Sign In

Info: Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta — Page 11

Author
Time
 (Edited)

UnitéD2 said:

ZigZig said:

I’m really sorry to say that but… nobody likes the GOUT shifts that you did.
Because they are horrible.

That’s not true. The GOUT adjustment (on page 6) didn’t look that bad. And it isn’t just my opinion, as Dr Dre said that “most of these look good”.

What I don’t understand in your stuff, Ronster, is your idea that the proper way to color correct something would always be “shifting the hue”. It’s never so simple !

Thanks but I am very short of spare time, the only thing I havd really worked out is that there are different types of hue shifts… This means that because I can not do that type of shift in the editor I notmally use I will do this outside the program.

There could be a further tweak there might not be.

I honestly can not say until I find the actual time to look at it again…

I really like the film I really just want to tackle it somehow and however I can to try to get it even a small bit better. Time is the problem right now.

I will re-iterate my draft rule that after any shift it will be assessed if it is shift and it does not rule out any further manipulation, but I don’t want to really over do it because the RGB filter was making me compensate for some color errors the vlc capture will not neccessitate extra tweaks uless it really does need it.

I really want to find a way that it is a process where you touch it as little as possible but nailing down how to do this and finding what makes it tick is not easy. I have not looked at it at all in over a week so no progress further from finding there are different types of hue shifts which I actually never knew.

The doubt I have with regards to the shift rests with R2-D2 more than anything else. He is a big question mark and I fon’t have an answer apart from shift him sparately back.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Stotchy said:

I hate this thread.

I love this thread.

alt text

Ronster I don’t even hate every single test you’ve done, but your inability to follow basic advice is … laughable. How long would it take you to calibrate your monitor? I mean honestly! Take the five friggin’ minutes and maybe people will take you seriously.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time

Its better if he doesn’t.
That way this can keep going on forever without any resolution.

Author
Time

Calibrating my monitor from a hotel room miles away from my monitor is not possible.

To address the green comment, It is probably green contrast and it would also explain why the gout looks a bit dim. Having looked at it previously it was something I noticed and it is fairly safe to assume that I would balance contrast to zero or shape of channels or if particularly dark allow contrast in at the right color.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ronster said:

Calibrating my monitor from a hotel room miles away from my monitor is not possible.

What do you think about stop trolling this thread until you have gone home?

Author
Time

ZigZig said:

Ronster said:

Calibrating my monitor from a hotel room miles away from my monitor is not possible.

What do you think about stop trolling this thread until you have gone home?

Excuse me but I have not been trolling anyone… You assumed not I.

Author
Time

ZigZig said:

What do you think about stop trolling this thread until you have gone home?

Is it possible to troll its own thread ?

Author
Time

UnitéD2 said:

ZigZig said:

What do you think about stop trolling this thread until you have gone home?

Is it possible to troll its own thread ?

It seems that everything is possible on this forum for the time being…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ronster said:

Caliberate a monitor to somone elses monitor is nonsense.

Sorry, forgot to mention this in my last post:

Calibrating a monitor to someone elses’ monitor IS nonsense. Calibration is done to an external set of standards, a studio doesn’t have a particular monitor they’re trying to match. They use tools like the Spyder 5.

A list of image sets for calibration and clear instructions can get you good results too, though. Again, not hitting absolute perfection is not an excuse for not trying at all.

Also, SMPTE was founded in 1916. Their standards influenced the manufacturing process of the film Star Wars was shot on. Their standards have also influenced how cameras are built today, how TVs are built today, how editing programs are coded, the specifications of DCPs projected in theaters, the specifications of TV broadcast since TV’s birth, etc.

If you think these standards are bunk, I’d like to know why and what the science would be behind a new standard.

A television can be calibrated such that no amount of color correction could make a source look correct. If I shifted the hue on a TV so that the green subpixels aren’t on, you can boost green in your source file all day and still not see an iota of it on the screen. At the end of the day, the monitor/tv is the one physically emitting light towards your eyes, not the source media.

Author
Time

Do you plan on calibrating your monitor when you’re home?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Flubly said:

Ronster said:

Caliberate a monitor to somone elses monitor is nonsense.

