ACES...

[Eric Cameron]

Thanks Mike Most for saying what needed saying. While there is certainly still road to cover in getting everything perfectly in place for ACES to work as designed, this idea that it's hard and costly needs to die. There is nothing complicated in implementing it (designing is another story). I think that's evidenced by many of the people here talking about their path from camera to screen, many of which look an awful lot like brew-you-own version of ACES.

Half-float EXR is NOT necessary to derive most of the benefit of ACES. Using it is just icing on the cake. It really is a simple concept. Any image acquisition device -> IDT -> RRT/ODT. This is essentially how many, many people already work, just without standardized transforms. It'll get there, probably sooner than later. But many people are scared, I think partially because of all the talk about EXR containers. Fact is, you don't need them. Working in EXR would and will be great, but if the space and processing requirements are too much, don't sweat it. The core concepts of ACES work perfectly fine without it.

[Jannard]

Watch for RACES... the real solution. :-)

Jim

[Gunleik Groven]

Watch for RACES... the real solution. :-)

Jim

LOL

When the current reality doesn't suit you, create a new one!


(Suggestion for a new RED slogan. And I really like the idea!)

[Bruce Allen]

Watch for RACES... the real solution. :-)

Jim

Hahaha! Awesome! RED - still creating greatness... still with a sense of humor about itself. All is good in the world :)

Seeing you guys cheerful and at ease is really great - a sign that good things are in the pipeline for us filmmakers :P

Thanks, Jim. I rest easy tonight.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Martin Stevens]

If ACES is... Academy Color Encoding Specification

Then might one day RACES be.... Red Accurate Color Encoding Specification

;)

[David Mullen ASC]

The complex world of ACES will get worse before it gets better. ACES will cost more. ACES will take longer. ACES will eat up more space and require more support, more assessments and more adjustments. But in the long run, ACES will likely prevail and its benefits will strongly outweigh its limitations.

Gee, that sounds similar to the arguments surrounding 4K a few years ago...

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Gee, that sounds similar to the arguments surrounding 4K a few years ago...

Indeed.

After hearing so many "takes" on 4K at NAB last week I can report that the number of vendors bullish on 4K has grown substantially. Just wish I had recordings of many of those same companies (and in some cases the same people!) trashing the very notion of 4K in previous years who, now that they have 4K products, are extolling its benefits. Perhaps they're just preparing for a career in politics ,-)

Cheers - #19

[Tom Hamilton]

ACES appears to be attempting a single, global method to a very complex and diverse process, and that has significant implications, noted by some posters' concerns above. I very much agree with Michael on one point; the necessity of an extended gestation period in which all stakeholders should observe, participate, and contribute. Concerns notwithstanding, I am confident the birth of this baby will be an unusual and interesting one.

[Michael Cioni]

Well, if we're pointing out FUD, allow me to quote Cioni:

ACES is constantly getting better because its creators understand that there are problems at this point, and also because they understand color science better than just about anyone here or elsewhere on this planet and therefore have the experience and knowledge necessary to eventually work out those problems. ACES will cost more??? Really? The fact is that ACES is an industry initiative being done by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Scientific and Technical Committee, and whose work is free to all who want to use it, and will remain so. ACES will take longer?? ACES will eat up more space and require more support? Once again, the fact is that ACES can easily be incorporated into existing workflows. It basically replaces an input transform with an IDT, and an output LUT with an output transform, consisting of the RRT/ODT combination. You can use those transforms as part of a "live" working environment. Using an ACES workflow does not require creation of new files and does not require use of the half float EXR container. Those things are there for storage and image exchange.

I have already gone on record in this thread as portraying the ACES system as a work in progress, particularly the RRT. I have said that more work needs to be done to refine it, and that in its current state, there are issues that need to be addressed. What irks me is that I'm quite sure Michael is aware of all that, yet statements are made here that are patently false. I too believe in facts, not FUD. The facts are that it is a work in progress, is currently imperfect, but has a lot of potential for a lot of reasons, and will evolve over time. FUD is that it costs money, somehow adds time to the post process, and takes up more space.

