Film Negative Invert and Processing in L* Gamma FAQ

[digitaldog]

Everything i wanted to share for now, i shared here in the first page of this thread.

And immediately dismissed as low practical real life usability.

 

Same discussion goes on other forums and people share ideas and suggestions with respect there.

Such as?

Give it a try here; you'll be in for a wake-up call.

Colour Management

Frans has suffered the fools arrows he deserves there.

 

But here the 7 pages of "discussion" consists of formal spamming by rodeo_joe|1's ...

Neither Joe or I, actually anyone here has taken you seriously due to your assumptions and misunderstood writings. You call that peer review “spamming”. Once again you have shown us; ”Sometimes wrong; never in doubt." -Atul Gawande

 

You seem unable to accept that you are not taken seriously by those here who understand the topic. The real troll posted less than an hour ago and has a history of posts worse than your in terms of this topic so feel good about that. At least you have shown us you can take a photograph.

[shijan]

Ok "professor" i done few more tests just for fun.

ICC profiles from https://www.color.org/scene-referred.xalter are cLUT-based ICC profiles.

linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc use ProPhotoRGB color space with Gamma 1.0

ISO22028-3_RIMM-RGB-exCR.icc use ProPhotoRGB ProPhotoRGB color space with sRGB gamma.

 

Based on Histogram look, image converted to these profiles is identical to Image converted to normal custom-made matrix-based ProPhotoRGB color space with Gamma 1.0 and ProPhotoRGB ProPhotoRGB color space with sRGB gamma.

 

So thanks to personal independent tests and compare now i have real life proof of my earlier theory. The only point of that "too smart named" scene-referred "workflow" from 2007 was to simply convert image back to ProPhoto color space with Linear or with sRGB gamma. It was done like this because in those times legacy ACR was able to export only to sRGB/sRGB gamma, AdobeRGB/2.2gamma and ProPhotoRGB/1.8gamma profiles.

In modern ACR you can just export directly to custom-made ProPhotoRGB color space with Gamma 1.0 or any other ICC profile you like

 

So what was the point to provide that legacy useless workflow that only confuse things?

[digitaldog]

Based on Histogram look, image converted to these profiles is identical to Image converted to normal custom-made matrix-based ProPhotoRGB color space with Gamma 1.0 and ProPhotoRGB ProPhotoRGB color space with sRGB gamma.

What is the average and max deltaE of the images? Based on 8 pages here, I'm not at all willing accept your visual acuity and Histogram analysis due to much of your writing and basic lack of understanding of Histograms.

Just tell us the colorimetric differences, ideally using dE 2000 formula. You of course have tools to do this right?

If not, someone here can do that for you but his patience in aiding in your understanding is nearly gone.

So thanks to personal independent tests and compare now i have real life proof of my earlier theory

Another assumption or factual? Who other than you provided independent tests that were accepted? Look up "Peer Review" and assume as you must, you're one of our peers.

The only point of that "too smart named" scene-referred "workflow" from 2007 was to simply convert image back to ProPhoto color space with Linear or with sRGB gamma. It was done like this because in those times legacy ACR was able to export only to sRGB/sRGB gamma, AdobeRGB/2.2gamma and ProPhotoRGB/1.8gamma profiles.

Your lack of understanding of ACR and Scene Referred rendering is locked in stone here, no need to continue to post more misunderstandings of ACR.

In modern ACR you can just export directly to custom-made ProPhotoRGB color space with Gamma 1.0 or any other ICC profile you like

That statement again confirms your misunderstandings of ACR as well as your misunderstandings of what Scene Refereed rendering really is.

Do we need more pages of examples of your already admitted misunderstandings? You've already shown to all your readers here this is CWOBaT (colossal waste of bandwidth and time).

So what was the point to provide that legacy useless workflow that only confuse things?

Like so much text you've ignored, the point was to answer, factually, a process you didn't understand and incorrectly posted:

With normal processing in Lightroom/ACR it is impossible to output "flat" uncorercted tiff file usable for proper invert and processing.

