagic gives away Resolve for free!
On a Mac, there is a checkbox in settings to use the system icc profile for viewing, but I've experimented with this and find it does not work correctly. So, if you're using a Mac, uncheck this setting!
The real issue here is that many or most displays are now wide gamut displays. But, standard video is not. A wide gamut icc profiled computer display will still be wide gamut, and will not show REC709 correctly. For example, iOne display software can not limit the gamut of the display.
If one insists on avoiding expenses and using a computer display I would try one of these options:
1. In your monitor hardware controls, set the display to sRGB or REC709 (if it has that) and then create your .icc profile using that display setting. It should, theoretically limit your display to REC709 primaries. This advice is really for Macs only. And only when looking at the image on the GUI display. No decklink card involved.
2. Get a decklink output card. The "mini monitor" model is about $150. There is one for thunderbolt and one for PCI slot (if using a a non-laptop). And then also, use a display such as the NEC or EIZO that can store the display calibration in the display itself. First, you'll need to connect the display to the computer video card and run the profiling software with a probe and set the primary colors to REC709. This correction will now be stored in the display. Then, connect from your mini monitor device to the display using HDMI and using the same calibration. This will get one "in the ball park".
3. If you want to get more deeply into this, but on the cheap...
Get an iOne Display probe and use DisplayCal (open source) software to create a 3D LUT. This software will work through Resolve with or without a decklink card. Then, in Resolve settings choose the 3D LUT for display output or GUI viewer output (depending on which display/video card your using). This software is not so easy to get the hang of, so be prepared for a bit of trial and error. It has a GUI interface (not command line), but is still confusing and the instructions can be confusing as well. After you've mastered this, get a iOne spectro to measure your display's color, create an "offset" for the iOne Display Pro puck and you will have a real professional calibration.
-
Thank you for such quick and informative responses!
Bruce Alan,
I am using NEC 2690 WUXi wide gamut monitor with Nvidia graphics card on Windows 10.
I can calibrate the display with eye one probe to sRGB target (using Spectraview II) and use that calibration for video editing sessions.
Do you think this is a better option rather than using monitor calibration with a full gamut and using monitor LUT in Resolve?
Thanks,
-
In general, Davinci Resolve is not ICC profile aware. The standard practice is to use a Blackmagic video output card (blackmagic design owns Davinici) to a calibrated display. Most often this is done using a display that stores a 3dLUT for calibration. The Resolve software can also store the 3dLUT, or a LUT box can be added between the video card and Resolve. Using the blackmagic video card avoids any signal changes that might be present through the operating system/color management. And, selling these cards is how Blackmagic gives away Resolve for free!
On a Mac, there is a checkbox in settings to use the system icc profile for viewing, but I've experimented with this and find it does not work correctly. So, if you're using a Mac, uncheck this setting!
The real issue here is that many or most displays are now wide gamut displays. But, standard video is not. A wide gamut icc profiled computer display will still be wide gamut, and will not show REC709 correctly. For example, iOne display software can not limit the gamut of the display.
If one insists on avoiding expenses and using a computer display I would try one of these options:
1. In your monitor hardware controls, set the display to sRGB or REC709 (if it has that) and then create your .icc profile using that display setting. It should, theoretically limit your display to REC709 primaries. This advice is really for Macs only. And only when looking at the image on the GUI display. No decklink card involved.
2. Get a decklink output card. The "mini monitor" model is about $150. There is one for thunderbolt and one for PCI slot (if using a a non-laptop). And then also, use a display such as the NEC or EIZO that can store the display calibration in the display itself. First, you'll need to connect the display to the computer video card and run the profiling software with a probe and set the primary colors to REC709. This correction will now be stored in the display. Then, connect from your mini monitor device to the display using HDMI and using the same calibration. This will get one "in the ball park".
3. If you want to get more deeply into this, but on the cheap...
Get an iOne Display probe and use DisplayCal (open source) software to create a 3D LUT. This software will work through Resolve with or without a decklink card. Then, in Resolve settings choose the 3D LUT for display output or GUI viewer output (depending on which display/video card your using). This software is not so easy to get the hang of, so be prepared for a bit of trial and error. It has a GUI interface (not command line), but is still confusing and the instructions can be confusing as well. After you've mastered this, get a iOne spectro to measure your display's color, create an "offset" for the iOne Display Pro puck and you will have a real professional calibration.
Mother of god!
How much money a tech would charge to do it for you?
I want to be miles away from anything that has to do with those
Sort of technosyncracies displays.
-
Thank you for such quick and informative responses!
Bruce Alan,
I am using NEC 2690 WUXi wide gamut monitor with Nvidia graphics card on Windows 10.
I can calibrate the display with eye one probe to sRGB target (using Spectraview II) and use that calibration for video editing sessions.
Do you think this is a better option rather than using monitor calibration with a full gamut and using monitor LUT in Resolve?
Thanks,
If you go this route, I would still get the decklink card or "mini-monitor" and use the HDMI to your display after you've calibrated it to sRGB primaries(sRGB and REC709 primaries are the same). When you do the calibration, set it to gamma 2.2 instead of sRGB gamma if Spectraview allows that.
The advantage of using the decklink card/mini monitor is that you can have a full screen display of your video, but you will need a 2nd (cheap) display for the GUI. Resolve doesn't allow full screen video and access to the controls when using just the GUI display.
I'm using a 3D LUT in Resolve that I created with the DisplayCal software in conjunction with Resolve. The trick here is selecting the proper colorimeter offeset in the DisplayCal software. You might find though, that using the probe supplied by NEC with their software could be more accurate, unless... you have a spectro to create an offest measured from your particular display. I have found that just using the iOne Pro Display probe with the EIZO ColorNavigator software is close, but has a little "red" push which leads to slightly desaturated final product. Making the 3D LUT with the spectro offset measured from my display fixed the issue, but as I mentioned in my post, there is quite the learning curve using DisplayCal. You can buy LightSpace software which is better and would have support from the company. But it's kind of expensive.
-
Mother of god!
How much money a tech would charge to do it for you?
I want to be miles away from anything that has to do with those
Sort of technosyncracies displays.
In LA a professional calibration would cost from $350 - $500...
-
In LA a professional calibration would cost from $350 - $500...
Thanks Bruce.
-
Options, options..:))
I happen to have a second monitor (connected to the same video card) which is sRGB...
Currently it is connected using DVI, should have HDMI as well.
I wonder if I could simply utilize it for a full screen video for resolve, or would I have to get the decklink card?
-
Options, options..:))
I happen to have a second monitor (connected to the same video card) which is sRGB...
Currently it is connected using DVI, should have HDMI as well.
I wonder if I could simply utilize it for a full screen video for resolve, or would I have to get the decklink card?
michael, you need the decklink device. It's time for you to read the manual :)
-
yeah.. I just did!:)))
Page 667 "Limitations When Grading With the Viewer on a Computer Display"
-
yeah.. I just did!:)))
Page 667 "Limitations When Grading With the Viewer on a Computer Display"
Michael, you’re an artist. An artist is rarely a good tech engineer and vice versa, a part of some execptions.
Bruce is an old fox (but young!!) profesional, knowledgable and often brings precious help in this forum on complex topics. But as you can see, solving those things are not so easy, just like many other aspects of motion imagery and one can easily sink into a tech spiral without the required background. It means, amateur solutions and lot of time consumed.
I learned it the hard way when I tried to embrasse on my own too many aspects (to be more independant) instead of directing the energy on what I really like and capable. If it can work in still photography to some extend, in motion it does not.
Many editors have assistants that will do the dirty work for them. If they had to deal with gamma sagas, format conversions, backups, relinking and so on...they would not edit but spend their time in fixing problems they are not competent to. If they were, they would not become proper editors.
I know a few photographers here with an international trajectory, big names. People who earn a lot of money doing big editos. You'd be surprised how limited are their knowledge of image engineering. Way less than many people in this forum. Now...they bloody know how to lite and shoot. They know how to deal with people and talents. They know zero about gamma monitors, wide gammuteries and all those idiocies.
