Web Analytics
   Date   

NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

Art Adams
 

>I think there’s a very simple solution for the problematic highlights in HDR. “Default White”.

 

In linear terms, this is basically 2-2.5 stops brighter than middle gray. Beyond that, you’re in HDR territory.

 

And below about 3-4 stops under middle gray, the same applies.

 

The material is still going to vary depending on the max nit value of the TV, the HDR processing (Dolby vs. HDR10 vs. HLG vs. whatever else catches on), but +2/-3 is already what we perceive by eye as matte white and matte black, so that’s the “safe zone.” That’s Rec 709 territory. That’s the meat. Beyond that is the seasoning.

 

 

Art Adams

Cinema Lens Specialist

 

 

ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone:  (818) 841-7070
Fax:     (818) 848-4028

Get all the latest information from www.arri.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

 

 


This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.




This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com


Re: NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

Mark Kenfield
 

I think there’s a very simple solution for the problematic highlights in HDR. “Default White”.

By default highlights are mapped to something comparable in brightness to 100 IRE in Rec709 (i.e. the same comfortable level of brightness we (and more importantly audiences) are used to. 

Then expanding highlights into the dazzling brightness levels of HDR becomes a purely selective process. For example, if you want to dazzle the audience as a character breaks out of a house into the searing sun, then you boost the levels just in that sequence, the audience gets to feel that glare, and then you can fade the brightness back down to a comfortable level as the character’s eyes adapt.

The storytelling possibilities of HDR are fantastic. But digging into them (especially with how distracting the highlights can become) needs to be a purely selective process. The defaults should all be at more conventional levels.

Cheers,

Mark Kenfield 
Cinematographer 

0400 044 500

On 12 Oct 2019, at 4:20 pm, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

/rant on

 

I think that barely competent cinematographers have been getting away with murder recently and HDR is showing who they are.

There is a series on Amazon that has really distracting highlights in nearly every shot and the day interiors have windows so bright that you can’t help but look at them rather than the actors. This is going to be far far worse in HDR.

Of course, as has been said, if people looked at the brightness of lamps and windows and balanced the shot, isn’t that part of our job?, there wouldn’t be a problem.

What’s the issue with putting ND gel inside shades on the side that face camera?

We’ve always known that the way to focus attention on a particular actor is to make them slightly brighter than everyone else. Your eye goes straight to the brightest one.

It’s just a case of doing your job. As for monitoring, well there isn’t an affordable solution at the moment and anyway you will need a controlled environment and time to adjust to it. The simple solution is eyes, experience and a meter.

 

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Art Adams
Sent: 11 October 2019 19:22
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: [cml-raw-log-hdr] NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

 

>So perversely, I’m now doing the opposite of what a lot of previous exposure doctrine lead me to do, that is to underexposure or expose for highlights, to try and protect them more, unless they’re windows, in which case I try and make them visually cleaner and that there’s nothing embarrassing out there that would have been hidden away in SDR.

 

The trick is that noise plays a bigger role now, as it’s more easily seen. Also, colorists tend to say that rich blacks are disturbing in HDR so they try to avoid them and leave a little bit of detail way down at the bottom of the curve, which is where noise lie.

 

The rule of thumb I’ve heard is to divide the EI by 2 to keep the noise down, but of course that robs your highlights.

 

>One other way to go would be to abandon lighting  and using pracs so much, treat it like we used to in the film days where pracs lights are justification for “real” lights and bring the levels up.  Seems perverse to work that way, that HDR needs you to raise the levels, to effectively LOWER the DR so that it all fits in a narrow exposure band.

 

This is what I’ve suspected for a while. Bright practicals in the frame are distracting, so making them less distracting means making them dimmer. A practical in Rec 709 is never going to be brighter than middle gray plus two stops because that’s all the standard will allow, but in the real world and HDR that’s just a white lamp shade exposed to be flat white. Any brighter than that and it starts to look like an actual lit lamp, but it also becomes distracting.

