Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Blackmagic Mini Ursa 4.6K New Footage looks darn good.

jake blackstone said:
There is nothing special about cDNG metadata. If software uses wrong IDT, which is an entirely different issue, no one stops you from applying a proper IDT manually. The main point is, if you apply a given camera manufacturer IDT for a given camera, then it will be the same regardless of grading software used and it will create a correct image according to a manufacturer. And as i said, if camera manufacturer provided IDT is not great, then it's up to the camera manufacturer to take care of it. Clearly, BM software with BM camera shouldn't choose wrong IDT, no?
Click to expand...

Tell me, what IDT's for Blackmagic do you have for the grading software you use? Or what IDT's do you have for any cDNG camera?
You don't need IDT's for cDNG, that's what I'm saying. But that means there's some room for math or interpretation issues. I have seen it first hand.
 
Steven Abrams said:
Tell me, what IDT's for Blackmagic do you have for the grading software you use? Or what IDT's do you have for any cDNG camera?
You don't need IDT's for cDNG, that's what I'm saying. But that means there's some room for math or interpretation issues. I have seen it first hand.
Click to expand...
Screen_Shot_2016_04_06_at_6_06_31_PM.png

Any other questions?
 
jake blackstone said:
Any other questions?
Click to expand...
Those were created by Resolve based on the cDNG metadata, ask them about it. They say the information isn't from the group in BM making the cameras, just the metadata. I've been told the two groups don't even operate from the same country.
Are those IDTs in other ACES compatible software?


As far as I know, Academy doesn't provide one. Is this from BMD?
Click to expand...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/academyaces/SQq5AIVHPYo

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21427#p134288

Resolve includes a CinemaDNG IDT. The DNG spec define the xyz data set so all CinemaDNG cameras use the same IDT.
Click to expand...
 
Steven Abrams said:
Those were created by Resolve based on the cDNG metadata, ask them about it. They say the information isn't from the group in BM making the cameras, just the metadata. I've been told the two groups don't even operate from the same country.
Are those IDTs in other ACES compatible software?




https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/academyaces/SQq5AIVHPYo

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21427#p134288
Click to expand...


You completely missed the point of LGG discussion, the same way you're missing my original point of using ACES vs LUT approach. Regardless of ACES implementation in Resolve, if you and anyone else selected ACES and used Resolve with provided IDT for BMD Film 4.6, everyone else will derive to an identical image. The same can't be said in regards to using the homemade LUTs and manual curves.
One would hope, that BM was smart enough to supply the same camera IDTs to the rest of software manufacturers. In that case, even using say, Baselight or Lustre or anything else, they too would get the same starting image. If BM decided to have a non standard implementation of contrast (that was THE point of the conversation on LGG), then that is an entirely different issue, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Every camera IDT is provided by the camera manufacturer. Academy has nothing to do with IDTs. In this particular case BM made both camera AND software. If you think BM doesn't know how to profile their own cameras and construct a proper IDT, please have your questions and concerns addressed directly to them. If, as you claim, BM refuses to provide IDTs to other software manufacturers, again, please contact them and express your displeasure directly. It is NOT a software manufacturers responsibility to create IDTs, if camera maker fails to provide one. Anyway, identical IDTs created by camera manufacturers and provided to ALL software manufacturers. That's the whole point of ACES- everyone begins from the same start! IDTs in Lustre are the same as IDTs in Baselight, which are identical to ones in Resolve and ... well, by now I think you get the idea how this works...
 
jake blackstone said:
You completely missed the point of LGG discussion, the same way you're missing my original point of using ACES vs LUT approach.
Click to expand...

You recommended uses ACES for comparing BM cameras. I'm telling you from experience and knowledge it doesn't work well for those cameras. I don't care why or who got it wrong. It just is. You said IDT's were standard in all applications. For BM cameras using cDNG it is not. I've seen it. You've said you don't use Resolve so I asked for you to show me the IDT's for BM cameras in the software you use because I've been told the camera group never created any because the don't have to with cDNG. You still haven't shown me an IDT in other software and this goes against your claims. But you're still pushing them anyway.

ACES fails with BM cameras in Resolve. Recommending it is foolish. I don't use ACES because it's been a moving target and not well executed so I don't care to complain to BM about it either.

I never said anything about rolling your own LUTs being better or anything else. Just that your recommendation IN THIS CASE with BM cameras and ACES is bad.
 
I'm not so sold on ACES in REC 709 workflow. In a RAW workflow, seems to work more reliably. ACES's as well with LUT's, there is still a real world divide between the creative and technical uses. Neither LUT's nor ACES traverse the geographies perfectly.