Peter Lindberh does NOT retouch anything, does not use MUAs nor stylists. He shoots!
What's in his camera card is what is printed in editorial.
It is sometimes way more profitable to hire a tech (Bruce gave a price idea), that will cost less than deckstuffs (frankly, all those things are extremely annoying, boring and time consumming).
My point is: loose your time if you want trying to play with gadgets to get your monitor calibrated, and it will cost you weeks...or...center your time and energy in doing what you know and love best, and leave the tech stuff to the tech dudes, the fx to the mac dudes etc...
Ps: it's good that some took the time to give the page number ;D
-
Fred, I am guilty in over 18 years of engineering in IT and education in physics, so I easily fall into the attraction of figuring things out:)
In this case though I may have a workaround option - a black and white video on sRGB and forget the color calibration.
But you are right, what I must be doing instead is getting the book on sculptural nudes done, finally, not the monitor calibration:)
-
Michael,
OK, 18 years of figuring it out is good. Now Everybody, every production house has a different way of post processing, gamma, luts, color and delivery.
I have a 5,1 tricked out with an I/o brox to a broadcast monitor, that cost way more than any monitor should cost.
I took a clip and colored it and processed it. Then I put it into my reconfigured 15" mbp circu 2015 and plugged the monitor into the hdmi port.
Setting resolved to srgb and/or rec 709 made absolutely no difference to the eye, compared to a 5.1 and and i/o box.
But here's the point. I shoot different cameras than you, build my on in camera luts and go to resolve. Resolve is a huge learning curve but it's the best for the money.
Anyway, the powerbook with no i/o box though the hdmi port completely matches the 5,1. Don't know why, don't care, it looks good. It matches the computer monitors, it matches the broadcast screen. Why? I don't care, it passes inspection, runs life goes on.
Test, test, test and don't believe the specs.
Now my 2015 powerbook shouldn't do anything I ask of it. But the dealer who specializes in configuring computers said it was the fastest laptop and the last one Apple made that can be modified. I tried it . . . bought two.
Maybe buy two more.
Yes read the manual, yes learn resolve, but remember, every machine camera to computer to output to view screen is different.
The only thing that matters is to make it look great and get to the final result.
IMO
BC
BC, the trouble here is how to know when your simple solution (MBP/HDMI out) is correct. My 2013 MBP (non-wide gamut Retina display) when profiled and calibrated is very close to my "official/hero" calibrated REC709 display. If I had new, wide gamut, Retina on my MBP, this would not be the case. It's just, that without a true calibrated display to compare it to, I wouldn't know it was close to correct!
Ironically, to make things simple with Resolve, one really needs the decklink device output (zero color management from the OS) to be sure of the signal. So it kind of takes a lot of experience to know when the simple solution, direct output from the computer video card, is correct. And... on windows machines, there is not true color management outside of applications like photoshop. So, your approach will not work well with windows and Resolve.
And in the end, if one wants full screen playback in Resolve, one needs two displays, one for GUI and one from a decklink device to a (hopefully calibrated!) display.
My work is for cinema and needs to be delivered to spec. I need a truly calibrated display, if only to reassure the producers that all is fine with their multi million dollar investment. If one's needs are pretty much for the internet, I would just check the final result on an iPad or iPhone. If it looks ok there, you shouldn't have any issues. I even sometimes check my internet trailers at the electronics store on different phones to see that, on average, all is ok for most viewers.
-
If one's needs are pretty much for the internet, I would just check the final result on an iPad or iPhone. If it looks ok there, you shouldn't have any issues. I even sometimes check my internet trailers at the electronics store on different phones to see that, on average, all is ok for most viewers.
Exactly.
-
... So it kind of takes a lot of experience to know when the simple solution, direct output from the computer video card, is correct. And... on windows machines, there is not true color management outside of applications like photoshop. So, your approach will not work well with windows and Resolve.
That is the point.
And that is why I think that if one does not have the tech background,
Dealing with those sort of things is IMO not the best idea.
Of course, some with a great dosis of obession, many hours,
Coffees and headaches
Could gain the experience required. But that is not ideal.
Digital motion imagery has some areas extremely technical, color included.
And it's getting more and more complicated.
And when lot of money is involved, there is no space any longuer for
Approximation but an affair of specialists.
It has to be collaborative.
One can not be good at everything. Impossible.
-
The only thing that matters is to make it look great and get to the final result.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that perfection in calibration in video production must matter only within a local pipeline - the moment you give out the footage for viewing - there is no control how it will be seen. Same with digital photos on internet. Most content is viewed on the phones. Phones are different, screen brightness is different, ambient setting - even more so. So what is left of the intended calibration? No one will ever see the footage the same as it was mastered, may be on the big screens, where it is strictly controlled I suspect.
For photography, even when I exhibit the original prints, they are almost never displayed in perfectly controlled lighting, so consistency is there in production but viewing relies on something in our brains that interprets, interpolates and compensates for the variable viewing conditions.
Still, I've got to know what I am looking at when editing:)
-
The more I think about it, the more I feel that perfection in calibration in video production must matter only within a local pipeline - the moment you give out the footage for viewing - there is no control how it will be seen. Same with digital photos on internet. Most content is viewed on the phones. Phones are different, screen brightness is different, ambient setting - even more so. So what is left of the intended calibration? No one will ever see the footage the same as it was mastered, may be on the big screens, where it is strictly controlled I suspect.
For photography, even when I exhibit the original prints, they are almost never displayed in perfectly controlled lighting, so consistency is there in production but viewing relies on something in our brains that interprets, interpolates and compensates for the variable viewing conditions.
Still, I've got to know what I am looking at when editing:)
I think that the problem is when one comes from photography
Background and try to do motion with photographic parameters/budget
In mind.
It would work to some extend, but it will vanishes when one gains
More experience and realises that the excelence possible to do in stills
Becomes very fast extremely expensive, complex and time consuming.
Let's talk Resolve. Everybody work on it and try to be a colorist, right?
Some photographers manage to bake good looks for their work.
But if one crosses a line, goes deeper...then things get really nasty.
Everyone-is-a-colorist is a falacy.
You can go where the real colorists are: in liftgammagain forum
And you'll see conversations between active profesionals.
That is not a bloody joke.
Many people even with years in color are out of the game: "say what?!"
It's easy to figure out by yourself. Just enter the forums, know who is good and
Read the posts...good luck!
Same story if you frequent FX forums. Bags talking about bags...
Specialists talking their stuff.
Look, motion has become so highly technical that in big houses,
People are paied to do one task and not the others.
I talked to someone in Oceania who trained macdudes in one of the biggest
House. (I won't give the name here because it's sensitive).
The colorist does not do anything except coloring. Too complicated,
Too expensive for DIT solutions.
Highly collaborative environement using the same system. And
It's not Resolve.
It was already like that in pre-digital, just that digital boosted
Complexity even further.
So if you look for "perfection" in motion, with the medium and
Background of photography, you will be disapointed.
You have no choice. Or you have the cash, or you DIY,
And accept the inperfection and randomness.
Ommmmm
-
I think that the problem is when one comes from photography
Background and try to do motion with photographic parameters/budget
In mind.
It would work to some extend, but it will vanishes when one gains
More experience and realises that the excelence possible to do in stills
Becomes very fast extremely expensive, complex and time consuming.
Let's talk Resolve. Everybody work on it and try to be a colorist, right?
Some photographers manage to bake good looks for their work.
But if one crosses a line, goes deeper...then things get really nasty.
Everyone-is-a-colorist is a falacy.
You can go where the real colorists are: in liftgammagain forum
And you'll see conversations between active profesionals.
That is not a bloody joke.
Many people even with years in color are out of the game: "say what?!"
It's easy to figure out by yourself. Just enter the forums, know who is good and
Read the posts...good luck!
Same story if you frequent FX forums. Bags talking about bags...
Specialists talking their stuff.
Look, motion has become so highly technical that in big houses,
People are paied to do one task and not the others.
I talked to someone in Oceania who trained macdudes in one of the biggest
House. (I won't give the name here because it's sensitive).
The colorist does not do anything except coloring. Too complicated,
Too expensive for DIT solutions.
Highly collaborative environement using the same system. And
It's not Resolve.
It was already like that in pre-digital, just that digital boosted
Complexity even further.
So if you look for "perfection" in motion, with the medium and
Background of photography, you will be disapointed.
You have no choice. Or you have the cash, or you DIY,
And accept the inperfection and randomness.
Ommmmm
I think it's not so different than really understanding color management with Photoshop. It's just that if a print isn't quite right, you just make another. With movies there's often a lot more money on the line and not so easy to keep re-rendering the movie! And once, the movie is distributed, it better be correct.
But still, it's not really so complicated once you get your head around it:) Just look at the color management forum here...
-
Since Photoshop works just fine with OS color management, I see no reason why it wouldn't work for video app. Clearly this must be BM marketing strategy requiring additional however inexpensive useless graphics card occupying PCIe slot. I would have been much happier customer paying more for Resolve but using that PCIe slot for SLI GPUs with more power to speed up rendering. Oh well..:)
-
I think it's not so different than really understanding color management with Photoshop. It's just that if a print isn't quite right, you just make another. With movies there's often a lot more money on the line and not so easy to keep re-rendering the movie! And once, the movie is distributed, it better be correct.
But still, it's not really so complicated once you get your head around it:) Just look at the color management forum here...
Compared to color management in Photoshop?!?
Come on Bruce!
I have dozens of forum topics I could copy/paste here and nobody
Would understand anything on what's going on.
Aces for ex! Nobody fully understands how to make it work
Appart you and 5 or 6 other guys in the high-end LA.
Even in LGG, the one who know are very few.
Photo goes to print and web.
There is only 3 softwares worldwide used profesionaly
In still imagery. All runned by Adobe. PS, IS, ID. PS is both
The Resolve and the Nuke of photography.
Learning both Resolve and Nuke as well as most people know PS
Is an entire 4 or 6 years full time university course.
Not talking about systems like Mistika...another stratosphere.
Printing procedures are stable and universal.
What about DCPs? (And flavors, and if theaters do their job, and if the projector...)
What about the myriad of
Proprietary flat curves with their own special
Workflow? RLF, Slog, LogC, Pana...the list is infinite.
Now wide gammut Red with new curve, Rec709? Naaa...Rec2020...
ACEScc, ACESlinear, ACESproxy, ACEScct...what is going to be the new one?
What about the overloaded pac of codecs? What about roundtripping?
Ahhh...that's a good one, roundtripping between aps, when it works.
What about correct maths to do LUTs? 99% of the luts that circulate
Are wrong and crap. Who really know the maths to do that? The real pros.
It's not doing Technicolor simply using split channel as I saw in a Resolve tuto one day...
Completly wrong! But the dude who did that honestly thought he had something.
Just that he didn't have the real knowledge.
99% of the videos on Resolve on color that circulate are
Done by amateurs. When one goes in LGG, things change
Completly and it's way more complicated.
The list of technical habilities in motion post is enormous,
Way beyond the scope of a full mastering of PS.
And let's not even talk about the prod itself...
A good cam operator for ex is quite chalenging.
You have been in this business I guess all your working life,
Before digital and evolved naturally with years. I think this
Is why it's naturally easy for you. You gainned the expertise.
But a guy who jumps
In it knowdays has to learn it all in once. And that's IMO
Only possible in a specialisation.
A DP has to know things a director necesarlly not.
IMO, the key is to work with the right people for the right job.
Want a coffee? ;D
-
Since Photoshop works just fine with OS color management, I see no reason why it wouldn't work for video app. Clearly this must be BM marketing strategy requiring additional however inexpensive useless graphics card occupying PCIe slot. I would have been much happier customer paying more for Resolve but using that PCIe slot for SLI GPUs with more power to speed up rendering. Oh well..:)
I copy-paste a text from Steve Shaw
Unfortunately ICC profile compliance is rather a hit-and-miss affair.
It's one reason there are rarely used in the film and TV industry - it's very difficult to rely on them.
Calibration should really be display based, not associated with the image path, or the graphics program.
That is the only way to guarantee that any displayed images are correctly represented.
With Mac, ICC profile management is 'supposed' to be OS wide, but the reality seems rather more variable.
With Windows ICC management is program specific.
A real nightmare when it comes to colour accuracy.
For accurate colour management it is best to avoid any reliance on ICC profiles.
Steve
-
Strange, my NEC monitor takes internal calibration (display-based LUT) in addition to the corresponding ICC profile in OS / graphics card.
In ICC profiling color is measured by the calibration sensor from the display directly, why would it not be representative of the display?
I cannot complain on ICC accuracy using Photoshop. The program just needs to be ICC-aware and compliant, and as we know, most of them are not.
I suppose offloading color profile conversion workload from CPU/GPU to a dedicated hardware device, such as broadcast monitor, would make the internal computer resources more available for the demanding video processing workloads. May be this is the true underlying reason?
-
I copy-paste a text from Steve Shaw
Unfortunately ICC profile compliance is rather a hit-and-miss affair.
FUD (and without specifics). Who is Steve Shaw?
Calibration should really be display based, not associated with the image path, or the graphics program.
All actually
With Mac, ICC profile management is 'supposed' to be OS wide, but the reality seems rather more variable.
No specifics and yes, it's OS wide where it's needed (if not, where isn't it)?
For accurate colour management it is best to avoid any reliance on ICC profiles.
More FUD. If not relying on the ICC architecture, which has been used for over two decades, what then?
-
Who is Steve Shaw?
He is the CEO of Light Illusion. A UK company.
https://www.lightillusion.com
When this guy speaks, I listen. (Doesn't nean that he can't
Be wrong but it would be very strange in this particular topic).
-
He is both wrong and biased without providing a lick of data to back up his FUD on ICC CMS!
-
He is both wrong and biased without providing a lick of data to back up his FUD on ICC CMS!
Multi million production houses with the best
Operators relly on this guy knowledge and company.
An example here (although dated)
http://www.btlnews.com/crafts/post-production/the-look-chooses-lightspace-cms-for-facility-wide-colour-management/
For a reason it will be.
He can not be completly wrong.
Nobody at those levels looses time and money.
-
Multi million production houses with the best
Operators relly on this guy knowledge and company.
Is that the best you've got, are you serious? Here's just one company that implements ICC color management in every product they print for their customers (I helped create some of those output profiles) and this company has provided ICC support in their software since the early 90's and this company is part of the ICC: Apple!
Last year their profits were 56 billion dollars. Hollywood was 11.2 billion (down). So your argument about money to back up his FUD as pasted, again without a lick of proof or explanation is rubbish!
Let's see you or him provide some colorimetric data to back up this sentence which is, as provided FUD: For accurate colour management it is best to avoid any reliance on ICC profiles.
He can not be completly wrong.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
-
Compared to color management in Photoshop?!?
Come on Bruce!
I have dozens of forum topics I could copy/paste here and nobody
Would understand anything on what's going on.
Aces for ex! Nobody fully understands how to make it work
Appart you and 5 or 6 other guys in the high-end LA.
Even in LGG, the one who know are very few.
Photo goes to print and web.
There is only 3 softwares worldwide used profesionaly
In still imagery. All runned by Adobe. PS, IS, ID. PS is both
The Resolve and the Nuke of photography.
Learning both Resolve and Nuke as well as most people know PS
Is an entire 4 or 6 years full time university course.
Not talking about systems like Mistika...another stratosphere.
Printing procedures are stable and universal.
What about DCPs? (And flavors, and if theaters do their job, and if the projector...)
What about the myriad of
Proprietary flat curves with their own special
Workflow? RLF, Slog, LogC, Pana...the list is infinite.
