Comparison of CC workflow’s: Film Log vs. Linear REC709

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

You're wrong if we're talking Epic in a 10-bit log container.

for R1 M/MX, I tend to agree...

You talking about HDR I suppose?

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

My drive is only technical and and my aim is only the best value and most flexible solutions for my clients...

So I didn't got an answer for post #28, well ok Mike, peace... :)

[Marc Wielage]

There is a reason why the folks at Red as a group largely feel that a digital cinema targeted DI path yields the best results with images captured with their cameras. You may not agree, and that's fine. But you've also spent a part of your life building a business based on those beliefs, and that often influences how one feels, regardless of what technology might come along to change it. I think to some degree, you need to open your eyes to other approaches and perhaps extend your business to accommodate them as well as the film oriented business you've already built up. The future of distribution is uncertain, and one needs to be open to changes if one is going to thrive in a multi-format future. That's what I've tried to do for my entire career, and I probably go back in this business at least as far as you do.

These are very wise words. I agree with your overall point that, as time goes on, the issues of film-out deliveries are going to continue to diminish.

BTW, I have absolutely encountered situations where there we encountered colors we could see in D-Cinema that we couldn't get back off film. Super-saturated magentas were among them. A few years back, we did a five or six-step test trying different saturation levels on a specific scene; in digital, they looked massively different; on print film, the differences were practically invisible. The IN stock in the Arrilaser basically hits the wall and stops. The director wound up scuttling that approach and went in another direction, and was happy with the final result.

The lesson we learned there was: massive changes in saturation don't always work in print; in Rec709 or D-Cinema, no problem.

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

BTW, I have absolutely encountered situations where there we encountered colors we could see in D-Cinema that we couldn't get back off film. Super-saturated magentas were among them. A few years back, we did a five or six-step test trying different saturation levels on a specific scene; in digital, they looked massively different; on print film, the differences were practically invisible. The IN stock in the Arrilaser basically hits the wall and stops. The director wound up scuttling that approach and went in another direction, and was happy with the final result.

The lesson we learned there was: massive changes in saturation don't always work in print; in Rec709 or D-Cinema, no problem.

We keep talking about Film out because propably my signature suggests that... we keep forgetting that the workflow I suggest is still a technical method that can be used with real Film Targets, but also can be used with artificial Targets like Cineon 5500K that is using an artificial color space which heavily surpass everything...

But I thing the aim is not to create something that can't be reproduced widely... Marc if you have an overly saturated color in 1/8 of the screen your eyes will not be able to perceive accurately the rest of the colors that are on the screen... that's because our eyes are dynamically adjust and suppress all the other colors in order to see the new top... so that fact can create weird situations where optical illusions are dominant, like when that excessive magenta depress all the greens in the shadows in the rest of the image... not on the actual image but instead on your eyes and your brain... and not all the eyes are behaving the same when we talk about illusions... there are things we can do and thinks we must not....

Imagine your director to have a specific color perception problem unaware to you and to him... in what a mess that can lead you... On my signature says also consulting for a reason...

I do prefer to use as limiter a real Film target from an artificial one, because film is originally an analog medium and its limits are more naturally appealing to the eye limits... but that's, just me... you can use an artificial target that is not a limited one and get the max...

Also there are things some labs can do and others can't... In your tests back then, did you used a Reference ECN2 process? did you used a print stock like Vision Premiere? Was the projection room within SMPTE196M critical viewing conditions?***

One last thing that constantly is being ignored... or not understood well... when we use this method to see and color grade, we use the limited color space of our display device through a LUT that further limits the color space to a closely emulated color space, so what we actually see is 8-10 stops that our display can show limited to a color space subset.

What is a major thing to understand is that, when we render to create the master we don't use any LUT's... so what limits the image at this point is just the mathematical boundaries of the color processing engine, not a LUT, our eyes, or a color space... its limits are just the precision of the internal color range... so what is created as a Master has so much more image information that can be totally Re-Color Graded... and that fact is a proof of my claims, that none until now has said otherwise. (see post #28)

So that resulted master when its being converted, with the use of a LUT or the use of a real tangible material like film to a projectable image, the conversion every time takes as input this extremely wide range of image data and just fits them in the new given color space of each targeted display medium... so in this way every display device gets the maximum it can show...

What I'm showing here is a Mastering process that is color space agnostic... with real targets you get the max of the target, with artificial target you get the max of every display device...

***Do you know that there isn't a single lab in US that is being accredited as ImageCare compliant by Kodak? To be compliant you must follow very strict specs of ECN2 process and be repeatable stable and color constant any given day for at least a year... plus all the bits and pieces of critical viewing conditions for color assessment... http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Suppo...am/members.htm I just happen to have one of the first accredited ImageCare Labs in just 10 minutes away from me... so I can have repeatable results that can push the envelope to an extend that allows me to use always film print stocks like Vision Premiere and be able to get into extremes of high contrast/saturation and low contrast/saturation not typically achievable...

