Monitor ICC with DaVinci Resolve

[digitaldog]

Bit depth vs. DR (totally different spec's), a simple visual analogy:

[jrsforums]

Bit depth vs. DR (totally different spec's), a simple visual analogy:

Poor analogy as it try’s to infer a direct relationship of bit depth to dynamic range, which is not correct.

[jrsforums]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[Christopher Sanderson]

True, good point.

Thanks for sorting that Andrew! 

[MichaelEzra]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts & experiences!

[D Fuller]

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,

[fredjeang2]

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.

[bcooter]

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

[fredjeang2]

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.

[Dinarius]

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.

[smthopr]

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.

[Dinarius]

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.

[smthopr]

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.