Now wide gammut Red with new curve, Rec709? Naaa...Rec2020...
ACEScc, ACESlinear, ACESproxy, ACEScct...what is going to be the new one?
What about the overloaded pac of codecs? What about roundtripping?
Ahhh...that's a good one, roundtripping between aps, when it works.
What about correct maths to do LUTs? 99% of the luts that circulate
Are wrong and crap. Who really know the maths to do that? The real pros.
It's not doing Technicolor simply using split channel as I saw in a Resolve tuto one day...
Completly wrong! But the dude who did that honestly thought he had something.
Just that he didn't have the real knowledge.
99% of the videos on Resolve on color that circulate are
Done by amateurs. When one goes in LGG, things change
Completly and it's way more complicated.
The list of technical habilities in motion post is enormous,
Way beyond the scope of a full mastering of PS.
And let's not even talk about the prod itself...
A good cam operator for ex is quite chalenging.
You have been in this business I guess all your working life,
Before digital and evolved naturally with years. I think this
Is why it's naturally easy for you. You gainned the expertise.
But a guy who jumps
In it knowdays has to learn it all in once. And that's IMO
Only possible in a specialisation.
A DP has to know things a director necesarlly not.
IMO, the key is to work with the right people for the right job.
Want a coffee? ;D
A pretty darn good description of the state of color management in the motion business!
But you forgot to mention HDR display which is a whole new can of worms (as we say in English:)
And even the "standard" REC709 doesn't have a true gamma standard and that creates a lot of confusion for people.
And "video/broadcast" levels vs. "data" levels!
I've seen the biggest and most expensive post houses make mistakes sometimes ... and they always blame the client!!!!
-
Is that the best you've got, are you serious? Here's just one company that implements ICC color management in every product they print for their customers (I helped create some of those output profiles) and this company has provided ICC support in their software since the early 90's and this company is part of the ICC: Apple!
Last year their profits were 56 billion dollars. Hollywood was 11.2 billion (down). So your argument about money to back up his FUD as pasted, again without a lick of proof or explanation is rubbish!
Let's see you or him provide some colorimetric data to back up this sentence which is, as provided FUD: For accurate colour management it is best to avoid any reliance on ICC profiles.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
Andrew, Steve Shaw is one of the most expert people in the display calibration business for motion pictures. He has written many posts with the data to back them up, but you'll need to search for them. I think he sometimes argues for a level of color accuracy that is beyond necessary to promote his products, but he is extremely knowledgable.
I think most of this has to do with motion delivery always being delivered to a standard, of which there used to be only a few standards so it made good sense to set the display to the standard and not deal with color management at the OS level or even the application level. Now, they are creating new HDR display standards every other month and it's becoming really complicated. The dynamic range of these new standards is all over the map and I think they are so different that automated mathematical transforms don't work effectively. Just like in Photoshop, when one is printing the same image to low contrast matte paper vs. glossy vs. a high contrast emissive display, one needs to do a new color correction (using soft proof) for each final product.
And just to be a little provocative here... Even when doing still photography in photoshop, for print output, I think the REAL working space is the display, not the underlying photoshop working space.
There is a new movement in motion to use ACES ( http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/aces ) color management, which is the motion picture academy's attempt to create a photoshop like .icc color management system for motion pictures. It works well... until it doesn't. I think this is because in ACES the color space transform and the output contrast curves are built into the same transform. This means the contrast curve is baked in and difficult sometimes to get out of. Otherwise, it works ok, but assumes a standard display of some sort.
And so, for motion, the best practice is to create a 3D LUT to bring the display into standard compliance. We often work with multiple displays (for client viewing) so it's best that each display hit the same standard from a single signal from the video card. Also applying the 3D LUT in software is possible, but it slows down the processing which can become a hurdle when we need real time playback of color correction of 4k+ material. It's not much, but it's sometimes the difference between realtime playback and not quite realtime. I'm a small time guy compared to tent pole movies, and I have my 3D display LUT transform done in software and I notice the effect on playback. I will soon need a LUTbox to place between my graphics card and the display.
Sorry to mumble on here. I know it's a forum for still photographers, but since some are now getting into motion, and motion post production, I thought I'd give a little idea of the complexities and differences with still photography color management.
-
. It works well... until it doesn't...
I've experienced that! ;D ;D
-
Bruce, everything you've stated about this fellow may be accurate but the statement as pasted is rubbish. Maybe taken out of context. Maybe there is an anti ICC agenda. There's so far, not a lick of colorimetric data to backup his claim which was made extremely broad brush. And thus, until proven, it is IMHO just a load of FUD.
Are the same ICC tools and workflow used in still appropriate for video/film? Don't know. But again, if not, that wasn't a fair or correct or colorimtrically correct statement and hence my comment. What is best practices for one industry may not be best for another; that doesn't make the previous workflow a hit-and-miss affair. The comment: "With Mac, ICC profile management is 'supposed' to be OS wide, but the reality seems rather more variable" is equally bogus even when using seems in the sentence. Where in the OS, when working with images, is exactly it variable? Variable in what way?
-
There is a new movement in motion to use ACES ( http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/aces (http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/aces) ) color management, which is the motion picture academy's attempt to create a photoshop like .icc color management system for motion pictures.
Interesting link but I see nothing about an ICC color management architecture or anything linked to Photoshop per se.
Even when doing still photography in photoshop, for print output, I think the REAL working space is the display, not the underlying photoshop working space.
You can think that, but the entire idea behind RGB working space is to divorce the display from how we edit our images! The display is often an intermediary device. It's gamut is severely limited compared to many, many output devices. The idea behind synthetic RGB editing spaces is to keep users from editing based on a single emissive output device:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
-
For anyone interested to know a little more about Steve, there is this interesting interview at NAB that also points towards the concerns on HDR displays Bruce just emitted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWs75BLCAA
-
Interesting link but I see nothing about an ICC color management architecture or anything linked to Photoshop per se. You can think that, but the entire idea behind RGB working space is to divorce the display from how we edit our images! The display is often an intermediary device. It's gamut is severely limited compared to many, many output devices. The idea behind synthetic RGB editing spaces is to keep users from editing based on a single emissive output device:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
I completely understand the idea of synthetic RGB working spaces, but in reality, I'm editing what I can see, not what I can't. Hence my opinion.
For motion picture work, I'm color correcting on a display set to REC709 (very close to sRGB). The cinema standard is P3 which is a bit bigger (like Adobe RGB). I work in the smaller space as the transform to P3 is accurate with no out of gamut colors. Yes, I'm limiting the colorspace, but very little of our work doesn't really fit into REC709. If I color corrected to P3, there could be out or gamut colors in the conversion to REC709 for TV delivery. Rather than deal with a separate color grading pass to fix those issues, I work in the smallest standard. Things get more complicated in print as there are colors that the display can produce, that can't be printed, and colors that can be printed, that the display can't produce. But, when we soft proof, we're still making corrections based on the limits of the display as that's all we can see :) Perhaps some colors that we can't see on the display will get printed, but we won't find out till we make the print...
-
I completely understand the idea of synthetic RGB working spaces, but in reality, I'm editing what I can see, not what I can't. Hence my opinion.
Your display cannot show you (you cannot see) what's in all your data, data you can and many do use for output to something other than a limited gamut emissive display. No printer can produce all of sRGB or any RGB working space or display space. There simply is a disconnect between RGB working spaces and output color spaces. This limitation may be of little concern if your only output is to another emissive display system (of matching color gamut). That simply isn't the case in the still/photo world. We (many of) make prints. Or have our image reproduced on a press. The display is just an intermediate output in the chain.
I work in the smaller space as the transform to P3 is accurate with no out of gamut colors.
Depending on the color gamut of the source. Those of us capturing raw data; not the case.
