Web Post of the Week - CML reflector – It's the end of an era: The time of printed charts is over! (One among many interesting posts in a three week old thread about use of the iPad in the production set flow.)
On-Set colour management is my area of specialism and I would like to chip in to this discussion a little.
The iPad on-set is fantastic and whether we like it or not, we will see it being used on-set more and more. We carry iPads with our DIT stations and our clients love it. They do not want to work without it. And actually there is a way how to calibrate an iPad. Its image is close enough to REC709 and while one would not be grading on it - one can use it perfectly for image evaluation. What I love about iPad the most, is that they look the same. If we put 4 iPads next to each other they all look the same. The only thing that is bothering is screen brightness setting that changes automatically, so one has to keep checking where it stands throughout the day.
I have recently used an Epic shot feature I graded and have encoded from the best quality 4K DI source for new iPad - IMHO - It looks better than DCP. The amount of detail is amazing.
When it comes to on-set colour management, by reading Steve's response, one could get impression that the only tools available for on-set colour management are Mistika and Flip, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The job that Steve mentions is probably the only job that is using Mistika in this way ( in reality there are just few that can afford this workflow ). I would never choose Mistika for its colour grading tools. Last time I had a look at it it was still only 16-bit and the tools were designed, certainly not with colourist in mind. However, the development team behind Mistika is capable, and I am sure they could make improvements in that department as long as there is somebody there to guide them as to what colourist really needs.
When it comes to FLIP from Filmlight - great but to my knowledge, no one has ever seen it in action. I think that Filmlight are 2 years too late with it. The market segment they are after has now already deployed Colourfront and won't be changing that soon.
The first company to offer on-set colour management tools was Iridas. Speedgrade on-set was much ahead of its time and is still the most amazing tool when it comes to on-set looks. The new version is coming out on NAB and it is exciting one. Speedgrade was deployed for on-set look management on hundreds of projects already.
I have also great amount of respect for 3CP Tools. They are not much in use in Europe but I gather that our US colleagues are loving it.
What high end productions are going for at the moment is Colorfront. Their system is just the fastest one that I have had a chance to test and it is absolutely top of the game.
One should not forget Scratch Lab either. Since year or so they have implemented LUT export facility which has made this tool be more than just dailies processing.
What we deploy at our company is Davinci Resolve. With release of Free Resolve Lite, we are able to 'equip' DP with full grading system on their laptops. We install free software, calibrate their screens and preload looks we have created in our grading suite in addition to array of filter presets. Our DIT's use Resolve on Set as well and DPs can just with one click decide the look they want but even more. If it needs any tweaking it is still all there as the whole workflow is not limited to preset LUTs but Davinci metadata. It supports Arri LUTs, CDLs, various 3DLuts, etc.... We love simplicity of it and you can't beat the fact that is free.
DADO VALENTIC
chief therapist
London
www.mytherapy.tv
Web Post of the Week - [LinkedIn digital cinema technology]
An issue with the free availiability of open source DCP generation software is currency.
The servers (media blocks) in the cinema's across the world are not yet operating on the final SMPTE mastering standard they are working on a format called SMPTE interop.
There is a group called the ISDCF (Inter Society Digital Cinema Forum, this is a voluntary group which takes problems and issues arising in digital cinema and kind of preprocess them prior to formal standardisation. Although all the major manufacturers attend not many of the free open source guy's do. This means the open source guy's can be behind the curve. This causes a lot of trouble at festivals with non compliant DCP's not playing back.
If there is enough interest or manufacturers interested in sponsoring this event we could run it again. The Course tutors were myself and Jim Whittlsey Daddy DCP and operators from the manufacturers.
Last year my company ran three Digital Cinema Mastering courses for Skillset the UK film and TV training agency. We had representatives with equipment from Doremi, Qube, Dolby, DVS and Fraunhofer Institute (Easy DCP) The attendees were taught the detail theory on the first day (very important to have a foundation) and them produced real DCP's with each manufacturer on day two.The DCP's were then screened and evaluated at the UK British Film Institute.