Of course, 'Normal Processing" is an assumption and generalization without any fact based explanation so typical of your writings. From someone who's stated he's not using (and has proven utter confusion) over the product. You're not qualified to tell anyone what is possible or impossible in ACR/LR! You can't even figure out how to reset the darn Curves panel!

What's really impossible is having you read, comprehend and accept colorimetric facts provided here by multiple experts. Something you've as yet never provided. What's really impossible is having you provide a lick of colorimetric proof.

KISS: Negative Lab Pro

We done yet or do you need more pages here to illustrate to me, Joe and other readers, you're over your head in this topic?

 

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -Frank Lloyd Wright

Or in this context, keyboards. :)

Edited April 24, 2021 by digitaldog

[shijan]

[samstevens]

Just get it over with already guys.

Pull 'em out and let's find out whose is the biggest.

I volunteer to be the judge.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[digitaldog]

The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.

Of course you can't provide ANY colorimetric data to back up your statements. Just fictional writings. Of course you can't back up any outside peer review of your 'technique' even when asked to do so. Just more imaginary constructs.

If you have only imagined it, you haven't experienced it.

You are of course entitled to your uninformed opinions on this subject. As I am entitled to my fact based data points.

By all means, do get in the last and again, misinformed fact-free post here on this subject. I know you can't help yourself.

Edited April 24, 2021 by digitaldog

[shijan]

So you post again imaginary statements about my skills ("including can't even figure out how to reset the darn Curves panel").

Now i start really worry, because you forget to quote in the end some random historical person to make appearance of something really important and smart in your post.

[digitaldog]

So you post again imaginary statements about my skills ("including can't even figure out how to reset the darn Curves panel").

Imaginary to you:

It is real mystery why it is so complicated for Adobe simply add option in ACR to remove build-in contrast curve same as other raw editors normally can do

 

Multiple options exist unknown to you! Nothing complicated once you LEARN how.

As predicted: By all means, do get in the last and again, misinformed fact-free post here on this subject. I know you can't help yourself. :D:D:D

 

“One never needs their humor as much a when they argue with a fool."

-Chinese Proverb

Edited April 24, 2021 by digitaldog

[shijan]

Now i see. You can't mistake because of bold text. Everything written in bold automatically became true.

More you digg into this strange confrontation - less respect you got from other people.

I even start to think that the whole concept of your "help" here was simply seed some technical confusion, next show everyone how smart are you and involve confused people to pay for your video master classes where you "explain how to fix everything".

If you so triggered by that deltaE thing - go compare and measure it yourself. I have no idea why you ask me to do it again and again. It is your thing, not mine. I look at colors and at monitoring tools and it is enough for any real life tests. I don't measure deltaE between images and don't interested to to know if they are different by 0.0001% or by 0.1% in brightness or color somewhere.

[digitaldog]

I don't measure deltaE between images and don't interested to to know if they are different by 0.0001% or by 0.1% in brightness or color somewhere.

Don't and can't: colorimetric data from measurements** would get in the way of your assumptions ("0.0001% or by 0.1% in brightness or color") and misunderstandings of color difference you think you don't see.

Keep posting; maybe someone like Frans will take you seriously, the rest; not so much.

 

** "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."-Lord Kelvin

 

Ever heard of him?

Edited April 24, 2021 by digitaldog

[shijan]

So maybe ask Lord Kelvin with Mark Twain and Otto fon Bismark to measure deltaE?

[digitaldog]

So maybe ask Lord Kelvin with Mark Twain and Otto fon Bismark to measure deltaE?

Ah, some written proof you don't seem to understand or know who any of those people were....

 

No need to ask and impossible. I can measure deltaE from images and produce a report, I provided a video about how I can do it. What's clear is, you can't do this. Which shows why you need to dismiss actual colorimetry for your fantasy workflow and posted results that has no colorimetric evidence, peer preview, or data that isn't coming from someone confused about multiple processes like: color spaces, gamma encoding, Histograms, ACR, Scene Referred rendering, color accuracy etc. All topics you got wrong, were called out, corrected and then ignored. But that has been mentioned far too many times and the only one who can't warp his head around this is you sir.