Yes, I'm limiting the colorspace, but very little of our work doesn't really fit into REC709
For your industry (film), today sure. For photo work, not at all. Not at all difficult to find many real world images** from raw that greatly exceed REC709, DCI-P3, Adobe RGB (1998) etc. For those of us that wish to capture and retain all the color we can, and output all the colors to any number of devices, none of those working space are sufficiently large enough to contain the color data. Another reason why raw converters like those from Adobe use much larger color spaces for processing.
I realize that the needs of the photo industry and the needs of the film industry, the limitations of color gamut differ. NONE of the above changes nor defends Steve's text on ICC color management as posted.
** Everything you thought you wanted to know about color gamut
A pretty exhaustive 37 minute video examining the color gamut of RGB working spaces, images and output color spaces. All plotted in 2D and 3D to illustrate color gamut.
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov
Low Res (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q
-
as posted.
I didn't add nor rest a line. It's the complete post as it. But be aware that when people writte in internet they not always take the time to devellop. it is obviously a resumed vision of his view, without entering into details. But again, with the person's pedigree, it's a higly trustable source in his field.
-
For anyone interested to know a little more about Steve, there is this interesting interview at NAB that also points towards the concerns on HDR displays Bruce just emitted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWs75BLCAA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWs75BLCAA)
Well that's 12 minutes of my life I'll never get back ;D
Nothing in the video from Steve that has anything to do with the subject of color management, nothing to back up the pasted claims about the so called 'issues' of ICC color management.
-
I didn't add nor rest a line. It's the complete post as it.
And you expect other's to believe it? As you did*?
Be aware that when people write on the Internet, it's often FUD and bogus.
But again, with the person's pedigree, it's a higly trustable source in his field.
I see no reason to trust what he wrote because it's FUD, without a lick of data to back it up, from someone presumably with an agenda.
“*Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” Voltaire,
-
For photo work, not at all. Not at all difficult to find many real world images** from raw that greatly exceed REC709, DCI-P3, Adobe RGB (1998) etc. For those of us that wish to capture and retain all the color we can, and output all the colors to any number of devices, none of those working space are sufficiently large enough to contain the color data. Another reason why raw converters like those from Adobe use much larger color spaces for processing.
I realize that the needs of the photo industry and the needs of the film industry, the limitations of color gamut differ. NONE of the above changes nor defends Steve's text on ICC color management as posted.
All true ... but we make our decisions on what we see in the display. I am saying that the information that we SEE is, in reality, the true "working space" as our decisions are based on that. I'm not saying one wouldn't like the result of a print from a larger gamut than what was viewed, it's just going to be different if it contains colors out of the display gamut. And in editing on a display, one would have brought these colors into the gamut that could be seen, in the most desired way. If ICC color management could do a pleasing transform from the wide working space to each output (print medium or display) we wouldn't need to simulate the paper print with soft proofing. And soft proofing, by definition, limits the working space to the intersection of the display space and the output space. The wide synthetic working spaces are good for storing all one's picture data, but they are not what we really edit. We edit what we can see.
You don't need to be a "dogmatic digital dog"! :)
-
All true ... but we make our decisions on what we see in the display.
We do indeed. Until possibly we see the intended output. And some soft proof and produce output specific edits based on that view, as limited as it is.
I am saying that the information that we SEE is, in reality, the true "working space" as our decisions are based on that.
Not really, do you want to go there? The working space profile and the display profile work together. The working space is the working space and it's not based on the display BY design.
And in editing on a display, one would have brought these colors into the gamut that could be seen, in the most desired way.
On that one device. Without ICC color management (the debate here that it's somehow so flawed despite 2 decades of use by millions) all bets are off.
If ICC color management could do a pleasing transform from the wide working space to each output (print medium or display) we wouldn't need to simulate the paper print with soft proofing.
ICC profiles simply cannot do this. Pleasing color is subjective. You need to consider that ICC profiles know NOTHING about image appearance, only individual pixels! ICC color management is based on color perception, not color appearance, the differences are significant. The reason why viewing a print or a display is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices and ICC profiles can't provide. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. Colorimetry was never, designed as a color appearance model. It was never designed to even be used as an interchange space between device dependent color models. It's not designed for imagery at all. Colorimetry based on solid colors in very specific ambient and surround conditions.
And soft proofing, by definition, limits the working space to the intersection of the display space and the output space. The wide synthetic working spaces are good for storing all one's picture data, but they are not what we really edit. We edit what we can see.
You are backing up my concept that the weak link in the chain is the display! At least when the final outputs (often multiple) isn't your one display upon which you are editing your images!
And no, often by editing, we edit what we can't see! You think the OOG colors on the display are magically not affected by your edits?
-
All true ... but we make our decisions on what we see in the display. I am saying that the information that we SEE is, in reality, the true "working space" as our decisions are based on that. I'm not saying one wouldn't like the result of a print from a larger gamut than what was viewed, it's just going to be different if it contains colors out of the display gamut. And in editing on a display, one would have brought these colors into the gamut that could be seen, in the most desired way. If ICC color management could do a pleasing transform from the wide working space to each output (print medium or display) we wouldn't need to simulate the paper print with soft proofing. And soft proofing, by definition, limits the working space to the intersection of the display space and the output space. The wide synthetic working spaces are good for storing all one's picture data, but they are not what we really edit. We edit what we can see.
You don't need to be a "dogmatic digital dog"! :)
I agree with Bruce and work in a similar fashion.
I think what is left out of this discussion is client approval, in stills and motion footage.
When we are starting the grade, I always ask a client what machine and/or screen they are viewing on.
9 times out of 10 the creatives are on some type of apple device usually an I-mac or glossy powerbook, usually not calibrated, unless they have a production department with calibrated monitors and even then it’s a crap shoot.
Then the creatives turn it over for someone with a pc, dell, acer whatever and the look is way different. In fact the only monitors I have calibrated is our broadcast monitors.
Color and look, especially in in motion is subjective to the screen. Actually same with stills. When we started with digital capture we always sent a soft proof to the point we we’re spending $90,000 a year doing this.
Today we rarely send a print, it’s all approved online. It doesn’t matter what I think is right, as long as we’re within the numbers, it depends on whose paying the bills.
Last year one client wanted a “film look” for a video. That covers a lot of territory, so I asked for a reference and they send me a link to a video that was shot with one of those flat v or c log settings and no grading.
So we did what was asked, but also graded it to the look we had planned conformed in rec 709. Guess which one they finally went with? The graded video.
I don’t do this often, but take a video put it online, go into a large electronics store and look at 5 or 6 computers. You’ll see 3 or 4 different looks.
Then walk over to the wall of TV’s that are playing the same broadcast program and it’s all over the place. So we usually send out two grades, one to match a glossy I-mac and one with slightly more contrast in case they send it to someone with a wider gammut anti-gare screen all within the numbers which usually matches our broadcast monitors.
Fred and I have had this discussion before and we both ask a client to view it on an i-pad or mobile device. They’re not exact but tend to match up better than any computer.
IMO
BC
-
I agree with Bruce and work in a similar fashion.
I think what is left out of this discussion is client approval, in stills and motion footage.
When we are starting the grade, I always ask a client what machine and/or screen they are viewing on.
9 times out of 10 the creatives are on some type of apple device usually an I-mac or glossy powerbook, usually not calibrated, unless they have a production department with calibrated monitors and even then it’s a crap shoot.
Then the creatives turn it over for someone with a pc, dell, acer whatever and the look is way different. In fact the only monitors I have calibrated is our broadcast monitors.
Color and look, especially in in motion is subjective to the screen. Actually same with stills. When we started with digital capture we always sent a soft proof to the point we we’re spending $90,000 a year doing this.
Today we rarely send a print, it’s all approved online. It doesn’t matter what I think is right, as long as we’re within the numbers, it depends on whose paying the bills.
Last year one client wanted a “film look” for a video. That covers a lot of territory, so I asked for a reference and they send me a link to a video that was shot with one of those flat v or c log settings and no grading.
So we did what was asked, but also graded it to the look we had planned conformed in rec 709. Guess which one they finally went with? The graded video.