Mike-
Please be respectful enough to avoid dramatizing my words as "patently false." I would never write or publish something I can't back up, so I'm happy to clarify for you and more importantly the readers of this thread, including the Academy, what I mean. In other words, I typically do not respond to your attacks, but in this case, I think the issues you raised would be helpful to other readers. Thanks for always being willing to dig deeper.
best,
m


+ I think the statement that the Academy knows more about color science than anyone on the planet is quite a claim. Let's not deify them just yet;-)

+ ACES is not supported by every color system. People (including myself) that want to use ACES are forced to invest to some degree in upgrades in order to offer it to clients. The result are investments in new on-set and in-post ACES compliant systems.
= COSTS MORE

+ I didn't ask for help in the area of image manipulation, but it sure feels like it's being pushed on me. But because there is demand from some groups for ACES, we answered the call and made the investment in the tools. But that investment is also manifested as research, development, testing, publishing and adjusting the system which takes a measurable tool on our staff.
= COSTS MORE

+ ACES is on-record as saying it is still "in development." Yet there are productions shooting now on shifting ground in which poor results are being re-worked, re-tried, and re-rendered. In other words, there are productions today acting as testing beds for ACES, which will benefit us all, but add significant time and expense to said productions.
= COSTS MORE & TAKES LONGER

+ I pointed out that ACES is under development and will require a lot of testing, evaluation, debugging, and the like. There is a lot of very detail-orientated research and testing that needs to be done with the plethora of cameras out there. This will take time on the administrative levels of every company.
= COSTS MORE & TAKES LONGER

+ Today, my company does 2 or 3 feature camera tests per week. Through these tests, we spend ample time explaining progressive options to clients and addressing their digital concerns. Adding ACES to the mix and the notion of ACES vs. Non-ACES or Log vs. Lin or DPX vs. EXR will require more literature, more presentation time, more testing, more evaluation time and solid answers to lots and lots of questions.
= COSTS MORE & TAKES LONGER

+ Full implementation of ACES requires a lot of very technically precise steps and this will add strain onto GPU and CPU architectures. While every company will do it slightly differently, the load on the system will require more GPUs in order to satisfy the arithmetic required by ACES, which is upstream and downstream of the actual color correction. For some systems, this will affect overall system performance and render times and (in some configurations) will require renders with and without some of the transforms, depending on the desired output/clients requests.
= COSTS MORE & TAKES LONGER & IS LARGER

+ While not the only way to use ACES, many people will transcode source media into a mezzanine format prior to manipulation. -This shouldn't be a surprise, since that's how many people do things with log today. But for those who prefer a more native approach to files, mezzanine files will increase data footprints and in many cases, render times and archive sizes.
= COSTS MORE & TAKES LONGER & IS LARGER


I like freedom of choice. I respect the lead set forth by the client. If a client prefers the look and path of ACES, then that is a perfect fit for them. If a client prefers the simplicity of gamma-corrected 709, or Log P3, then it is a perfect fit for them. If a client prefers to take an R3D in After Effects and use Color Finesse to do the image manipulation, then it is a perfect fit for them. -This is what I mean by being a pluralist. If everything is meant to go through an ACES pipeline, then ACES, by its own design, is subtractive. I prefer a world in which different options and pipelines and flows are uniquely chosen by the creatives - a world that's additive. I appreciate the fresh look on images that ACES offers, which is why Light Iron is enabling an ACES pipeline for clients who prefer it or (in some cases) are mandated to use it. But I believe no workflow is ideal by every standard of measurement, therefore I'm comfortable with creatives who continue to inspire us to sculpt solutions that make them comfortable...whatever that may be.

| m |

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Indeed.

After hearing so many "takes" on 4K at NAB last week I can report that the number of vendors bullish on 4K has grown substantially. Just wish I had recordings of many of those same companies (and in some cases the same people!) trashing the very notion of 4K in previous years who, now that they have 4K products, are extolling its benefits. Perhaps they're just preparing for a career in politics ,-)

Cheers - #19

My favorite NAB evolution of perspective was in a quote in the REDUser Event presentation about how those who were fighting against a lossless workflow were fighting progress (in light of the years of insistence that there was no use for mathematically lossless RAW). :)