[M Most]

What is a major thing to understand is that, when we render to create the master we don't use any LUT's... so what limits the image at this point is just the mathematical boundaries of the color processing engine, not a LUT, our eyes, or a color space... its limits are just the precision of the internal color range... so what is created as a Master has so much more image information that can be totally Re-Color Graded... and that fact is a proof of my claims, that none until now has said otherwise. (see post #28)

Can we please - PLEASE - end this? Marc, myself, and numerous others here understand film, film color space, digital cinema color space, DI work paths, human perception, and deliverable targets very, very well, thank you. This constant repetition of the same themes is getting pretty tiresome. We see this the way we see it based on knowledge, intelligence, and experience, not ignorance or inexperience. You seem to feel you're educating us, but what you're really doing is trying to sell us on your point of view, which we don't happen to share. So I would humbly request that we'll stop commenting, and you stop selling. Let's get back to proper information exchange instead of advertising.

[Luis Otero]

Then, stop. You have the power by just not responding. So, it is up to you.

However, I must respectfully disagree that Evangelos motive is "selling". Yes, he has a business based on this, but there is no one here that takes the time to EDUCATE the users using real facts.

[M Most]

Then, stop. You have the power by just not responding. So, it is up to you.

However, I must respectfully disagree that Evangelos motive is "selling". Yes, he has a business based on this, but there is no one here that takes the time to EDUCATE the users using real facts.

(my last post on this topic....)

I posted images to illustrate the points I've been trying to make. I think that qualifies as both education and facts. I don't like to use numbers because we work in a business based on images and results. Numbers are meaningless except as they relate to those images. There is also no one way to do just about anything in this business, and I've gone through some trouble to point that out. You believe in Evangelos' methods and that's fine, I have no problem with that. I have my own view of all of this based on my own years of experience and that should be fine, too. I think I've done plenty of educating in my own way here (I didn't start the "ask MM anything" thread, I was asked to do it), so I harbor no guilt about that. But I do believe that things should be presented here as "this is one way, you might want to try it or not" rather than long winded explanations as to why one should stick with what is quickly becoming an old model, and why they should do it with one company. That's what I read in all of Evangelos' posts. And that's why I've reacted.

I'm done now.

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

(my last post on this topic....)

I posted images to illustrate the points I've been trying to make. I think that qualifies as both education and facts. I don't like to use numbers because we work in a business based on images and results. Numbers are meaningless except as they relate to those images. There is also no one way to do just about anything in this business, and I've gone through some trouble to point that out. You believe in Evangelos' methods and that's fine, I have no problem with that. I have my own view of all of this based on my own years of experience and that should be fine, too. I think I've done plenty of educating in my own way here (I didn't start the "ask MM anything" thread, I was asked to do it), so I harbor no guilt about that. But I do believe that things should be presented here as "this is one way, you might want to try it or not" rather than long winded explanations as to why one should stick with what is quickly becoming an old model, and why they should do it with one company. That's what I read in all of Evangelos' posts. And that's why I've reacted.

I'm done now.

This will not be my last post...

Your images show nothing new to me... sorry, but the average user can be heavily misled with these...

Both images are coming from the same source:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Suppo...digitallad.htm

The lady in the middle is a scanned frame coming from a real film shoot. The chips in left and right are being added to the frame artificially (not coming from a real shoot).

This image before exposed or converted to a certain Film Target must be corrected accordingly to match the selected target. This image its NOT ready to be exposed as is. If the combination of negative and print stock is i.e. 2242 with 2393 or if it is 5201 with 2383, the resulted image projected in a theater will be vastly different in ALL aspects.

If this Cineon Log image is converted with the typical Cineon LUT to sRGB it will look as is looking in your left image with the saturated chips and the highlights to look white.

If the same image, the same file, is converted with a Film Target LUT uncorrected for the specific target and then presented in an sRGB display as all our computer monitors are, without white point compensation, the image will look like the image you have on the right side, with highlights look yellow and the chips bad.

BECAUSE the intended usage of the file and Film Target LUT is to be used and presented in a display device having proper color management and viewing conditions, color corrected for the given target, with white point 5400K and not 6500K that our laptops sRGB have...

So yes, in the way you choose to present them, the left image will look saturated and accurate and the right will like... well, awful...

BUT HEY isn't these steps you follow (or didn't follow) proving what I'm saying here? We have ONE image that has a very wide range info and by using different LUTs we can get the maximum of every target.... THE SAME image can perform in sRGB, in DCP, in REC709 and in Filmout??? That IMAGE is a LOG CINEON image that's why it can do all that... and the application of LUTs is the trick....

Isn't it that what I'm trying to say in the first place??? That Film Log (Film Log is Cineon Log) workflow is the most flexible and proper way to master films?

Please, Mike stop hiding your magic from people... I can understand your urgency to downplay it... And hey I don't sell... I disclose information here to people, for free... everyone can use my info, LUT's are everywhere as you know... they don't have to buy from me... there are many out there providing LUT's...

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Ok since it was in front of me... this is a final rendered Master Film LOG image converted for sRGB viewing. If I print it on film, this is the way it will look... the highlights will be burned and the contrast will be high... the film target combination is Kodak 5201 neg and print stock Kodak Vision Premiere 2393, the short is shot with MX'ed RED ONE and the process is being done in Color with proper color management and REDfilmLog. If I will deliver it for HD DVD's this is the way director colorist and DoP choose to look... so this will be the REC709 result on DVD and DCP...



Now this is the final Master Film LOG image Re-Color graded to my taste.... the contrast is totally restored...



Try to do the same with a REC709 final master...

[Gunleik Groven]

You talking about HDR I suppose?

Nope