I don’t do this often, but take a video put it online, go into a large electronics store and look at 5 or 6 computers. You’ll see 3 or 4 different looks.
Then walk over to the wall of TV’s that are playing the same broadcast program and it’s all over the place. So we usually send out two grades, one to match a glossy I-mac and one with slightly more contrast in case they send it to someone with a wider gammut anti-gare screen all within the numbers which usually matches our broadcast monitors.
Fred and I have had this discussion before and we both ask a client to view it on an i-pad or mobile device. They’re not exact but tend to match up better than any computer.
IMO
BC
And I don't know if it also happened to you in editorials
But the profesional printers will ask designers and
Advertising agencies NOT
To color manage. And this is not the case in Madrid
Only but everywhere I know. Not because they should not, but
Because 90% of the time they screw it. So in the end they tell
People "don't touch anything, don't color manage, let the printers do our job".
They cover their shoulders.
Unless a long term relationship establishes with
The source image creator and printer, then it's a different
Story.
-
And I don't know if it also happened to you in editorials
But the profesional printers will ask designers and
Advertising agencies NOT
To color manage.
Don't work on a calibrated and profiled display, send us untagged documents? That's what not color managing means. Just what professional printer can you provide that ask this? Specifically what ad agencies demand that too?
-
Don't work on a calibrated and profiled display, send us untagged documents? That's what not color managing means. Just what professional printer can you provide that ask this? Specifically what ad agencies demand that too?
A lot in a lot of different ways. Printers want to do the work and charge for it. Only one client I work with will give us their cmyk profile though viewing their proof, I made a profile in my machines that match, but they still asked for no profile and would do it themselves.
I get a lot of strange requests. One european ad agency wanted an uncompressed prores clip. I timed it and said I'll send it on a disk and they said no they want to download it from our servers. I explained it would take over 20 hours to load and that's if it doesn't time out and depending on their connection 8 hours to download, but that's what they wanted and I did it. It went up and they called and said this is taking forever to download. So they talked to their editorial house that said naw . . . just send us an h264 that took 25 minutes to go up.
But all of this color matching stuff can drive you crazy. These two images are same scene, two different cameras, the top from a RED, the bottom from a p30+. It took forever to match them and to make it perfect would take more painting in color, but we got close.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/julia_spot_2_images.jpg)
They really wanted both images to match and I though they'd be picky though they replied they loved it, so end of story.
But Andrew, no working pro is going to give a client's name out on the web, especially if their is any negative connotation.
IMO
BC
-
Don't work on a calibrated and profiled display, send us untagged documents? That's what not color managing means. Just what professional printer can you provide that ask this? Specifically what ad agencies demand that too?
In my experience, the printers are not concerned by any client's monitor, if calibrated or not.
Because at the image creator's sources,
It's the wild west.
What they don't want is people who try to color manage on their own
Without the knowledge/tools to do so correctly and
Often bring them more hassles to cure the sins than a non colour managed
Document.
The only reasons a printer would call for a fix is when CMYK files
Are missing/unlinked, or a specitic exotic font that was not linked or vectorized,
Or if a dude send them low res (it happens apparently even in big agencies!...)
Or when one screwed the Pantone equivalences values and they see problem.
But they never ever establish requirements for their clients to color manage nor concerned by
Other's display calibration because they would have very few clients.
-
, but they still asked for no profile and would do it themselves.
BC
Same here.
-
A lot in a lot of different ways. Printers want to do the work and charge for it. Only one client I work with will give us their cmyk profile though viewing their proof, I made a profile in my machines that match, but they still asked for no profile and would do it themselves.
I get a lot of strange requests. One european ad agency wanted an uncompressed prores clip. I timed it and said I'll send it on a disk and they said no they want to download it from our servers. I explained it would take over 20 hours to load and that's if it doesn't time out and depending on their connection 8 hours to download, but that's what they wanted and I did it. It went up and they called and said this is taking forever to download. So they talked to their editorial house that said naw . . . just send us an h264 that took 25 minutes to go up.
But all of this color matching stuff can drive you crazy. These two images are same scene, two different cameras, the top from a RED, the bottom from a p30+. It took forever to match them and to make it perfect would take more painting in color, but we got close.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/julia_spot_2_images.jpg)
They really wanted both images to match and I though they'd be picky though they replied they loved it, so end of story.
But Andrew, no working pro is going to give a client's name out on the web, especially if their is any negative connotation.
IMO
BC
Coot, is it me? But the Red seems to have more DR than the Phase1?
(Ouuppsss...hope no MF vendor will read this)
-
A lot in a lot of different ways. Printers want to do the work and charge for it. Only one client I work with will give us their cmyk profile though viewing their proof, I made a profile in my machines that match, but they still asked for no profile and would do it themselves.
True and I agree. That isn't a printer demanding the customer not use color management! The client must send some RGB data for conversion. Untagged RGB Mystery meat is sending non color managed data. And the printer has to assume something for the RGB numbers. Probably sRGB but if that's not correct, everyone is screwed. Anyone sending tagged RGB for conversion IS using color management.
I myself have recommended for nearly two decades that photographers let such printers do the CMYK conversions unless they supply the actual ICC profiles for the contract proof or press. Few do so any CMYK conversion made otherwise is a very bad idea. Yes, this color matching stuff can make you crazy. Like when you actually target the contact proof, the proof is what everyone in the project desires and the printer does't produce it on press. It's why I recommend targeting for that contract proof:
http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart1.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart1.pdf)
http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart2.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart2.pdf)
But Andrew, no working pro is going to give a client's name out on the web, especially if their is any negative connotation.
1. My client list (https://www.linkedin.com/in/digitaldog/) is fully transparent.
2. I don't think I asked anyone for a client list. I did as for printers who demand data provided without color management. Still waiting.
And while we're on the subject, I have to ask about this:
Because 90% of the time they screw it.
That 90% figure can be backed up by outside references and data or, it's a figure that was made up (or told to you by Steve)?
-
True and I agree. That isn't a printer demanding the customer not use color management! The client must send some RGB data for conversion. Untagged RGB Mystery meat is sending non color managed data. And the printer has to assume something for the RGB numbers. Probably sRGB but if that's not correct, everyone is screwed. Anyone sending tagged RGB for conversion IS using color management.
I myself have recommended for nearly two decades that photographers let such printers do the CMYK conversions unless they supply the actual ICC profiles for the contract proof or press. Few do so any CMYK conversion made otherwise is a very bad idea. Yes, this color matching stuff can make you crazy. Like when you actually target the contact proof, the proof is what everyone in the project desires and the printer does't produce it on press. It's why I recommend targeting for that contract proof:
http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart1.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart1.pdf)
http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart2.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart2.pdf)
1. My client list (https://www.linkedin.com/in/digitaldog/) is fully transparent.
2. I don't think I asked anyone for a client list. I did as for printers who demand data provided without color management. Still waiting.
And while we're on the subject, I have to ask about this:
That 90% figure can be backed up by outside references and data or, it's a figure that was made up (or told to you by Steve)?
Andrew....time to cool down, right? Zen man. Get a pill and bring down your blood tension.
The level of arrogance and irony you are showing
In this thread goes beyond anything I have seen in this forum.
To the point that you sound like a troll.
Demystifying the level of expertise of one of the
Most respected person ww in motion industry just because
It shakes your convinctions. Then asking for bad practices printer's names
Or putting quotes of wise sentences to illustrate that
I'm just a stupid ignorant because I blindly beleive what mister Shaw says...
That is nonsense. So ok,
You're the best, you know everything, your expertise is beyond the cine industry experts.
But you are tremendously infantile the way you manage the conversation when you disagree
With somebody.
Time for a breathe man... And mature emotionally.
-
Andrew....time to cool down, right? Zen man. Get a pill and bring down your blood tension.
Just asking YOU to backup your text with facts. Opinions not based on facts can be found all over the net otherwise thank you. The lack of facts appear to be failure:
"Think twice before you speak, because your words and influence will plant the seed of either success or failure in the mind of another." - Napoleon
-
Just asking YOU to backup your text with facts. Opinions not based on facts can be found all over the net otherwise thank you.