 

In the real world we tune that stuff out. Put a frame around the real world, though, and the distraction level increases. It seems that as we focus our attention, the things that surround that area of focus can get in the way of what we’re focusing on.

 

I’ve been waiting to see what happens to trends in lighting and lenses due to HDR, and I’m surprised we haven’t seen a shift in photographic styles yet. I do think it’s coming.

 

The big question is… it’s fairly easy to be abstract in Rec 709, in the same way that one could get away with quite a lot in NTSC and PAL. Limited dynamic range and resolution means one can use a broader brush, or a lighter hammer, to craft artistic and compelling looks. That becomes more difficult as the image approaches what we see in reality.

 

>I will say I LOVE the look of HDR.  It’s subtle, nuanced, colour perception is more discrete.  I think it’s a great step forward, much more so that adding more resolution.  But it’s a tricky one to come to terms with and I’m finding it challenging to work with, especially as you can’t really know what it’s going to look like till the grade….err…just like film :-)

 

It's a big leap forward, but such leaps come with learning curves. They also lead to massive opportunities in the long run.

 

 

Art Adams

Cinema Lens Specialist

 

 

ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone:  (818) 841-7070
Fax:     (818) 848-4028

Get all the latest information from www.arri.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

 

 

 

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.

 


This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com



Gemini Man

Geoff Boyle
 

I saw this movie in Dolby Cinema HFR yesterday. I wouldn’t have normally gone to a movie like this, it’s one I may have watched on Netflix but in this case I wanted to check out the technology.

 

I’ll get to HFR in a moment but first I didn’t have the issues with CG that most reviewers seem to have had. I though that the younger Will Smith was well done. Yes, in a few sequences he looked a bit odd but they were sequences that even with a “real” actor would probably have looked odd because they were so unreal in terms of action.

 

The HDR was great, Dolby Cinema rarely fails to impress me.

 

The 3D was way too much, disparity was far too much and as a result the 3D was exaggerated and uncomfortable.

 

The HFR, I tried to find out whether it was 60 or 120 and was told it was 120, was awful. It looked like BBC studio TV uprezzed from HD to 4K in terms of sharpness and overall look. Just awful.

 

A side effect was that I ended up suffering motion sickness. After any sequence with fast moving action and/or fast tilts/pans I felt distinctly queasy and particularly after the bike chase sequence was sweating in the way that you do just before you vomit.

 

I would have left then but I felt that I should try and stick it out to see if I could! Luckily this was the worst sequence and I didn’t hurl on the people in front of me.

 

My advice, wait to see it on Netflix where it will be an average thriller.

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 


Re: NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

Geoff Boyle
 

/rant on

 

I think that barely competent cinematographers have been getting away with murder recently and HDR is showing who they are.

There is a series on Amazon that has really distracting highlights in nearly every shot and the day interiors have windows so bright that you can’t help but look at them rather than the actors. This is going to be far far worse in HDR.

Of course, as has been said, if people looked at the brightness of lamps and windows and balanced the shot, isn’t that part of our job?, there wouldn’t be a problem.

What’s the issue with putting ND gel inside shades on the side that face camera?

We’ve always known that the way to focus attention on a particular actor is to make them slightly brighter than everyone else. Your eye goes straight to the brightest one.

It’s just a case of doing your job. As for monitoring, well there isn’t an affordable solution at the moment and anyway you will need a controlled environment and time to adjust to it. The simple solution is eyes, experience and a meter.

 

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Art Adams
Sent: 11 October 2019 19:22
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: [cml-raw-log-hdr] NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

 

>So perversely, I’m now doing the opposite of what a lot of previous exposure doctrine lead me to do, that is to underexposure or expose for highlights, to try and protect them more, unless they’re windows, in which case I try and make them visually cleaner and that there’s nothing embarrassing out there that would have been hidden away in SDR.

