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 :)

HUH?! Alchemy missing from SDK? Please say it isn't so!

F

Frank Cueto

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
729
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
48
Location
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Website
www.reaktorpost.com
Well, I'va played with alchemy a bit and found it interesting, so I shoot an email to the developers of our grading solution (Baselight) asking when do we get Alchemy in, like we got FLUT for example.

Lo and behold they explained to us that it is not available on the SDK, at least on LINUX. Is this an accurate statement? Are there plans to incorporate such controls into the sdk so they are widely available
in other platforms besides redcine-X?

Thanks.
 
Franky.
i'm actually happy to see, that Alchemy is not included in the SDK. Nobody knows, what it is. I'm not prepared to start using something, that's only been explained as "just play with it, you'll like it". To me it reminds the the Magic bullet "looks" approach. As you well know, Baselight doesn't need help in the looks creation department. It can manage that task very, very well as is. There is too much fragmentation of tools already. I certainly hope, that we do not start using camera specific "looks" tools...
 
jake blackstone said:
Frank.
i'm actually happy to see, that Alchemy is not included in the SDK. Nobody knows, what it is. I'm not prepared to start using something, that's only been explained as "just play with it, you'll like it". To me it reminds magic bullet looks approach. As you well know, Baselight doesn't need help in the looks creation department. It can manage that task very, very well as is. There is too much fragmentation of tools already. I certainly hope, that we do not start using material specific "looks" tools...
Click to expand...

I can certainly agree 100% with you. I am trying to figure out what to do with those clients that pregrade in RCX-Pro and want to bring their grade metadata as a starting point. Thats basically it...
 
jake blackstone said:
Actually, hadn't Tom Wong a few days ago mentioned, that the FilmLooks metadata does come through in Resolve? I could be wrong...
Click to expand...

If the new post effects are not in the SDK yet (and it makes sense that they are not, as everything has to take a while to migrate from REDCINE-X into the SDK) then maybe BlackMagic have worked out their own versions of the post effects, and are applying them based on the RMD meta-data. As long as they are visually close matches that would make sense, as it gives the colourist a reference, if nothing else, that they can tweak or rebuild in Resolve as they wish. I can certainly imagine it being helpful if something loads up in Resolve looking initially the same as it looked in REDCINE-X.
 
I think alchemy will not be part of the SDK because its processed only with CPU not redrocket.
 
In my system Alchemy need from CPU 400% at half (realtime), and 900% at full (without realtime). What gpu i need?. I have 1xAti 5770 + 3x GTX480. If I use clarity, it need a lot more CPU than alchemy.
 
The big question is order of operation. When should Alchemy be applied? For example, should Alchemy be applied before or after lift/gamma/gain? Since your primary grading package will process lift/gamma/gain, Alchemy would come before if you applied it in the SDK. A better approach would be for RED to provide Alchemy as an algorithm to the vendors or as some type of plug-in, such as OFX. RED could also define their own plug-in architecture and try and confince 3rd parties to adopt it.
 
jake blackstone said:
Franky.
i'm actually happy to see, that Alchemy is not included in the SDK. Nobody knows, what it is. I'm not prepared to start using something, that's only been explained as "just play with it, you'll like it". To me it reminds the the Magic bullet "looks" approach. As you well know, Baselight doesn't need help in the looks creation department. It can manage that task very, very well as is. There is too much fragmentation of tools already. I certainly hope, that we do not start using camera specific "looks" tools...
Click to expand...

In my testing.. i have found alchemy is great for an out of the box look - redcine- quick times- edit- print

but SUCKS when it comes to a real grading environment.. It seems to stretch the blacks and the whites and gives me less control of those in my grading..
I feel like I can save any almost blown out (not clipped) images.. but when I use alchemy.. My control of doing so are dramatically declined..

I don't know.. I would def like a good run down on exactly what alchemy does besides give me a blacker image and stretch my entire histogram
 
SDK hasn't been updated, at least not the version in general circulation, since well before the release of Alchemy -- before the release of RC-X Pro for that matter. I'm sure it will be there in due time, it's new!

Anyway, if you have specific questions or needs about the SDK, which is covered by an NDA of sorts that you signed when you registered, or if you're looking to do something specific, you should contact RED. You never know...
 
jake blackstone said:
Actually, hadn't Tom Wong a few days ago mentioned, that the FilmLooks metadata does come through in Resolve? I could be wrong...
Click to expand...

as far as what I can gather, all those new effects in RCX-P are more like plugins in the software itself. Rocket can't render them out, I can't even preview them out of a rocket. no alchemy, no film look, no clarity none of it. Which sorta blows cause it would make one lights a little fancier if I could get it out of a rocket. But I think the inherent architecture of how a rocket works (de mosaic with metadata applied for look) a plugin of these sorts can't be used what so ever because the values of clarity and film look isn't part of raw sensor data. It's a plugin applied separately. Alchemy MIGHT be able to work because it's just micro contrast. Jake look at your waveform as you move the alchemy slider around. it just expands and compresses isolated sections of your luminance. so it's not such a heavy handed contrast expansion or compression. It's actually really nice for fine tuning, basically another tool to help get you "there" faster if you so desire. So it would be interesting to see alchemy as a a tool in grading software one day. Unless it's applied the same as the other effects ala, plugin ish, than it's never gonna happen, unless in order to use it they lock out the use or rocket all together...

i'm not down with that either :P
 
I might have a problem with a situation, where in a mixed timeline environment you would have some effects working and some, that are not, depending on the material used. If Red feels, that they want to get into the plugin "LOOK" business, fine. OFX is the most universal way of doing it. But the way it is implemented now, it's just a gimmick and for me it's a no go...
 
Then i guess i'll wait till its implemented before i suggest that workflow.

thanks
 
jake blackstone said:
I might have a problem with a situation, where in a mixed timeline environment you would have some effects working and some, that are not, depending on the material used. If Red feels, that they want to get into the plugin "LOOK" business, fine. OFX is the most universal way of doing it. But the way it is implemented now, it's just a gimmick and for me it's a no go...
Click to expand...

pretty agree with you on all fronts, it's one of those things, I don't mind if it's in something like resolve or anything else, but it's not like you can't do with out it. I'd rather it not over complicate the system with needless quick fixes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top