I chair the Technical Support Group for the EDCF (European Digital Cinema Forum) I have coordinated several guides for the EDCF, there is a Digital Cinema mastering guide availiable as a pdf at http://www.edcf.net/articles.html. This is currently under revision and an update will be published in a few months time. C J Flynn (editor-DCinemaTools.com) is an active member of this group.
Web Post of the Week - [LinkedIn Digital Cinema Installers Forum]
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it – Leader Cinema Designs
You might want to look at Color Analyzers by Price
[Editor's note: These are not all spectroradiometers, which is what the DCI (and SMPTE and ISO) system specifications require. Nor is it a complete list since the cinema-centric company USL, Inc. isn't on there. But it is difficult to find Minolta and Photo Research prices, so Michael's link is especially valuable. The original thread was speaking about USL, so it isn't something that Michael left out.]
There you will find a wide range of products from the Konica Minolta CS 2000 at $28,350 USD, and PhotoResearch PR655 at $13,995 down to products in the $3,000 range for the consumer AV market.
Here are my observations on cost. The Digital Cinema biz IS serious business. The equipment to get that great picture onto the screen represents the current crowning achievement in digital (video) picture technology as we all know. The degree of sophistication is obviously many times greater than standard def TV. It is also miles above HDTV.
Not so long ago, when designing a TV studio or prost production facility, we would talk in terms of a "Video Unit". At that time, most high grade video boxes cost way more than $ 25,000. So a $ 100,000 VTR or Studio Color camera was 4 Video Units in terms of cost. A $ 25,000 box was almost a deal!
So here we are today with some squawking about the high cost of DCP / DCI compliant projection. The fact is, that it is costly! The performance is certainly there..and it is NOT HDTV, it is not e-Cinema…..but something considerably better.
It is this degree of sophistication, together with professionals such as yourself who realize the need for exceptionally accurate color calibration, that reinforces the requirement to invest in the gear to get the job done.
Today, $ 25,000 or One Video Unit if you like, is a bargain!
Cheers,
Michael Leader
[Editor's Note: The picture of Micheal with his Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Technical Emmy reminds your editor of another friend whose company efforts achieved one. Not only did they go to great efforts to deliver a great product to their clients, but the award ceremony itself cost them another 30 or 40 grand...they bought a couple tables at the dinner at 10 G's a pop, and then the party and bribing engineers to get in tuxes and limos and ...well, suffice to say that there is a lot of background and nuance behind every one of those statues.
Web Post of the Week - [LinkedIn AVB Forum] AVB Compatibility - Chris Pane of Lab X Technologies explains:
Background Questions: What software is used to configure AVB routing between devices? Is this inter-operable between manufacturers?
One of the great advantages of AVB is that all of the protocols that it uses are standardized and open. As a result, anyone has the ability to develop routing and control software for setting up AVB networks composed of devices from different manufacturers. The protocol that is used to setup AVB networks is IEEE 1722.1. This protocol presents a discovery, connection management and control mechanism for all AVB devices on a network.
So getting back to your questions:
1. What software is used to configure AVB routing between devices ?
a. I think you will see a combination of known/existing applications from manufacturers extended to include various degrees of 1722.1 control. A number of vendors are already shipping solutions for existing product lines and have mature, established control software for those products. I imagine those applications could/would be updated to support 1722.1.
b. The fact that IEEE1722.1 is a completely open standard will enable a new market of third parties to develop their own value-add controller applications. Thus a software company could easily develop an AVB control application that enables a customer to configure a diverse network of AVB devices, providing their own user experience/value add.
2. Is this inter-operable between manufacturers ?
One of the goals of AVB is the provide open, interoperable protocols. Of course, even with standards it is possible to make devices that don't "Just work". For example, I could make a device that only supports one particular audio format, and you a different one, both formats are valid AVB audio formats (thus following the AVB standards) but our device wouldn't talk. This of course is not optimal for the customer buying our two devices ! This is where the AVnu alliance comes into play. We (AVnu) are busy defining conformance and interoperability guidelines so that manufacturers can make devices, and have them AVnu certified thus ensuring interoperability. Information on the AVnu alliance can be found at www.avnu.org.
Web Post of the Week - [sf-cutters] Quicktime explained - Scott Koué explains:
Background: One of the cutters expressed the pain that he had sent working Quicktime files to clients, which some of them could play and some couldn't.
