[bnw]

Do the instructions there not work on current versions? I haven’t tried since 9.5 but it worked on that.

There’s a set I made here: http://www.fxguide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4287&highlight=icons

[bnw]

I thought it was quite amusing that I saw that Resolve performance quote in several places around the net, whereas FilmLight kept fairly quiet, just kinda “4k? Yeah… we already do that” 🙂

[bnw]

Guys, this is all excellent information but the original post was eight months ago now 🙂

[bnw]

Does animating the near and far focus points together not effectively give you a focus pull? Or are they not animateable…

You could do an animated CC on the depth matte… just lifting it up and down should move the point of focus?

[bnw]

No. Totally different architecture in every way to the newer PCs.

[bnw]

Well, if someone wants to give me some R&D time on a 2008 system… 😉

[bnw]

I expect Autodesk’s reader will get all of that good stuff in time 🙂

[bnw]

There was a Spark to import them but I’m afraid I haven’t updated it in a long time and it’s probably more trouble than it’s worth to get it working. I would convert them to DPX or SGI (or TIF or TGA…) using Shake, Nuke, Fusion, AfterEffects, XnView, GraphicsMagick or whatever you have 🙂

You might want to brighten them up before import to work with them in Flame… gamma of 2.2 or thereabouts 🙂

[bnw]

I’m pretty sure MXE can do up to 1920×1200, but you might not like the refresh rates. It can certainly do 1680×1050 at 60Hz, I made a format to run my LCD at that, you can get it here if you want it: http://lewissaunders.com/shite/wsxga.tar

[bnw]

You may be looking at the wrong DirtRemoval 🙂 Furnace has two – one has a red icon. You want the other one, with the grey-ish icon. It’s actually really easy to use – just click it and select a file sequence to clean up, then tweak the controls if needs be 🙂 There’s a good quick start section in the manual.

The one with the red icon has a million inputs and is a bit trickier, but it does the same thing.

[bnw]

memo;24005 wrote:

the eye’s perception of brightness – which is logarithmic – the brighter something is, the less sensitive the eye is too it – and interestingly, the same goes for film.

True up in the shoulder region, where highlights roll off gently, but the region around mid-grey is actually pretty darned linear. Otherwise we couldn’t be going back to linear in Shake or similar and getting more or less photometrically linear data. A nitpick I know 🙂

Otherwise excellent post, sir! Comforting to know people out there actually do understand this stuff!

[bnw]

I see confusion everywhere 🙂

Kodak could have used a gamma function to achieve the same thing, but I think they went with log because it tied in nicely with existing sensitometry. People have been using density-log-exposure curves since Victorian times. It’s nothing to do with the film response, which is actually measured as a continuously varying gamma function. Log was just for convenient graphing of the transfer function, but whatcha know, it’s a reasonable match for our perceptual luminance response so it works for compression too 🙂

I’m sure you’re right about the laser taking linear data in the end, but it’s all beside the point, really – as long as you maintain enough dynamic range through your various log-linear and LUT conversions, you’ll get a good result. Seems to me that what the facility is used to accepting into their pipeline is more important, and that’s usually log. You’re more likely to have problems through giving the operator something they don’t expect than from 10-bit mach banding or whatever…

Woo, old Navy photographic training manuals! http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14208/css/14208_41.htm

[bnw]

I’m really not sure about some things in that article… at the risk of starting yet another interminable discussion… 🙂

Quote:

But don’t assume that the 16.7 million colors are a sampling of the entire spectrum of color; you could choose to have 16 million shades of red, and the remainder in shades of blue. This wouldn’t buy you a very nice photorealistic image, but if you were really keen on red and blue, you would have some gorgeous tones.

Nothing technically incorrect there, but I’m not sure what the point is… you could have a colour space using primaries all around the blue and red areas but what would be the point? Maybe you could avoid some banding in really subtle gradients, but using more bits all round is the normal solution to that, not using a crazy colourspace. Something red, something blue and something green really are the obvious primaries for an additive tristimulus system.

Quote:

In a logarithmic color space, the same bits can be used to emphasize details in the white and black areas of an image.

Not really. Log curves emphasise the lower values at the expense of the higher ones. That graph is very strange, what’s the vertical axis showing? Why isn’t the line for linear straight? Is that gamma-encoding linear or photometrically linear?

Quote:

which is highly responsive in areas of extreme dark and light.

The reason film has smoother highlights is that it’s not very responsive up at the top end. You need a lot of light to saturate the emulsion to completely opaque. Progressively more and more as you go higher… the old darts bursting balloons as opposed to landing in buckets analogy 🙂

[bnw]

Should work on most anything. I use it on Slackware and had to winkle out a version of libc with the same ABI version which was annoying – I think it’d be happiest in a RedHat based distro.

[bnw]

There are limits – if you try and import an absolutely huge image (like make up a 16k plate in Photoshop) it’ll tell you what the largest size is. At least it did last I tried it. It was measured in total image size in bytes rather than dimensions so you might be able to go larger at 8bit than at 12?

[Author]

Posts