Monitoring On Resolve: Issues and Questions

[Luis Otero]

I know the need to use either scaled vs unscaled video signal depending on the intended final output. I was wondering what you have used during you years of experience on using as an altered workflow if the final product is both film/digital cinema and DVD, since normally the video capabilities of the monitors used for grading are not capable of displaying the full 0 to 1023 range.

Do you do both at the same time, and how? Or even, do you need to do two different gradings? If you need to pick one of them, which will be your option?

Thanks,

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I know the need to use either scaled vs unscaled video signal depending on the intended final output. I was wondering what you have used during you years of experience on using as an altered workflow if the final product is both film/digital cinema and DVD, since normally the video capabilities of the monitors used for grading are not capable of displaying the full 0 to 1023 range.

Do you do both at the same time, and how? Or even, do you need to do two different gradings? If you need to pick one of them, which will be your option?

Thanks,

I don't think I understand the question.

You can get 10 bit LCD displays. Check this one out from Flanders Scientific:

http://www.flandersscientific.com/index/lm2470w

or the Sony BVM-L231, which is the go to critical monitor for many facilities.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/637821-REG/Sony_BVM_L231_BVM_L231_23_Trimaster_LCD.html

Having seen and used both I prefer the Flanders Scientific- especially given the price.

Many users also use plasma HDTV systems. Plasma panels offer much better color representation as a result of the technology. Many panels are 12 bit or higher. Modern panels even take advantage of this via the HDMI interface. (1.3 or newer)

There is a Panasonic model (the VT25 ??) that is popular that has an optional HD-SDI i/o board. I don't use one regularly, but I've seen it and its nice.

I use a 50" Samsung via HDMI 1.3b, and its great for most of my work. This is not as nice as the Panny I'm referring to above, but it definitely displays all of the REC 709 10 bit colorspace. That's impressive for a $1000 HDTV.

(The downside of the Samsung is the glossy display. It really only works well for me in a relatively dark room.)

As far as color accurate monitoring goes you can definitely get it.

As far as delivering a grade... I usually work to a single standard. Most often that is REC709, i.e. broadcast. Most projects I work on, even those that will be shown in theaters, will spend most of their lives being seen via broadcast, BluRay or DVD.

Using Color, I then readjust using Primary Out for DCI-P3 or whatever other color space we need for delivery. Usually that's a quick adjustment for the whole picture with very few tweaks- because there is a consistent difference between color spaces.

So there is an infosplat for you. Does that help at all?

 

[Uli Plank]

One more to add: HP Dreamcolor via AJA HDP2.

 

[Luis Otero]

Hello,

I apologize if I was not clear about my posting with a statement and a question. Basically, I stated that I know that there is an inherent difference between the grading for film/digital projection and for DVD/TV release. I actually own 10-bit monitors, and a Pani Plasma I love the blacks it displays). All of them professionally calibrated.

What I wanted to ask the community is to how colorist have approached this area since we have the ability to see the entire 0-1023 range that 10-bit allows us to use, and will not limit us to set the black level at 7.5, hence my delivery is suitable for theatrical showing.

However, since the vast majority of the houses TVs are 8-bit, the whole situation of the black 7.5 IRE becomes an issue to address. So, I wanted to open the discussion as to the workflows and procedures used by different members, so we all can benefit from such discussion.

Thanks,

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

One more to add: HP Dreamcolor via AJA HDP2.

Oh yes... VERY good... also the BlackMagic HDLink Pro.

The Dreamcolor is quite a bargain actually.

Its not as good as the Flanders... but it punches way above its weight. Color depth and fidelity are there... I'd guesstimate 95% as good as the Flanders 2460.

Its the video specific features that are missing- mostly displays.

I prefer a dedicated scope set up in the post suite, but on set it can be worth the coin to just get the Flanders or another production monitor.

 

[Uli Plank]

I second that.
But for a suite on a budget the Dreamcolor is hard to beat. It's not 100% DCI-compliant, but getting close (100% Rec 709 for sure).