But sure, keep posting rubbish: First law on holes - when you're in one, stop digging!

You're so deep in this hole, no one but me is around and that's about to end. Then you'll be alone with your so called workflow all to yourself. :p

Edited April 24, 2021 by digitaldog

[shijan]

You provided links to some legacy workflow that use linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc and generate confusions during my tests.

linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc appears very specific cLUT-based ICC profile that works only in Photoshop. Other apps ignore it or show image incorrectly because can't read normally that ICC profile type. This cause even more confusion.

So dudes from color.org who probably build those profiles made them compatible only with Photoshop for purpose or by mistake.

I done my tests and see no any difference between image converted to linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc and between image normally exported directly to ProPhotoRGB with Linear gamma.

Based on this i simply reject this method from discussion as legacy and useless for workflow discussed in this thread as well as useless for modern ACR versions.

 

But you keep screaming and ask for some measurements, proofs and keep assign some imaginary options to me personally. I have no idea what you want to measure with your deltaE in this situation, what should it proof and why is it suddenly became so important to you.

I also have no idea how is it possible to be so non flexible and react so emotionally to simple tech things or mistakes.

 

Tested something. It works - OK.

Tested something. It don't works - Reject.

New tests based on new data. Don't works again - Reject again.

Someone have new info that proofs the opposite. He do the tests that explain how it works in new way. Now i accept it and see my mistake.

 

This is how things done.

 

If you or someone else somewhere proof that that linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc make sense and works in some special way - i can easy accept it and use it. It is just a tools. It is not personal or emotional at all.

[digitaldog]

You provided links to some legacy workflow that use linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc and generate confusions during my tests. linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc appears very specific cLUT-based ICC profile that works only in Photoshop.

Wrong again. Hole a foot deeper.

http://digitaldog.net/files/DigginHoles.jpg

The profile will work with any product that supports ICC profiles. Your confusion is well established over 9 pages. Like your confusion about resetting curves.

Again, IF you can learn and accept facts, your confusion will greatly disappear. Your call.

So dudes from color.org who probably build those profiles made them compatible only with Photoshop for purpose or by mistake.

Wrong again, another assumption. You're on a roll.

I done my tests and see no any difference between image converted to linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc and between image normally exported directly to ProPhotoRGB with Linear gamma.

Lots of evidence your tests or at the least proof of concept is missing and analysis is wrong.

Based on this i simply reject this method from discussion as legacy and useless for workflow discussed in this thread as well as useless for modern ACR versions.

Reject it, Most here have rejected your 'workflow'.

But you keep screaming and ask for some measurements, proofs and keep assign some imaginary options to me personally.

Yes, you're not being taken seriously. And you can't prove what you wrote. Thats fine but I prefer my fiction from Stephen King.

I have no idea what you want to measure with your deltaE in this situation, what should it proof and why is it suddenly became so important to you.

You don't. Because you refuse to view, learn or comprehend the idea behind it which was presented. I do agree, you have no idea. :rolleyes:

I also have no idea how is it possible to be so non flexible and react so emotionally to simple tech things or mistakes.

Emotionally is yet another of your assumptions. You were called out for numerous concepts that are false. I have no idea how is it possible to be so non flexible and react so emotionally to simple factual corrections. Got nothing to do with tests that worked or didn't work. You simply post ideas that have zero proof of concept others can backup colorimetrically. I'm not sure you even know what colorimetry is.

If you or someone else somewhere proof that that linear_RIMM-RGB_v4.icc make sense and works in some special way - i can easy accept it and use it. It is just a tools.

Others use the workflow (a real workflow), which is why an organization like the ICC posted this and continues to post it.

We're done here. I'm tired of correcting some many of your fictional constructs, like the one at the top of this post.

It is not personal or emotional at all.

If you say so. I unlike you, I will not make assumptions.

Adiós ;)

[samstevens]

Adiós ;)

Can we count on this? Please don't answer!

[digitaldog]

Can we count on this? Please don't answer!