 

The trick is that noise plays a bigger role now, as it’s more easily seen. Also, colorists tend to say that rich blacks are disturbing in HDR so they try to avoid them and leave a little bit of detail way down at the bottom of the curve, which is where noise lie.

 

The rule of thumb I’ve heard is to divide the EI by 2 to keep the noise down, but of course that robs your highlights.

 

>One other way to go would be to abandon lighting  and using pracs so much, treat it like we used to in the film days where pracs lights are justification for “real” lights and bring the levels up.  Seems perverse to work that way, that HDR needs you to raise the levels, to effectively LOWER the DR so that it all fits in a narrow exposure band.

 

This is what I’ve suspected for a while. Bright practicals in the frame are distracting, so making them less distracting means making them dimmer. A practical in Rec 709 is never going to be brighter than middle gray plus two stops because that’s all the standard will allow, but in the real world and HDR that’s just a white lamp shade exposed to be flat white. Any brighter than that and it starts to look like an actual lit lamp, but it also becomes distracting.

 

In the real world we tune that stuff out. Put a frame around the real world, though, and the distraction level increases. It seems that as we focus our attention, the things that surround that area of focus can get in the way of what we’re focusing on.

 

I’ve been waiting to see what happens to trends in lighting and lenses due to HDR, and I’m surprised we haven’t seen a shift in photographic styles yet. I do think it’s coming.

 

The big question is… it’s fairly easy to be abstract in Rec 709, in the same way that one could get away with quite a lot in NTSC and PAL. Limited dynamic range and resolution means one can use a broader brush, or a lighter hammer, to craft artistic and compelling looks. That becomes more difficult as the image approaches what we see in reality.

 

>I will say I LOVE the look of HDR.  It’s subtle, nuanced, colour perception is more discrete.  I think it’s a great step forward, much more so that adding more resolution.  But it’s a tricky one to come to terms with and I’m finding it challenging to work with, especially as you can’t really know what it’s going to look like till the grade….err…just like film :-)

 

It's a big leap forward, but such leaps come with learning curves. They also lead to massive opportunities in the long run.

 

 

Art Adams

Cinema Lens Specialist

 

 

ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone:  (818) 841-7070
Fax:     (818) 848-4028

Get all the latest information from www.arri.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

 

 

 

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.

 


This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com



NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

Art Adams
 

>So perversely, I’m now doing the opposite of what a lot of previous exposure doctrine lead me to do, that is to underexposure or expose for highlights, to try and protect them more, unless they’re windows, in which case I try and make them visually cleaner and that there’s nothing embarrassing out there that would have been hidden away in SDR.

 

The trick is that noise plays a bigger role now, as it’s more easily seen. Also, colorists tend to say that rich blacks are disturbing in HDR so they try to avoid them and leave a little bit of detail way down at the bottom of the curve, which is where noise lie.

 

The rule of thumb I’ve heard is to divide the EI by 2 to keep the noise down, but of course that robs your highlights.

 

>One other way to go would be to abandon lighting  and using pracs so much, treat it like we used to in the film days where pracs lights are justification for “real” lights and bring the levels up.  Seems perverse to work that way, that HDR needs you to raise the levels, to effectively LOWER the DR so that it all fits in a narrow exposure band.

 

This is what I’ve suspected for a while. Bright practicals in the frame are distracting, so making them less distracting means making them dimmer. A practical in Rec 709 is never going to be brighter than middle gray plus two stops because that’s all the standard will allow, but in the real world and HDR that’s just a white lamp shade exposed to be flat white. Any brighter than that and it starts to look like an actual lit lamp, but it also becomes distracting.

 

In the real world we tune that stuff out. Put a frame around the real world, though, and the distraction level increases. It seems that as we focus our attention, the things that surround that area of focus can get in the way of what we’re focusing on.

 

I’ve been waiting to see what happens to trends in lighting and lenses due to HDR, and I’m surprised we haven’t seen a shift in photographic styles yet. I do think it’s coming.