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

What I wanted to ask the community is to how colorist have approached this area since we have the ability to see the entire 0-1023 range that 10-bit allows us to use, and will not limit us to set the black level at 7.5, hence my delivery is suitable for theatrical showing.

However, since the vast majority of the houses TVs are 8-bit, the whole situation of the black 7.5 IRE becomes an issue to address. So, I wanted to open the discussion as to the workflows and procedures used by different members, so we all can benefit from such discussion.

Thanks,

I see.

I already sort of answered this then.

You grade to the highest specification deliverable the client has requested.

When doing this grade do not use any of Color's "Primary Out" options.

When the client has approved the final grade in your highest spec format... then you worry about the other deliverables.

So... if I am doing a DCP+film out, tape out to HDCAM SR and a ProRes file for broadcast, a DVD and h.264 at various resolutions for the web, then ...

My primary grade is the DCP/film out. I actually grade for the DCP which is a touch more restrictive than film out and easier to emulate in the suite. Then generate the files.

I alter the LUT on my i/o card for each format, and adjust my monitoring chain as appropriate. For broadcast stuff, I check with the broadcaster for their setup.

Then I review the grade. I use the primary out only as necessary to adjust. I only do this for well budgeted shows. They are essentially asking for a new and complete primary correction for each deliverable with different technical criteria.

If I am on a budget, then I often use automated tools to ensure standards compliance for each deliverable. For example, when outputting a DVD Compressor, by default, will adjust the footage to be DVD safe for NTSC or PAL (depending on which DVD format you are rendering). For budget broadcast, I'll just drop a broadcast safe node/effect on it with the specifications of the broadcaster and go.

Those tools all suck compared to me re-correcting everything. Then again not getting paid for doing work also sucks... so its fair.

Its important to note that some tools automatically do this by default, like I noted about Compressor above. You need to know which of your tools fall into that category, and adjust settings as appropriate.

I usually write down my output workflow for each deliverable ahead of time as a checklist. Workflows at this stage are usually easy... but it can be tough to keep track of the various details, and just as tough to be certain you checked everything.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I second that.
But for a suite on a budget the Dreamcolor is hard to beat. It's not 100% DCI-compliant, but getting close (100% Rec 709 for sure).

We agree, but I see I wasn't completely clear. Sorry.

I recommend the BMD HDLink as an alternative to the AJA HDP2. Not saying one is better, just want to make sure people know there are options.

I'm completely happy with a Dreamcolor for in suite monitoring for most projects. Provided you have separate hardware video scopes.

I prefer hardware video scopes by a large margin over the scopes built into monitors and cameras. They are much more precise and represent what I am outputting more accurately.

That said, they are less useful for digital workflows with digital delivery. In these circumstances they really are more visualization/diagnostic tools for the colorist than they are devices for technical quality assurance.

On the low end Black Magic's Ultrascope is fantastic- exceeding all the needs of 99% of users. On the high end I've only used Tektronix and Harris scopes, and so far I prefer the Tektronix.

As far as scopes go... the larger broadcast projects are the high end- you really don't need scopes for DCP or film out anymore (digital workflow with digital delivery), but broadcasters, like Discovery's HD Theater for example, can get very particular. You need to be clear about exactly what you send out to the HDCAM deck.

I'd like the Flanders or other production monitors with built in scopes on set. This is mostly because of convenience.

 

[jake blackstone]

I think, what Louis actually asking is how does one do a DCI and Rec-709 deliverable from one master. The idea behind this, and BTW, that's how the big boys do it, first you need to create a DCI compliant graded master and then you would create REC-709 from that by using a combination of proper conversion LUT in conjunction with trim pass.
And to add to that, I think it's pretty obvious, that for this to work, one would need employ properly calibrated DCI compliant display. And a lot of color science experience or, like big boys do, a staff color scientist.
Simple

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I think, what Louis actually asking is how does one do a DCI and Rec-709 deliverable from one master. The idea behind this, and BTW, that's how the big boys do it, first you need to create a DCI compliant graded master and then you would create REC-709 from that by using a combination of proper conversion LUT in conjunction with trim pass.
And to add to that, I think it's pretty obvious, that for this to work, one would need employ properly calibrated DCI compliant display. And a lot of color science experience or, like big boys do, a staff color scientist.
Simple

Aside from the staff color scientist... is that different from what I wrote above?