The core of your problem is that you and your clients and about 90% of the population misunderstand what QuickTime is. It's not your fault Apple is a big promoter of this mistake. QuickTime is not a "file type" in the way you are thinking. A "QuickTime" file is just a wrapper for a media file. The problem comes up because you can wrap just about anything in QuickTime. BUT you can only play a QuickTime file IF you can play the file that is inside the wrapper. What determines that is what "codecs" you have installed. So if you stick to codecs QuickTime installs by default, no problem. But if you create a file in a codec you have but your client doesn't, problem.
That is a bit long winded but it's important to understand that any file that QuickTime wants to open will have a QuickTime icon AND any file that has a .mov extension will have a QuickTime icon whether or not your installation of QuickTime can play it or not.
That is NOT the case usually with file types so it's very confusing to people who don't know the secret, QuickTime isn't a file type- it's a wrapper.
The solution is to use codecs you know your client can play. h.264 is a good bet, so is dv, mjpeg is another generally safe codec. What probably happened is that you were working in prores because it's nice to work in and out put a QuickTime file with out changing the codec and the client doesn't have prores (very likely because I believe you have to have installed FCP to get Prores on your system. It used to work that way anyway.
Bottom line is the solution is pretty simple but the core thing to remember is that "QuickTime file" really doesn't tell you anything except that on machine X QT thought it should open it. It could be video, audio or a still image or MIDI data. AND more importantly it tells you nothing about the codec and that is all you really care about.
Remembering this will also help with those "QuickTime" files people send you that you can't open. You can inspect the file and see what codec it's using and probably fine a QT plugin that will let you play the file.
Cheers
SK
Scott Koué
Web Page
IMDB
Noiz on Noise
Bug’n out of Babylon
Web Post of the Week - [cml-post] Viewing distance....
In most cases the best viewing distance in post is different to that for afinal theatrical environment.
In post you need to be well within the standard subtended angle to enableeasy viewing of the image while performing DI operations...For theatrical viewing the idea is to be close to the perfect position forimage emersion, so just within, or even just outside, the subtended angle.
The standard subtended angle is approx 30deg.
Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
+44 (0)7765 400 908
www.lightillusion.com
Skype: shaw.clan
I would argue that a good stereographer with a sufficient budget could convert a film and have it look superior to native capture. This is especially true with highly reflective and specular objects- use Transformers as an example. When Whitwicky meets Malkovich, the converted shots were not only more comfortable, but contained fewer rivalries, if any.
The only real artifact in that scene was the space-violation of his seat against his shoulders. Another great example is the bathroom scene and the double gun pull. This shot would have either been uncomfortable, or almost impossible with a native rig. Another example on trans is the introduction shot of Buzz Aldrin (I think that's who it was) which was brilliantly converted so the railing could be out of focus, then seamlessly cut to him shaking hands, which was native.
So - your thinking is a little backwards- converting to match "Native", is not only achievable, but potentially cheaper depending on the day cost to shoot. It works especially well if used in conjunction with native.
This argument breaks down at the end when the auto-bots are hanging out in the hideout. The guy on the chair had significant space-voilations and IMHO, the most egregious stereo shots in the film. This is when NATIVE, VFX and CONVERSION did not work at all, and the scene was visually confusing and stereoscopically wrong.
As far as techniques, it depends on the 2d3d vendor and their capabilities. Disparity/Depth Map creation does create a stereoscopic effect, however all of the depths must be generated by an artist by looking at the monocular cues. Even though this is an industry acceptable way to approach creating a synthetic eye, it's not only problematic but difficult to direct and correct when the artist is less than capable of decoding the cues. The advantage of projection and/or creating a depth-map from geometry z-space is that you get many nuances for "free".
Time and Economic Constraints should never compromise the quality. If it does, then we are jeopardizing the entire industry by turning audiences off to Stereo3D. I know many kids and young-adults that have already been turned off to 3D cinema because of a lack of quality control and uncomfortable or confusing stereo imagery.
As seen at LinkedIn Stereoscopic 3-D Professionals Worldwide by:
Anthony Shafer
Stereo Supervisor
STEREOBOX
Subscribe to RSS Feed