 

The big question is… it’s fairly easy to be abstract in Rec 709, in the same way that one could get away with quite a lot in NTSC and PAL. Limited dynamic range and resolution means one can use a broader brush, or a lighter hammer, to craft artistic and compelling looks. That becomes more difficult as the image approaches what we see in reality.

 

>I will say I LOVE the look of HDR.  It’s subtle, nuanced, colour perception is more discrete.  I think it’s a great step forward, much more so that adding more resolution.  But it’s a tricky one to come to terms with and I’m finding it challenging to work with, especially as you can’t really know what it’s going to look like till the grade….err…just like film :-)

 

It's a big leap forward, but such leaps come with learning curves. They also lead to massive opportunities in the long run.

 

 

Art Adams

Cinema Lens Specialist

 

 

ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone:  (818) 841-7070
Fax:     (818) 848-4028

Get all the latest information from www.arri.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

 

 


This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.




This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com


Re: NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

Video Assist Hungary
 

John Brawley wrote:
I’ve been exposing “to the left”
That got me thinking.
I bought my first camera, a Canon Rebel, in 2005 from my first film job (as a boom op). It’s bad DR was complimented by terrible black rolloff. There, I learned to ‘expose to the right’ with the explanation that the more exposed parts got more bit depth in the raw files. It really helped, but I never got (or rather researched) the underlying math.

Does it hold true for modern cinema cameras? It should, really...

Balázs Rozgonyi
CEO Video Assist Hungary


NOW HDR, was 8K Samsung TVs

John Brawley
 

Bringing this over from CML General….


On Oct 10, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Art Adams <aadams@...> wrote:

I think it’s safe to assume that every show that has any sort of intended lifespan is going to go through an HDR finish. The problem, of course, is that no one is monitoring HDR on set. If this were the case, I’d be curious as to what kind of changes this would force.

Yeah.  Doing my first HDR (and Dolby vision) mandated show right now and realised there really isn’t a good way to look at HDR on set.

Like nothing at all, sort of a full suite with a Sony 300, which no-one wants to do.

I did see some lovely Canon HDR monitors the other day that had eye watering price tags….Again for studio suite, not for the field though. 

Michael C from Panavision before he left told me they were working on a monitoring solution for set but I never got to try it out.  HDR Link I think they call it.

I was wondering about getting one of the consumer TV panels but I didn’t get far down that path.




If HDR takes off, and it likely will, it’s probably going to force some changes in production in the areas of lighting and optics. I’m curious as to whether anyone else agrees.



Well, the show I’m doing right now is a period (1760’s) and on stage, all the lighting is either pracs candles, in frame everywhere, or hot windows with sheers for daylight.

Hot candles in foreground.  Hot candles in background.  

It’s a nightmare.  

One thing I realised in my tests is that we have a lot of DR with modern cameras, so I’ve been exposing “to the left” or rather underexposing the middle a bit, and trying to protect the highlights more.  Almost exposing for the highlights really.

This means in HDR the candle flames, instead of clipping out and going white hot crazy, retain a little more colour, and therefore don’t look as naturally clipped.  I then drag up the midtowns though the grade, or trying to light them up a little.

It looks so much nicer and natural in HDR to have a little of that detail in the highlights.

For windows, I let them sit as clipped, but the clip level is dropped to say 500 nits (1000 being the clipping standard in the grade suite I’m in) so they may burn, but not as bright hopefully. But I used to get away with lights in shot and crappy day white textiles outside of windows.  Not any more.  You can see it all.

So perversely, I’m now doing the opposite of what a lot of previous exposure doctrine lead me to do, that is to underexposure or expose for highlights, to try and protect them more, unless they’re windows, in which case I try and make them visually cleaner and that there’s nothing embarrassing out there that would have been hidden away in SDR.

It seems the other approach is to also give up the extra DR and stretch everything out as well, but set a lower clipping point but that does seem less satisfying a result, basically scaling a SDR grade into HDR.