You're applying a LUT to the monitoring chain and then doing a primary pass?

Or are you using a LUT to do the entire process algorithmically?

Something else?

 

[Luis Otero]

I think, what Louis actually asking is how does one do a DCI and Rec-709 deliverable from one master. The idea behind this, and BTW, that's how the big boys do it, first you need to create a DCI compliant graded master and then you would create REC-709 from that by using a combination of proper conversion LUT in conjunction with trim pass.
And to add to that, I think it's pretty obvious, that for this to work, one would need employ properly calibrated DCI compliant display. And a lot of color science experience or, like big boys do, a staff color scientist.
Simple

Jake,

You nailed it: LUT. Your pipeline description was the conclusion I finally generated on my mind. Simpler than full re-coloring (nobody want to pay for what is worth), yet effective with the proper calibrated instrument to monitor the results.

Thanks to everyone for chiming in since collectively I can see the different paths that people have used, and each one can adjust them based on their particular circumstance.
:emote_happyhappy:

 

[jake blackstone]

Aside from the staff color scientist... is that different from what I wrote above?

You're applying a LUT to the monitoring chain and then doing a primary pass?

Or are you using a LUT to do the entire process algorithmically?

Something else?

Yes, it is a different process from what you had described. First of all it's very complex and imprecise process, that is based on ability to built a proper transfer LUT. To built this LUT requires a certain amount of knowledge and discipline with a pinch of fairy dust, that can only be acquired from years of empirical knowledge of doing trim passes. At the end of the day, even today, this process is still very subjective, as it is impossible to make a perfect translation between transmissive and reflected technologies, chemical and electronic processes, different color gamuts, light levels, curves and gammas, etc.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Yes, it is a different process from what you had described. First of all it's very complex and imprecise process, that is based on ability to built a proper transfer LUT. To built this LUT requires a certain amount of knowledge and discipline with a pinch of fairy dust, that can only be acquired from years of empirical knowledge of doing trim passes. At the end of the day, even today, this process is still very subjective, as it is impossible to make a perfect translation between transmissive and reflected technologies, chemical and electronic processes, different color gamuts, light levels, curves and gammas, etc.

Interesting.

So then you are doing almost all the work with the LUTs, but doing a "trim pass."

I thought I knew what that meant, but now I think I don't know after all. What I thought it meant was a set of minimal primary corrections.

It sounds to me as though the process just as subjective as doing another set of primary out corrections- but as a facility gains institutional experience- something that becomes faster to implement. Basically it is in fact being done algorithmically (using LUTs), but the trim pass is used to skew the subjective choices towards the look of the specific film and keep away from a pure mechanical look.

Does that reflect a better understanding of what you said?

How do you think this process differs from the process I laid out in terms of results and time expended?

 

[mikeburton]

Interesting.

So then you are doing almost all the work with the LUTs, but doing a "trim pass."

I thought I knew what that meant, but now I think I don't know after all. What I thought it meant was a set of minimal primary corrections.

It sounds to me as though the process just as subjective as doing another set of primary out corrections- but as a facility gains institutional experience- something that becomes faster to implement. Basically it is in fact being done algorithmically (using LUTs), but the trim pass is used to skew the subjective choices towards the look of the specific film and keep away from a pure mechanical look.

Does that reflect a better understanding of what you said?

Not to put words in Jakes mouth but to simplify he's basically saying that the LUT to convert from a DCI - REC709 2.2 (for example) is not just plug and play and presto you have an exact match. The "trim pass" on top of the Transfer LUT attempts to get as close as possible to the highest quality deliverable ie your DCI master color in the REC 709 2.2 space. However, as he suggested, this is not a perfect science and although it may be very close to eye it can almost never be 100% accurate scientifically due to the unique variances of the different deliverables. That said, if done correctly it should still look like the same movie Hope that helps a bit.