My background is lithography. Moving from offset to digital, there was increased pressure to 'print by the numbers' by adopting various profile standards put forth by various governing interests and consortiums. The rub was that buy-in was critical across the board. Inks, papers, creative software, agency proofing devices, monitors. You name it, it mattered or factored in at the end product. The points of failure were too overwhelming to manage. So the generally approved workflow among service providers was to have a tried and trusted in-house proofing method that matched nearly perfectly to the commercial print service providers and vendors. Client would sign off on the proof and the job would proceed confidently to the next stage.

ACES has a similar trajectory. ACES is very ambitious and in my opinion better suited for HDR and Rec2020 applications. And/also in very, very controlled capture and post environments. And key -- buy in requires absolution and enthusiasm from the camera manufacturers as only they can provide an authenticated IDT. The other acronyms, based on the IDT, are failure or success points along the chain. Low gamut workflows maybe are bit overkill for ACES. Obviously if your content needs to have an extended shelf, while the the new color spaces get into formation, then ACES is a strong consideration. Otherwise, is a type of workflow, not THE workflow.

Keeping to the thread. The UM4.6K does perform very, well within its ISO range. Color reproduction is dynamic. Informal and accidental lighting situations, however, will challenge the camera. RED is dialing in aggressively attacking the noise floor, achieving usable color and noise management.
 
Steven Abrams said:
You recommended uses ACES for comparing BM cameras. I'm telling you from experience and knowledge it doesn't work well for those cameras. I don't care why or who got it wrong. It just is. You said IDT's were standard in all applications. For BM cameras using cDNG it is not. I've seen it. You've said you don't use Resolve so I asked for you to show me the IDT's for BM cameras in the software you use because I've been told the camera group never created any because the don't have to with cDNG. You still haven't shown me an IDT in other software and this goes against your claims. But you're still pushing them anyway.

ACES fails with BM cameras in Resolve. Recommending it is foolish. I don't use ACES because it's been a moving target and not well executed so I don't care to complain to BM about it either.

I never said anything about rolling your own LUTs being better or anything else. Just that your recommendation IN THIS CASE with BM cameras and ACES is bad.
Click to expand...
It would be VERY helpful, if instead of trying to press your point, you would actually read what I said.
So just for you I show you what I said in relationship to that test, that compared Alexa and BM camera:
"For example one used by Resolve for Alexa is not a photometric type ARRI recommends. If you care, download them from the ARRI Generator site. Anyway, if you want some consistency, that everyone can repeat and understand, use ACES. So, if IDT is not up to snuff, then camera manufacturers can only blame themselves, not users doing "I adjusted the exposure and curve to a well contrasted image"..."
All this was directed toward trying to have a consistent workflow for a well known camera, that for some reason every Tom, Dick and Harry uses to compare their camera to. Making Alexa image look bad doesn't help the test in any meaningful way.
So, for the last time, just for you Steven Abrams:
If the camera manufacturer fails to supply proper IDT to software manufacturers, then that camera manufacturer doesn't care about their camera being accepted as a professional choice. Everyone then free to come up with their own homemade brew of cockeyed LUTs at their own peril. But if the camera does have a proper IDT, then use it!
Any other questions?
 
M.Halsell said:
I'm not so sold on ACES in REC 709 workflow. In a RAW workflow, seems to work more reliably. ACES's as well with LUT's, there is still a real world divide between the creative and technical uses. Neither LUT's nor ACES traverse the geographies perfectly.

My background is lithography. Moving from offset to digital, there was increased pressure to 'print by the numbers' by adopting various profile standards put forth by various governing interests and consortiums. The rub was that buy-in was critical across the board. Inks, papers, creative software, agency proofing devices, monitors. You name it, it mattered or factored in at the end product. The points of failure were too overwhelming to manage. So the generally approved workflow among service providers was to have a tried and trusted in-house proofing method that matched nearly perfectly to the commercial print service providers and vendors. Client would sign off on the proof and the job would proceed confidently to the next stage.

ACES has a similar trajectory. ACES is very ambitious and in my opinion better suited for HDR and Rec2020 applications. And/also in very, very controlled capture and post environments. And key -- buy in requires absolution and enthusiasm from the camera manufacturers as only they can provide an authenticated IDT. The other acronyms, based on the IDT, are failure or success points along the chain. Low gamut workflows maybe are bit overkill for ACES. Obviously if your content needs to have an extended shelf, while the the new color spaces get into formation, then ACES is a strong consideration. Otherwise, is a type of workflow, not THE workflow.

Keeping to the thread. The UM4.6K does perform very, well within its ISO range. Color reproduction is dynamic. Informal and accidental lighting situations, however, will challenge the camera. RED is dialing in aggressively attacking the noise floor, achieving usable color and noise management.
Click to expand...