One other way to go would be to abandon lighting  and using pracs so much, treat it like we used to in the film days where pracs lights are justification for “real” lights and bring the levels up.  Seems perverse to work that way, that HDR needs you to raise the levels, to effectively LOWER the DR so that it all fits in a narrow exposure band.

I will say I LOVE the look of HDR.  It’s subtle, nuanced, colour perception is more discrete.  I think it’s a great step forward, much more so that adding more resolution.  But it’s a tricky one to come to terms with and I’m finding it challenging to work with, especially as you can’t really know what it’s going to look like till the grade….err…just like film :-)

JB


John Brawley
Cinematographer
Los Angeles 
Currently London on The Great Season 1






Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Philip Holland
 

Expanding on OLPFs a bit for those who don't think about them much.

Many focus on producing cleaner images these days.  Which is why the Low Light Optimized and Standard OLPFs are pretty common, but for those looking to get "the best color" out of Monstro, give the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF a whirl.

Each Filter blocks, reflects, or absorbs IR and UV light differently as well as effecting the underlying Color Science Calibration.  The cameras these days detect which OLPF so it's pretty transparent to the filmmaker.  Since they are blocking incoming light they have an effect on image texture/noise/grain for a given ISO Rating.  Interestingly the calibration of each works well across all the various sensor RED has on the market.  However, you'll find some sensor might be less noisy with some of these filters than you'd expect.  For instance the STH on Monstro is cleaner than Dragon due to the sensor's native color.

LLO = Least IR and Light Blocking, cleanest at higher ISO ratings.  Most prone to internal reflections.
Standard = Fairly close in transmission to the LLO, but with slightly better color.
STH = Best color, but blocks the most light hitting the sensor. Least prone to internal reflections.

Personally I haven't used the Low Light OLPF in some time. Mostly the Standard and Skin Tone - Highlight Filters since about Dragon.  If you are shooting into darkness, the LLO will certainly have it's place.

There are 3rd party OLPFs from places like KipperTie with diffusion built in for a behind the lens "always on" effect.  Those are being used on a couple shows.

-----------------
Phil Holland - Cinematographer
http://www.phfx.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0390802/
818 470 0623


From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> on behalf of Bob Kertesz <bob@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2019 11:24 AM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro
 
"The filters provide an infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) cut that improves color clarity and reduces noise and IR contamination."

In general, IR cut filters are notoriously tricky to get right.

Cut too much in the IR spectrum, and red reproduction is affected.

As was noted by Pawel in his post with the color triangles.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Bob Kertesz
 

"The filters provide an infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) cut that improves color clarity and reduces noise and IR contamination."

In general, IR cut filters are notoriously tricky to get right.

Cut too much in the IR spectrum, and red reproduction is affected.

As was noted by Pawel in his post with the color triangles.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Ben Tubb
 

From dxl.panavision.com:

A custom color correction filter made with a high-precision design and manufacturing process, PX Pro provides a significant increase in color separation and greater color precision. The filters provide an infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) cut that improves color clarity and reduces noise and IR contamination. The characteristics are most notably demonstrated in lens flares and highlights, resulting in a cleaner image that enables for more creative control. The optical and electronic elements of the PX Pro work together with the Panavision glass, RED V V sensor, and Light Iron Color 2 to create a look completely unique to DXL2.”

Thanks,
Benjamin Tubb
A-Cam 1st AC - The Haunting of Bly Manor
604-908-5219


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

daveblackham@...
 

Any clues what the PX Pro OLPF is rated at for ISO and any characteristics it might or might not offer ?

Dave Blackham
Esprit Film and Television UK


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Ben Tubb
 

I’m fairly certain the DXL2 uses a custom proprietary OLPF Panavision calls “PX Pro”.

Thanks,
Benjamin Tubb
A-Cam 1st AC - The Haunting of Bly Manor
Vancouver, BC
604-908-5219
benjamin.tubb@...


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Phil Holland wrote: What OLPF was inside both cameras Pawel?”

 

Good question, Phil.

