Monitor ICC with DaVinci Resolve

[smthopr]

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"!

[digitaldog]

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?

[bcooter]

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

[fredjeang2]

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.

[digitaldog]

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?

[bcooter]

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.



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

[fredjeang2]

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.

[fredjeang2]

, but they still asked for no profile and would do it themselves.   


BC

Same here.

[fredjeang2]

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.



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)

[digitaldog]

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/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 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)?

[fredjeang2]

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/CMYKPart2.pdf
 
1. My client list 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.

[digitaldog]

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

[fredjeang2]

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!
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.

[digitaldog]

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:

[digitaldog]

And the wise quotes go on!
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?

[jrsforums]

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

[digitaldog]

Simply....yes

56 posts, then you come along with that comment in your first post here, we now see the real troll.

[bcooter]

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

[fredjeang2]

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.

[fredjeang2]

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.