No clue why you presumed I didn't watch the gif. Of course I watched it!
Like 20 times. Because it kept changing images before I could finish reading any of them, or consider what was shown. And I am, compared to the average bear, a very fast reader.
Still, I can think of several different questions that could be asked or implied from the text plus images of the gif. Hence my request for clarity.
I don't like making assumptions. And trying to answer an assumption seems silly.
I will note that several high end colorists about handed me my head over comments I made, that perhaps seemed to be considering an algorithmic transform to be essentially the same as a high quality LUT.
Technically, LUTs are a table of values where X becomes Y. For say a 33 point LUT, there are only the 33 actual points, and between them there are "simple" extrapolated actions.
Whereas an algorithmic process is a mathematical one for every data point. With the ability to build in changing slopes and separable curves per color.
I do know they have several algorithms, designed and used for different specific media. Each different algorithm applies different processes for dynamic range and for color space transforms, specific to that media.
I've pushed quite a range of media through this process for several months now. I've also communicated about this with a noted teaching colorist who has also run this through the wringer and compared data versus his outboard scopes and Resolve.
His comment: "It all works as it should, just weird how it's presented."
From my testing, that seems both fair and accurate. I am at times puzzled because the few controls we have seem to do different things depending on the media involved and how other controls are set.
And the naming is odd. "Override-to" for instance. In some cases it may be a simple equivalent of setting a metadata or NCLC tag, but in others seems to set a transform in process.
Plus they haven't said anything about the internal processes, other than it's always in 32 bit float mathematically.
So I presume that the working color space is actually set in the Sequence setting dialog. To whatever you select.
And that Interpret Footage and Preferences settings combined with the Sequence auto-tonemapping setting are what guide Premiere on which transform to use from clip color space to Sequence space.
And I'm presuming that as before, the export process starts with original clip data, then applies the chosen effects in order from the sequence, then mathematically creates the new image frames.
Their algorithms seem designed to get all DR data transferred within say Rec.709 without clipping or crushing, and as much color data as can be smoothed into a smaller space. And seem to work.
The algorithms seem to be designed more for "safe" transport of data, and to get a decent starting point for further color work, than for "pretty". They're not there to mimic any say Arri log to Rec.709 LUT.
And that's all any of us non-staffers can really know at this time.
Neil
5
Replies
AdChoices
