Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member SJX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    974
    Default
    I don't use ACES. I keep it simple. Film, try some luts, keep what I like. I tried ACES posted here once I think by film scientist. Long ago. I remember it was a bit complicated. Just curious if you also tried and what you thought.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    258
    Default
    The current version of resolve has a slog idt for aces built in, as for me aces has been the best workflow I have foundso far.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member SJX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    974
    Default
    Do you use film scientist's workflow posted?


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member rbirnbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    213
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by dhessel View Post
    The current version of resolve has a slog idt for aces built in, as for me aces has been the best workflow I have foundso far.
    Didn’t know that. Got to try it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member rbirnbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    213
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by SJX View Post
    Do you use film scientist's workflow posted?

    I assume he doesn’t. The problem with Film Scientist workflow was that it used a LUT instead of IDT. IDT is the industry standard for a solid ACES workflow.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    258
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by SJX View Post
    Do you use film scientist's workflow posted?
    I used to but now that there is a provided IDT I no longer do. The workflow is very similar though you just use the IDT rather than the lut. It is really pretty simple to set up I just do the following.

    Project Settings -> Color Management -> Color science: Change DaVinci YRGB to ACEScc
    Project Settings -> Color Management -> ACES Output Device Transform: Change to sRGB or Rec709

    If all of my footage is in SLOG
    Project Settings -> Color Management -> ACES Input Device Transform: Change to Sony SLog1

    This will automatically apply the IDT to all footage added into the Media Pool, if I have mixed footage and want to apply the IDT at the clip level
    Right click on the footage in the Media Pool -> ACES Input Transform -> Sony SLog1

    Thats it.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member rbirnbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    213
    Default
    Here is my personal test using dhessel workflow and CST.

    I find that CST gives more accurate color reproduction - more neutral and more difference in brick walls as they are in reality (possibly because it gives me control over color input sgamut) and it also seems more controlled in the highlights out of the box. I used SIMPLE luminance mapping in CST.

    For me, I am sticking with CST for now.

    CST-vs-ACES.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member abreu-canedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    679
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by rbirnbaum View Post
    Here is my personal test using dhessel workflow and CST.

    I find that CST gives more accurate color reproduction - more neutral and more difference in brick walls as they are in reality (possibly because it gives me control over color input sgamut) and it also seems more controlled in the highlights out of the box. I used SIMPLE luminance mapping in CST.

    For me, I am sticking with CST for now.

    CST-vs-ACES.jpg
    Interesting!

    All things being subjective, I prefer the ACES image. I do agree that CST may be more accurate. ACES was not designed to be accurate, but more towards an aesthetic interpretation... if I remember correctly from the initial promotional videos and talks many years ago.

    In any case, between ACES and CST we are in such a great place, color-wise!


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member rbirnbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    213
    Default
    From Wiki: The Academy Color Encoding System (ACES) is a color image encoding system created by hundreds of industry professionals under the auspices of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. ACES allows for a fully encompassing color accurate workflow, with "seamless interchange of high quality motion picture images regardless of source".[1]

    ACES has no asthetic interpretation. All it does is it grabs different cameras 0-1 and match them so they look the same on the ACES color space. The advantage is that you get color consistency between different acquisition formats and more than that it allows you to do a very accurate conversion to any format for different media. Online, analog screen, digital screening. It also supports HDR and wide Ganut. It’s the future for sure, and it’s still evolving. brilliant stuff! At the end of the day someone is matching those 0-1’s and it’s shocking that within the same platform I am getting visible differences.

    Having said that, I personally want a camera that lays its mojo on top of what’s I am seeing. I don’t want it to mess up my colors. And the F35 with its RGB sensor is the KING. Accurate colors and skin tones. And I am shooting 10bit. The camera has some crazy internal workings. Why use a workflow that interprets my footage and shifts it automatically in one direction. It also gives me more work. I have to work the highlights.

    But yeah, this is a great conversation. I’m learning a bunch from you guys and you are pushing me to test things. Keeping the forum and discussion alive. Like you say with CST and ACES we are in a much better position than we were 1 year ago. F35 footage sings and if you need to mix it in with other sources ACES is definitely the way to go.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    258
    Default
    The CST workflow is pretty nice, I like having the ability to tweak saturation during the conversion. One of the advantages with ACES for me is that it is consistent across software packages so I get the same result with Resolve or Nuke. I am going to give both a bit more testing once I shoot some more varying stuff. Thanks for sharing your workflow.
    Last edited by dhessel; 03-01-2019 at 06:47 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •