Monitor calibration/profiling for video applications
Over the last year or so I've been focusing on learning more and more about working on the video side of the industry (after 20 years as a high end retoucher) and have noticed their approach to color management is markedly different than the stills/print side I've worked in for so many years. It seems on the video side they rely much more on LUTs instead of ICC profiles and argue that their approach delivers a consistency and accuracy un-achievable through the ICC approach. Here are a couple of links to software products that seem to be adopting this approach: http://studio.spectracal.com/calmanstudio.html http://www.lightillusion.com/lightspace.html In the case of Lightillusion's Lightspace product I had a brief exchange with the head guy on their forums in which he insisted their approach was vastly superior to the ICC approach I am more familiar with, yet he failed to offer any specifics that really explained why to me. Is anyone else familiar with the different approaches to color management? And if so could you help clear up the fog for me? (Do they really have something there, or are they just blowing smoke?) Thanks! Dennis Dunbar
Dennis Dunbar wrote:
Is anyone else familiar with the different approaches to color management? And if so could you help clear up the fog for me? (Do they really have something there, or are they just blowing smoke?)
Mostly blowing smoke :-) Typically Video and Film are aiming at a very specific sub set of general color management: Emulation of a particular standard. The print equivalent is side by side proofing. So most of the talk is about calibration (ie. making a display device behave in a specified way). ICC profiling is more general and flexible, and provides a mechanism for actually achieving the color management sub set desired by video or film. Another key difference between Video/Film and general color management is the mechanics used to transform color. Computer systems can use software, which is very flexible but not necessarily real time. Video/Film often have either very simple hardware controls (ie. "brightness" and "contrast" knobs. "RGBCMY" primary controls that don't work so well, per channel curves etc.) or the high end actually has hardware capable of per channel, matrix and 3D cLUT transforms (ie. all the machinery ICC profiles use). What's loaded into the 3D cLUT is the equivalent of a device link. (Note though that real time computer color CMM's can be implemented using GPU's.) Graeme Gill.
Hi to all, Graeme's comments, as usual, are spot on. I work with the ICC and have worked with the Academy on issues of color management, so I think that I can speak with experience in both camps. The greatest differences between the film workflows and graphic arts workflows fall in areas of white point assumptions and total system dynamic range. Another area that is also common is the need to maintain a subjective "look and feel" across multiple media. The largest population of users of serious ICC technology are "by the numbers" guys. A great deal of effort is spent making output devices behave in a more or less standard manner with definitions of primary, secondary colors and tone response curves. The device links that Graeme refers to are tables that resolve predicted color differences between device and an assumed standard input in device coordinates. This is exactly the same as the technology described by the troll you spoke with. The motion picture industry tends to be driven by perceptual intent. Certainly, in video situations, real time editing is done and the ASC (cinematographers) have a standard set of controls that are simple, but defined to convey the intent of the director or cinematographer to the next stage of production.
From a display calibration standpoint, there are two very important factors in video and mp applications that generally don't exist in ICC applications. First there are two distinct standards that are generally used in these applications: Rec. 709 and DCI-P3. These are two prevailing output assumptions. Displays used in video applications often use a Serial Data Interface (SDI) which guarantees that each display receives exactly the same data. This means that these displays must contain hardware calibration capabilities inside the display. This same requirement is developing for video walls and ON-set applications where multiple folks have to see the same image, but are not physical proximity. This means that the calibration hardware transform is built into the display. Many high end displays have this capability and you will soon see it in low cost LCD displays as well. These transform engines in the display generally are 14+bits and use either table lut or lut-matrix architectures to transform the native display primaries to the required working space requirements. These are exactly analogous to the Device Link that Graeme refers to.
Modern display calibration is far more common between video, motion picture and graphic arts than ever before. The physical difference between displays is driven more by the physics of the display than any color management style. The motion picture applications push towards very wide dynamic range and the graphic arts applications push towards lower contrast ratios. This difference is aimed primarily at the differences in destination media. There certainly is a lot of hubris in the Video and Motion Picture camp, but in the end, the approaches to get to the final result are far more common than different. Regards, Tom Lianza On 8/15/12 10:30 PM, "Graeme Gill" <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Dennis Dunbar wrote:
Is anyone else familiar with the different approaches to color management? And if so could you help clear up the fog for me? (Do they really have something there, or are they just blowing smoke?)
Mostly blowing smoke :-) Typically Video and Film are aiming at a very specific sub set of general color management: Emulation of a particular standard. The print equivalent is side by side proofing. So most of the talk is about calibration (ie. making a display device behave in a specified way). ICC profiling is more general and flexible, and provides a mechanism for actually achieving the color management sub set desired by video or film.
Another key difference between Video/Film and general color management is the mechanics used to transform color. Computer systems can use software, which is very flexible but not necessarily real time. Video/Film often have either very simple hardware controls (ie. "brightness" and "contrast" knobs. "RGBCMY" primary controls that don't work so well, per channel curves etc.) or the high end actually has hardware capable of per channel, matrix and 3D cLUT transforms (ie. all the machinery ICC profiles use). What's loaded into the 3D cLUT is the equivalent of a device link. (Note though that real time computer color CMM's can be implemented using GPU's.)
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/tlianza%40xrite.com
This email sent to tlianza@xrite.com
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email or any attachments.
The question was not about video capture systems, but the color management schemes used in the motion industry. My research shows they have a very different take on how to manage the appearance of images on monitors and I'm wondering if indeed their system is better or not. My experience with color management for the stills/print industry tells me that most of what I'm reading from the vendors on the video side is incorrect, but I want to be sure. Thanks! Dennis Dunbar Blog: http://www.dunbardigital.com/blog/blog.php Website: http://www.dunbardigital.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/DennisDunbar On Aug 16, 2012, at 5:41 AM, José Ángel Bueno García wrote:
What kind of video capture sistem have in mind?
participants (4)
-
Dennis Dunbar
-
Graeme Gill
-
José Ángel Bueno García
-
THOMAS A LIANZA