Sorry, forgot to mention this in my last post:

Calibrating a monitor to someone elses’ monitor IS nonsense. Calibration is done to an external set of standards, a studio doesn’t have a particular monitor they’re trying to match. They use tools like the Spyder 5.

A list of image sets for calibration and clear instructions can get you good results too, though. Again, not hitting absolute perfection is not an excuse for not trying at all.

Also, SMPTE was founded in 1916. Their standards influenced the manufacturing process of the film Star Wars was shot on. Their standards have also influenced how cameras are built today, how TVs are built today, how editing programs are coded, the specifications of DCPs projected in theaters, the specifications of TV broadcast since TV’s birth, etc.

If you think these standards are bunk, I’d like to know why and what the science would be behind a new standard.

A television can be calibrated such that no amount of color correction could make a source look correct. If I shifted the hue on a TV so that the green subpixels aren’t on, you can boost green in your source file all day and still not see an iota of it on the screen. At the end of the day, the monitor/tv is the one physically emitting light towards your eyes, not the source media.

This is a an association body. It will cost a lot of money to be an associate and what that grants you access to clients who work within that association.

It’s another way of shrugging off competition from smaller companies. Just because they have standards does not mean the actual association or even members of that association created those standards. They merely recognise a set standard and to be a member and put an SMPTE stamp on your company will also mean you have to meet that standard no doubt.

They are also part of drug company imaging devices big pharma contracts.

There is not anything wrong with an association body per se but like I said, this is a way of shutting out smaller competitive companys out of contracts because they can not afford the membership fees of being part of the association. And contracts are probably rarely given outside SMPTE membership in certain spheres of influence.

Not all bad but not all good either totally un-competitive though.

$13,500 dollars good client access or $20,000 for better client access per year.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ronster said:

Flubly said:

Ronster said:

Caliberate a monitor to somone elses monitor is nonsense.

Sorry, forgot to mention this in my last post:

Calibrating a monitor to someone elses’ monitor IS nonsense. Calibration is done to an external set of standards, a studio doesn’t have a particular monitor they’re trying to match. They use tools like the Spyder 5.

A list of image sets for calibration and clear instructions can get you good results too, though. Again, not hitting absolute perfection is not an excuse for not trying at all.

Also, SMPTE was founded in 1916. Their standards influenced the manufacturing process of the film Star Wars was shot on. Their standards have also influenced how cameras are built today, how TVs are built today, how editing programs are coded, the specifications of DCPs projected in theaters, the specifications of TV broadcast since TV’s birth, etc.

If you think these standards are bunk, I’d like to know why and what the science would be behind a new standard.

A television can be calibrated such that no amount of color correction could make a source look correct. If I shifted the hue on a TV so that the green subpixels aren’t on, you can boost green in your source file all day and still not see an iota of it on the screen. At the end of the day, the monitor/tv is the one physically emitting light towards your eyes, not the source media.

This is a an association body. It will cost a lot of money to be an associate and what that grants you access to clients who work within that association.

It’s another way of shrugging off competition from smaller companies. Just because they have standards does not mean the actual association or even members of that association created those standards. They merely recognise a set standard and to be a member and put an SMPTE stamp on your company will also mean you have to meet that standard no doubt.

They are also part of drug company imaging devices big pharma contracts.

There is not anything wrong with an association body per se but like I said, this is a way of shutting out smaller competitive companys out of contracts because they can not afford the membership fees of being part of the association. And contracts are probably rarely given outside SMPTE membership in certain spheres of influence.

Not all bad but not all good either totally un-competitive though.

$13,500 dollars good client access or $20,000 for better client access per year.

…So you won’t calibrate your monitor because of big pharma?

This is all you need to look at.

Author
Time

Ronster said:
This is a an association body. It will cost a lot of money to be an associate and what that grants you access to clients who work within that association.

It’s another way of shrugging off competition from smaller companies. Just because they have standards does not mean the actual association or even members of that association created those standards. They merely recognise a set standard and to be a member and put an SMPTE stamp on your company will also mean you have to meet that standard no doubt.

They are also part of drug company imaging devices big pharma contracts.