"Think twice before you speak, because your words and influence will plant the seed of either success or failure in the mind of another." - Napoleon
And the wise quotes go on! ;D ;D
I have nothing against you Andrew. Let's be clear about that.
We can all disagree, we can all discuss, we can all defend what we beleive.
But when the tone starts to become paternalist, arrogant,
When irony araise because one disagree,
Or because it does not match one's personal experience,
then it becomes
Infantile. It's as simple as that.
Have a good evening.
End of conversation.
-
But all of this color matching stuff can drive you crazy. These two images are same scene, two different cameras, the top from a RED, the bottom from a p30+. It took forever to match them and to make it perfect would take more painting in color, but we got close.
Closer? 2 minutes using ACR:
-
And the wise quotes go on! ;D ;D
I have nothing against you Andrew. Let's be clear about that.
Got nothing against you either. I'd just love to know if what you write has any degree of accuracy or fact. Or would you be far happier if I and everyone reading what you write (like 90% failure rate) just took it at face value as being factual.
I can state that 90% of people get it right. That's just a value I made up, it's no more useful than the value you made up. Unless you didn't. IF so, please provide the reference. If you can't, I and perhaps others reading your posts here will simply dismiss much of what you write in the future even IF some or much of it is worthwhile. Your call.
When I simply ask you to back up your text, I get this back:
Andrew....time to cool down, right? Zen man. Get a pill and bring down your blood tension.
The level of arrogance and irony you are showing
In this thread goes beyond anything I have seen in this forum.
To the point that you sound like a troll.
Demystifying the level of expertise of one of the
Most respected person ww in motion industry just because
It shakes your convinctions. Then asking for bad practices printer's names
Or putting quotes of wise sentences to illustrate that
I'm just a stupid ignorant because I blindly beleive what mister Shaw says...
That is nonsense. So ok,
You're the best, you know everything, your expertise is beyond the cine industry experts.
But you are tremendously infantile the way you manage the conversation when you disagree
With somebody.
Time for a breathe man... And mature emotionally.
I'm the troll, emotinoally imature, paternalist, arrogant?
-
Got nothing against you either. I'd just love to know if what you write has any degree of accuracy or fact. Or would you be far happier if I and everyone reading what you write (like 90% failure rate) just took it at face value as being factual.
I can state that 90% of people get it right. That's just a value I made up, it's no more useful than the value you made up. Unless you didn't. IF so, please provide the reference. If you can't, I and perhaps others reading your posts here will simply dismiss much of what you write in the future even IF some or much of it is worthwhile. Your call.
When I simply ask you to back up your text, I get this back:
Andrew....time to cool down, right? Zen man. Get a pill and bring down your blood tension.
The level of arrogance and irony you are showing
In this thread goes beyond anything I have seen in this forum.
To the point that you sound like a troll.
Demystifying the level of expertise of one of the
Most respected person ww in motion industry just because
It shakes your convinctions. Then asking for bad practices printer's names
Or putting quotes of wise sentences to illustrate that
I'm just a stupid ignorant because I blindly beleive what mister Shaw says...
That is nonsense. So ok,
You're the best, you know everything, your expertise is beyond the cine industry experts.
But you are tremendously infantile the way you manage the conversation when you disagree
With somebody.
Time for a breathe man... And mature emotionally.
I'm the troll, emotinoally imature, paternalist, arrogant?
Simply....yes
-
Simply....yes
56 posts, then you come along with that comment in your first post here, we now see the real troll.
-
But the Red seems to have more DR than the Phase1?
(Ouuppsss...hope no MF vendor will read this)
Yes it does and this is the RED1 MX. Newer REDs have more.
Early on we would set up the RED to block out a shot and prelight. I think the R1 is listed as 13bit depth the p30+ more, but when we compared the two files on a shot like lighting with an HMI though a window, the R1 would hold it the P30+ wouldn't, but that could be because the PL lenses I use have smooth roll off and the Contax Zeiss lenses are more contrasty.
IMO
BC
-
Got nothing against you either. I'd just love to know if what you write has any degree of accuracy or fact. Or would you be far happier if I and everyone reading what you write (like 90% failure rate) just took it at face value as being factual.
I can state that 90% of people get it right. That's just a value I made up, it's no more useful than the value you made up. Unless you didn't. IF so, please provide the reference. If you can't, I and perhaps others reading your posts here will simply dismiss much of what you write in the future even IF some or much of it is worthwhile. Your call.
1) Man! It is obvious that when someone writes 90% get it wrong it is parabolic and a
Way to avoid wrting a longuer sentence that is not necesary
Because what matters is the general idea.
When someone uses gazillion for example, I do not jump at him asking
If gazillion means a specific number he can justify scientificaly
because that's not the point. I got the idea.
So to answer to your question about printers
If it's based on facts or not: it is. No it's not me taking mushrooms and
Having visions. James confirmed
In his post the same. Anybody who work for editos
Would also confirm the same because it's a standart
Practice among printers.
When I talk personally with printers, some say 99% of people
Screw it in colour management, other say 'most'...but the similar idea
Remains. We don't have to be scientific to express an underlying idea
That is simple.
2) I shared the name of one of the most influencial
Person in colour within motion industry. The
Fact that he is not a freakie like me has been confirmed
To you by Bruce. Now...I'm just pointing towards
The guy. I'm not going to do the job for others.
If one feels interested to know more and learn
From him, he/she will find out searching.
3)I could not care less if people of this forum like me or not,
Take me seriously or not. That is none of my concern.
I'm not looking for fame here.
I don't consider myself as an expert, very specialy
In motion in which I'm not a beginner but far
From being a stratospherical pro everyone will
Listen when speaking. I do have a lot to learn
To get there and I'm not even intetested to get there.
But when I share links, I'm serious.
So, no problems for me if people take my posts
Serious, not so serious, not serious...I'm here to
Learn, share, and have fun.
-
Yes it does and this is the RED1 MX. Newer REDs have more.
Early on we would set up the RED to block out a shot and prelight. I think the R1 is listed as 13bit depth the p30+ more, but when we compared the two files on a shot like lighting with an HMI though a window, the R1 would hold it the P30+ wouldn't, but that could be because the PL lenses I use have smooth roll off and the Contax Zeiss lenses are more contrasty.
IMO
BC
Wao! But still, it's kind of impressive.
I heard rumors that Red is backing a cheap (no...affordable)
Camera on the go...and it could be small.
Let's hope it is true.
-
Bit depth vs. DR (totally different spec's), a simple visual analogy:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/DynamicRangevsBits.jpg)
-
Bit depth vs. DR (totally different spec's), a simple visual analogy:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/DynamicRangevsBits.jpg)
Poor analogy as it try’s to infer a direct relationship of bit depth to dynamic range, which is not correct.
-
56 posts, then you come along with that comment in your first post here, we now see the real troll.
I was just agreeing to what you said.
Nothing else you said was worth commenting on.
-
Poor analogy as it try’s to infer a direct relationship of bit depth to dynamic range, which is not correct.
Poorly understood it appears and not a surprise! There isn't a direct relationship between the two and we (well some of us) see that in the illustration. Bit depth is the number of steps in the staircase, which is simply math used to divide up numbers (device values). DR is the length of the staircase and not related expect in a very tiny and insignificant and rare way (if ever) when DR is so large, it cannot be defined in a insufficient number of bits. No one does this anyway. Of course if you understood the text that accompanied the illustration, you'd have figured all this out (Bit depth vs. DR (totally different spec's), a simple visual analogy). Seems you have difficulty understanding the text I wrote (totally different) as written and used that to infer, incorrectly of course, a direct relationship.
Nothing else you said was worth commenting on.
-
You know what? I smell that if we all keep going like that, a certain
Chris will irrupt and say: "topic closed"
True, good point.
-
True, good point.
Thanks for sorting that Andrew! :)
-
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts & experiences!