The DXL2 metadata say Low Light Optimised, but might have been replaced by custom Panavision OLPF, not sure.

The Monstro was Standard OLPF.

 

cheers,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

 


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

John Brawley
 

Hi Jonathon. 

I recently did a lot of testing with the DXL2 for a series and in the end made a different choice.

I have tested DXL1 previously and would say that there’s a huge improvement with the DXL2, especially under (real) tungsten lighting. 

The show I’m currently doing has a lot of candles and fire light and that’s what swayed me away from DXL2 in the end. 

As I understand it there’s nothing different inside the camera per se with regards to imaging, but they are working on a Panavision designed OLPF to replace the stock one. I believe it’s late being delivered. 

I was offered a more customised OLPF for the particular issues I was seeing in my tests to try out but we had to make a choice by that point. 

I actually tested Alexa 65, Sony Venice and DXL2 alonside each other and they all had their strengths. 

JB


John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK


Agent US :
Innovative Artists

Representation :
Stacey Testro Int.



On Oct 5, 2019 at 12:43 AM, <Jonathon Sendall> wrote:

Does anybody know if there is a colour science (or any other colour difference) between the DXL Millennium 2 and the Red Monstro on which the DXL 2 is based?

cheers

Jonathon Sendall
DP, London UK


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Philip Holland
 

What OLPF was inside both cameras Pawel?

Phil

-----------------
Phil Holland - Cinematographer
http://www.phfx.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0390802/
818 470 0623


From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> on behalf of Pawel Achtel ACS via Cml.News <pawel.achtel=24x7.com.au@...>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 5:09 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro
 

Jonathon Sendall wrote: “…is there any jiggery pokery before RAW gets dropped into any NLE or colour grading scenario…”


I compared colour gamuts and colour accuracy of both cameras and there appears to be some differences as well as common traits.

 

The test was performed using IPP2 pipeline, REDWideGamutRGB using RCX and outputting REC2020 to monitor.

Both sensors were exposed to all visible monochromatic spectrum projected directly on the sensors using laboratory-grade monochromator, which is much more accurate than using colour charts.

 

Both cameras reproduced greens and cyans significantly de-saturated compared to REC2020 target.  Monstro appears to have slightly deeper, more saturated greens.

Monstro covered REC709 green saturation, whereas DXL2 didn’t. None of the cameras could achieve P3-DCI saturation of greens and fell way short of target REC-2020 green saturation.

 

Saturation as well as accuracy of blue colours was very good on both cameras.

 

Colour shifts in DXL2 were significantly larger than Monstro’s, turning red colours into magentas (line of magentas in CIE should be clear in an ideal case).

Below are CIE 1931 chromacity diagrams of all visible monochromatic colours reproduced by both cameras: Monstro and DXL2 respectively.

 

Figure 1RED Monstro

Figure 2Panavision DXL2

Below, vector scope outputs. In ideal scenario, the scope should resemble a pizza with magenta slice entirely missing (because magenta is not a monochromatic colour). Clearly visible is a shift of red towards magenta as well as desaturated greens observed on CIE chromacity diagrams.

 

Figure 3RED Monstro

Figure 4Panavision DXL2

Another problem we encountered was with RCX in that it significantly affected the colour vector as well as saturation of monochromatic colours with colour temperature adjustment.

In an ideal world, monochromatic colours should be invariant to colour temperature change, but this doesn’t appear to hold true in RCX (presumably a bug).

 

Hope it helps.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

 


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Jonathon Sendall wrote: “…is there any jiggery pokery before RAW gets dropped into any NLE or colour grading scenario…”


I compared colour gamuts and colour accuracy of both cameras and there appears to be some differences as well as common traits.

 

The test was performed using IPP2 pipeline, REDWideGamutRGB using RCX and outputting REC2020 to monitor.

Both sensors were exposed to all visible monochromatic spectrum projected directly on the sensors using laboratory-grade monochromator, which is much more accurate than using colour charts.

 

Both cameras reproduced greens and cyans significantly de-saturated compared to REC2020 target.  Monstro appears to have slightly deeper, more saturated greens.

Monstro covered REC709 green saturation, whereas DXL2 didn’t. None of the cameras could achieve P3-DCI saturation of greens and fell way short of target REC-2020 green saturation.

 

Saturation as well as accuracy of blue colours was very good on both cameras.

 

Colour shifts in DXL2 were significantly larger than Monstro’s, turning red colours into magentas (line of magentas in CIE should be clear in an ideal case).

Below are CIE 1931 chromacity diagrams of all visible monochromatic colours reproduced by both cameras: Monstro and DXL2 respectively.

 

Figure 1RED Monstro

Figure 2Panavision DXL2

Below, vector scope outputs. In ideal scenario, the scope should resemble a pizza with magenta slice entirely missing (because magenta is not a monochromatic colour). Clearly visible is a shift of red towards magenta as well as desaturated greens observed on CIE chromacity diagrams.

 

Figure 3RED Monstro

Figure 4Panavision DXL2

Another problem we encountered was with RCX in that it significantly affected the colour vector as well as saturation of monochromatic colours with colour temperature adjustment.

In an ideal world, monochromatic colours should be invariant to colour temperature change, but this doesn’t appear to hold true in RCX (presumably a bug).

 

Hope it helps.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

 


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Jonathon Sendall
 

That’s good to know Phillip thanks. 

In in the main I'm looking for any possible colour shift between the two rather than anything else.

Jonthon Sendall
DP, London UK


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Philip Holland
 

The Panavision DXL2 Monstro and RED Monstro 8K VV DSMC2 as well as Ranger Monstro 8K VV all produce the same image if working straight through RED's IPP2 workflow, i.e. the same image.

However!  Panavision doesn't use what is known as ISO Calibration 2, which can be checked in the metadata of your clip.  So basically ISO 800 on a RED Monstro camera will be about 1 stop brighter than the Panavision DXL2 Monstro at ISO 800.  That might even change at some point, but that's the current way they are doing it.

Besides that, pay attention to what OLPF is in the camera.  Most DXL2 shoots are using the Low Light Optimized OLPF, but you have access to RED's other OLPFs like the Standard and Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF as well as Panavision's own custom OLPF.

Hope that helps,

Phil

-----------------
Phil Holland - Cinematographer
http://www.phfx.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0390802/
818 470 0623


From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> on behalf of Jonathon Sendall via Cml.News <jpsendall=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 3:52 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro
 
Sorry I should be a bit clearer. I don’t mean in terms of what Light Iron Colour 2 can do to the image but in the RAW pipeline from both cameras, is there any jiggery pokery before RAW gets dropped into any NLE or colour grading scenario.

Jonathon Sendall
DP, London UK


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Jonathon Sendall
 

Sorry I should be a bit clearer. I don’t mean in terms of what Light Iron Colour 2 can do to the image but in the RAW pipeline from both cameras, is there any jiggery pokery before RAW gets dropped into any NLE or colour grading scenario.

Jonathon Sendall
DP, London UK


Re: DXL Millennium and 8K Monstro

Rakesh Malik
 

From what I understand, Light Iron has built its own look for the Millenium cameras that does differ from the "stock" Monstro look. I think it's essentially an in camera color grade rather than some proprietary technology, and it's available for Red cameras as part of the Panavision accessory kit for Red.

This is however based on articles from Panavision and Red, and chatting with Michael Cioni at Cinegear rather than personal experience, as I haven't had an opportunity to use a Millenium DXL except in Panavision's booth.

-----------------------------


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:43 PM Jonathon Sendall <jpsendall@...> wrote:
Does anybody know if there is a colour science (or any other colour difference) between the DXL Millennium 2 and the Red Monstro on which the DXL 2 is based?

cheers

Jonathon Sendall
DP, London UK

561 - 580 of 1983