There is not anything wrong with an association body per se but like I said, this is a way of shutting out smaller competitive companys out of contracts because they can not afford the membership fees of being part of the association. And contracts are probably rarely given outside SMPTE membership in certain spheres of influence.

Not all bad but not all good either totally un-competitive though.

$13,500 dollars good client access or $20,000 for better client access per year.

I don’t think much of what you said here is true. Let’s say it is true, though. What does that have to do with what I asked?

If we all found out tomorrow that SMPTE is involved with human trafficking, it wouldn’t change the fact that the entire industry adheres to SMPTE standards and that using those standards achieves a relative consistency of image.

I asked about the science of video standards. If calibration of monitors to SMPTE standards isn’t a good method of attaining image accuracy and consistency, what is? I already said why I think your idea of having media tailored to TV tech wouldn’t work. A rebuttal to that would make more sense than a rumination on SMPTE’s business ethics.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It’s already happened if you want to watch 4k HDR content you need a device capable of displaying it.

A normal 1080p HD screen can not downscale this you need to be able to take and handle the signal. thus the transmitter and reciever need to be of 4K HDR standard for which there are already different types of HDR.

It’s like trying to put a HD signal on an old CRT monitor. It won’t work because it is a different standard.

Because these things have different standards because they can do different things what older standards could not. A new product range is created and a set of standards are developed hut there was a lot of complication of 4K and what would be coupled with that on the extra pins of HDMI 2.0 or DVI. HDR won over HFR and HDMI with 2.0 ethernet probably also wins over HDMI 2.0 with return audio. The new standard means you have to buy the product range for the next best thing. I did not really care for having 4k screen or HDR it was like i got that for nothing because i simply wanted a larger screen. But I have it and the hope is from screen manufacturers perspective that i will buy into 4k HDR standard.

If you have a product to sell and It does not fit any particular old standard but a new one must be created for it. A association will help with Law, due dilligence and contracts and so on. They probably had very little to do with deciding HDMI 2.0 would carry HDR though on the spare pins.

You want to sell your product and hunt for big contracts you pay for the access via an association. The product itself could be made in China, Japan or South Korea. The sssociation will help meet standards, client access and when contract is one they tske another cut with the expert lawyers.

Obviously domestic stands and medical standards will be very different also as will military standards. Police and fire service would have slightly lower standards than medical or military but still above domestic.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

knk

This whole thread is a mess and yet I have no desire for the mods to lock and stop this thread from continuing

Author
Time

Again, keep this thread going for the entertainment value.

Obviously nothing will ever be done to correct it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think the only thing that will make me Adopt 4K HDR (Pay for the transmitter and the cost of the free reciever) is stuff we have not seen before.

I like some new films, a lot of new films I don’t like at all. But I think the only way off actually getting me signed up for adodption of this Standard is as follows.

Raiders of the Lost ark deleted scenes or uncut version.

Total Recall uncut

Conan the Barbarian uncut.

American Werewolf in London uncut.

Star Wars Originals and a revised Special Edition.

Lord of thr Rings Deleted Scenes.

Some other things butvthis would be my desire.

This would make me buy in on that format more so than the content being a different type HDR and 4K but that I could see some things I never seen before rather than it was just incrementally better. I just don’t feel any insatiable desire unless some of this stuff starts to crop up.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Gladiator uncut would also be a big draw for myself personally.

I think the newly found outtakes from ghostbusters will show up at some point.

But how about The Good the Bad the Ugly. There is a glimmer of hope that these things can be put right and if 4K HDR put’s them Right I think adoption of that format will be good.

Rogue One original cut before re-shoots would be another one for the list.

Braveheart uncut also.

Highlander extended cut.

Author
Time

I just loaded up Windows Display Calibration.

I have had to set the Gamma from my graphics card to very nearly 0. This seems like the software was not written to accomodate 4K HDR screens.

I don’t think it looks right at all everything is too dark. But it says this is what my gamma should be really dark.

Author
Time

It’s like trying to put a HD signal on an old CRT monitor. It won’t work because it is a different standard.

Author
Time

Bullshit. That is through a scaler.