(https://michaelezra.com/wp-content/uploads/NU_REP_0104_P.jpg)
-
Michael, what you have to understand is that reference color in video is conceptually different from what you’re used to in the still world. In the still world, ColorSync profiles are managed by the system to make whatever output you display or print to look “right” (at least in theory).
In video, the monitor is the reference standard (hopefully calibrated) and you adjust the video in various ways to make the image look like you want it to on that calibrated monitor. But the reference is an external target for the system that you do the color correction on.
Thank you for such quick and informative responses!
Bruce Alan,
I am using NEC 2690 WUXi wide gamut monitor with Nvidia graphics card on Windows 10.
I can calibrate the display with eye one probe to sRGB target (using Spectraview II) and use that calibration for video editing sessions.
Do you think this is a better option rather than using monitor calibration with a full gamut and using monitor LUT in Resolve?
Thanks,
-
In video, the monitor is the reference standard....... But the reference is an external target for the system that you do the color correction on.
That is the point. And all that has been debated in this thread turns arround this concept.
It could not be better resumed.
It's not colour managed but displays calibrated (if I can say it this way). So only if 2 displays have been calibrated the same way the video will match. This is why we see weired colours/gamma when doing a dcp in the sense that we rely on a standardized procedure that simulates the requirements for a targeted display (the projector) and ultimatly we have to check in situ (the theater) if what's been done was correct.
Experienced people mindset in motion is more like: ”I know 'this' is going to happen so I pre compensate doing 'that'.
Motion imagery crew are the best problem solvers on this planet.
And even so, there is no garantee that if you did everything right, your grade will match in every theater because the error factor may well come from the theater itself. And ultimatly...who did the calibration? In other words, even if you work on calibrated displays, how reliable is this calibration? And for what.
This is where people and companies like Shaw https://www.lightillusion.com are important and those who have the knowledge
Are paied to bring order and maximize reliability.
I've got his downloadable software, it's not for everyone, it takes time and beyong the scope of my current habilities but also interests.
And this is also why you do not see one single image that matches your grade on a store tv showroom because none of those tv have been calibrated. Strong magenta, green shifts, uncorrect gamma etc...are the norm. Out the "security" of calibrated displays, it is the wild west.
Once your work goes out the bunker of calibrated displays, you can be sure that what you did will not be viewed like intended. So it's good you check on cellphones, the same way as high-end recording studios check their audios on low-end monitors to have an average idea of the audio experience for most consummers. (Prince was really good at that)
But also, as we are taking displays, we then can not ignore the viewing environment in which those operate. The amount of light in the room and other factors. The surrounding influences your colour decisions.
So if you don't know what you're doing wlth your displays and unless you are a crazy tech guru with 40 years of experience it's better not touching anything.
It's calibrated displays or the highway.
-
It's not colour managed but displays calibrated (if I can say it this way). So only if 2 displays have been calibrated the same way the video will match.
It’s always been the wild west when it comes to viewing digital on a screen, still or motion.
Right now on my LA workstation is two apple 27” monitors, 1 dell 30” antiglare monitor, one calibrated broadcast monitor.
When a project comes in the first thing I ask the CD at the creative shop what computers they use to view video. It’s 90% glossy apple monitors, either in 15” macbook pros or I-macs of all sorts.
Using a flatter, monitor like the dell (which matches the broadcast monitor, just gets you in trouble, because the client is not reviewing it in the same gammut or calibration. So I have calibration for the dell and the broadcast monitors I can switch to somewhat closely match a glossy mac, when needed.
But if you don’t believe me, put your video on vimeo, go into a large electronic store, look at the video on line in 4 macs, 4 different PC’s and the difference can be small or night and day. Then walk over to the wall of 2 and 4k consumer TV’s that usually are playing the same tv program and look at the difference. It’s all over the place.
We finished a series where the agency and client we’re using macs and pc’s. For the Macs the glossy screen is kind of crushed, for the PC’s they are usually flatter, so I send two looks to the clients one crushed one flatter and tell them to take their pick.
But as Fred and I have said before, if your in the numbers, the best device to view on is an i-pad because pad’s seem to be more consistent.
__________________________
It's the same with shooting, large or small cameras. You can go on raw cameras REC 709 to crush it down and look generally better on the monitors, I personally roll my own look in the cameras and try to match them, but it doesn't matter, because once you get to post it's going to change, usually a lot. If it's my decision then fine, but a lot of times you turn over footage and you never know what's going to happen. Maybe a matter of taste from the client, or they just didn't care and we're working with way different monitors and/or calibration. It's all a guess regardless of all the gadgets, software and DIT guys and colorists you work with. At least a good DIT man/woman can keep you within the numbers.
IMO
BC
-
It’s always been the wild west when it comes to viewing digital on a screen, still or motion.
Right now on my LA workstation is two apple 27” monitors, 1 dell 30” antiglare monitor, one calibrated broadcast monitor.
When a project comes in the first thing I ask the CD at the creative shop what computers they use to view video. It’s 90% glossy apple monitors, either in 15” macbook pros or I-macs of all sorts.
Using a flatter, monitor like the dell (which matches the broadcast monitor, just gets you in trouble, because the client is not reviewing it in the same gammut or calibration. So I have calibration for the dell and the broadcast monitors I can switch to somewhat closely match a glossy mac, when needed.
But if you don’t believe me, put your video on vimeo, go into a large electronic store, look at the video on line in 4 macs, 4 different PC’s and the difference can be small or night and day. Then walk over to the wall of 2 and 4k consumer TV’s that usually are playing the same tv program and look at the difference. It’s all over the place.
We finished a series where the agency and client we’re using macs and pc’s. For the Macs the glossy screen is kind of crushed, for the PC’s they are usually flatter, so I send two looks to the clients one crushed one flatter and tell them to take their pick.
But as Fred and I have said before, if your in the numbers, the best device to view on is an i-pad because pad’s seem to be more consistent.
__________________________
It's the same with shooting, large or small cameras. You can go on raw cameras REC 709 to crush it down and look generally better on the monitors, I personally roll my own look in the cameras and try to match them, but it doesn't matter, because once you get to post it's going to change, usually a lot. If it's my decision then fine, but a lot of times you turn over footage and you never know what's going to happen. Maybe a matter of taste from the client, or they just didn't care and we're working with way different monitors and/or calibration. It's all a guess regardless of all the gadgets, software and DIT guys and colorists you work with. At least a good DIT man/woman can keep you within the numbers.
IMO
BC
I agree.
I bet the software/workflow that will rule the motion imagery in the future is not going to be Resolve but...Photoshop!
I'm sure the CEO of Red understood that from the beginning looking at the way they built the system from the beginning. It's designed to prosper in the changes that are about to come.
-
Interesting thread.
I process stills and video on a Dell.
Last week, I happened to have a meeting with a client to look at some stills I gave them. We viewed on their 4K MAC monitor.
Was surprised at how “crunchy” they looked. Like they were over-sharpened.
D.
-
Interesting thread.
I process stills and video on a Dell.
Last week, I happened to have a meeting with a client to look at some stills I gave them. We viewed on their 4K MAC monitor.
Was surprised at how “crunchy” they looked. Like they were over-sharpened.
D.
I've always noticed that un-calibrated Macs look a little punchy. I think they're following the lead of their TV selling colleagues. Punchy displays sell computers. Accurate displays do not.
-
I've always noticed that un-calibrated Macs look a little punchy. I think they're following the lead of their TV selling colleagues. Punchy displays sell computers. Accurate displays do not.
Does calibration reduce the 4K crunchy/punchy look?
Best analogy I can provide is images looked like Clarity slider had been moved all the way to the right.
D.
-
Does calibration reduce the 4K crunchy/punchy look?
Best analogy I can provide is images looked like Clarity slider had been moved all the way to the right.
D.
It's not the 4k, it's the .icc profile that Apple designs for it's default calibration. Calibration will correct this and remove the high contrast effect.