What you probably trying to say is ACES for display referred video images is pretty meaningless. Yes, it is, because it is not needed. In the old days all video was the same and there was no need for such system. But that is not the case anymore. What ACES was designed is an answer to the proliferation of many different cameras, using various gammas. When you have a large number of different cameras in your timeline, ACES is a huge help, especially when using software with properly designed color science. With Baselight you can drop pretty much any camera on the timeline and most of the time it will properly identify the image and it will automatically apply proper color transform. The same principal applies in case of needing to do multiple deliverables from the same master- Rec-709, P3, PQ 2084, XYZ, Rec-2020. With LUTs it's just not so simple. With Truelight Color Spaces you just need to select the deliverable color space and click render.
So, I disagree, ACES is a huge step forward in this insane world of dozens of camera manufacturers.
 
jake blackstone said:
What you probably trying to say is ACES for display referred video images is pretty meaningless. Yes, it is, because it is not needed.
<snip>
So, I disagree, ACES is a huge step forward in this insane world of dozens of camera manufacturers.
Click to expand...

+1000
 
jake blackstone said:
Huge difference?
https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/alexa-shooting-arri-raw-vs-pro-res/
Click to expand...

yea, it was pretty in yer face, first thing we thought was .. those images are very very very similar.. in ACES, raw in linear, ProRez with the Alexa IDT

but next glance, it seemed the ArriRAW was much nosier, and a bit of split screening later it was the softening of the ProRexz that hid the noise, along with highlights the eyes etc etc that just were not visable in the ProRez

this on a projector tho, on a 25" OLED there's not much difrence atall when both are in ACES, and if tv is the target i'd not think twice about using Alexa's 444ProRez
 
Steven Abrams said:
You recommended uses ACES for comparing BM cameras. I'm telling you from experience and knowledge it doesn't work well for those cameras.

ACES fails with BM cameras in Resolve. Recommending it is foolish. I don't use ACES because it's been a moving target and not well executed so I don't care to complain to BM about it either.
Click to expand...
My experience with BMD camera's is limited to playing the new 4.6 camera's test shots that are on BMD's site, i tested in ACEScc and Resolve, and did not see any significant issues

95%+ of the show i do are shot on Alexa, Dragon, Epic or film and no one i work with has used a BMD camera in production, so no real seat time, but i cannot see the issues that you are talking about... and i can see no reason why i could not make it work, and work pretty well, at leat that's what i told the DP who asked me to take a look.

so what's the deal?
 
Jake, I see your bullet points for the ACES platform. Just simplifying my own summary that using ACES to color manage a simple timeline with a baked-in 8/10bit format doesn't seem effective. A simple LUT approach would suffice. Conversely, a project mashup of 12/14/16 bit RAW formats from different cameras with incoming Cineon VFX shots would be an appropriate use.

Is the lack of a IDT for BMs camera a tactical reason, retaining the Resolve user base?
 
Jake what does UM4.6K look under the Jake Blackstone microscope? Noise, sharpness, are underexposure stretch marks an issue/non-issue? Throw us a bone.
 
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/vide...a-mini-4.6k-ef

WARNING:
We cannot recommend this product for professional work. We reached this decision after repeated failures in the field, experienced both first-hand by LR-folks and second-hand via rental clients. Though it might work much of the time, it is our opinion that this product’s performance is too unpredictable to be trusted on high-value projects. Use for casual testing or try-before-you-buy purposes only. If you have any questions, please contact us. support@lensrentals.com | 901-754-9100
 
jordan levy said:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/vide...a-mini-4.6k-ef

WARNING:
We cannot recommend this product for professional work. We reached this decision after repeated failures in the field, experienced both first-hand by LR-folks and second-hand via rental clients. Though it might work much of the time, it is our opinion that this product’s performance is too unpredictable to be trusted on high-value projects. Use for casual testing or try-before-you-buy purposes only. If you have any questions, please contact us. support@lensrentals.com | 901-754-9100
Click to expand...

eek!
 
jordan levy said:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/vide...a-mini-4.6k-ef

WARNING:
We cannot recommend this product for professional work. We reached this decision after repeated failures in the field, experienced both first-hand by LR-folks and second-hand via rental clients. Though it might work much of the time, it is our opinion that this product’s performance is too unpredictable to be trusted on high-value projects. Use for casual testing or try-before-you-buy purposes only. If you have any questions, please contact us. support@lensrentals.com | 901-754-9100
Click to expand...

Holy crap that is bad news for BMD. I didn't know that LensRentals even reviewed gear, let alone make equipment recommendations to productions. Is there anything else that they rent that has that warning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top