Your request denied:

“There are no right answers to wrong questions”.-Ursula K. Le Guin

Edited April 24, 2021 by digitaldog

[shijan]

Can we count on this? Please don't answer!

"and he is back".- Terminator fon Shwatszenerger

[Ed_Ingold]

How can you sure that it is not some amount of digital noise partially overlapped above film grain structure?

Remember that I'm using a camera live view only. When there is digital nose, the view tends to shimmer. The only time I have observed this effect is under dim conditions, when the ISO and finder gain at at the maximum. At ISO 3200 or less, visible noise seems to originate in the finder, because it does not appear in the image. An example would be shooting the sky in a really dark area, such as the middle of the Cascade range in Washington.

[shijan]

Ed_Ingold, just shoot 2-3 frames of same image and check under magnification which parts of image structure are moving (digital noise) and which are not moving (real film grain). It is not that huge amount of noise as ISO 3200 (4 stops underesposed) or higher, so you may not see it so easy in live view, especially on low contrast and orange unprocessed film.

The amount of noise depends of camera sensor model and megapixel amount, so it is impossible to find universal noise-free limit for all cameras.

Some noise is always there, but overall that tiny amount of noise is not the biggest problem. Image usually downscaled to smaller size, and all that noise is gone, same as tiny dust particles and tiny scratches.

[shijan]

On other forum user jzagaja shared RAW film scan sample made with his RED camera setup!

 

So i attempt to fit RedCine-X RAW editor to current workflow:

 

1. I turn off sharpness in Preferences. Not tested yet how it affect image from RED cameras, but as i describe earlier, additional sharpness cause some artifacts amplified with AutoLevels.

 

2. I activate "Bypass IPP2 Output Transform" to avoid additional intermediate Tone Mapping and Highlight rolloff effects.

 

3. I set ISO to 800, because probably it is native ISO for that camera. Here i guess you should experiment by yourself to find the best ISO vs camera Exposure ratio.

 

4. I turn everything else OFF or set it to default "D"

 

5. In Export Settings i select TIFF, ProPhoto and Linear gamma. Also in Tiff Setup i select custom-made ProPhoto gamma 1.0 ICC profile from my list. That ICC profile will be embedded in exported image, so i don't need to add it manually later in image editor. (Probably need somehow to save settings preset because Tiff Setup reset selected settings after every export)

 

6. Export image.

 

7. Next you need to open it in image editor, Convert to ProPhoto L* gamma ICC profile, do Invert, AutoLevels, add some Lightness, pick Grey Point, add Contrast preset LUT. All the same as described earlier in my FAQ and video tutorials.

 

Now it looks like real film:

 

There are also two possible mistakes in that source raw image:

1. There is a plenty of unused space on the right, so during shooting it is better to adjust shutter speed to fill that space and as result get less digital noise artifacts.

2. WB was set to film orange frame instead of light source. As i illustrate earlier WB adjustment like this produce unwanted color artifacts after invert. It is unknown how exactly image was scanned, so if C M Y color glass filters where used to compensate that orange mask it probably could be no problem. But i personally didn't test that optical orange mask compensation method yet.

[shijan]

Ha ha. I was too hurry and there was a mistake in understanding of RedCine-X.

When we activate "Bypass IPP2 Output Transform", we disable color management at all. So exported files are NOT transformed to selected color space/gamma settings, but always exported to plain RedWideGamut/Log3G10. It is very strange why export options selection in RedCine-X where not deactivated in this non color managed scenario. So partially it is a bug in RedCine-X.

 

So updated RedCine-X workflow may look like this:

 

1. Turn off sharpness in Preferences. Not tested yet how it affect image from RED cameras, but as i describe earlier, additional sharpness cause some artifacts amplified with AutoLevels.

 

2. Set Tone Mapping and Highlight Rolloff effects to NONE

 

3. Adjust ISO or Exposure.

 

4. Turn everything else OFF or set it to default "D"

 

5. In Export Settings i select TIFF, ProPhoto and Linear gamma. Also in Tiff Setup i select custom-made ProPhoto gamma 1.0 ICC profile from my list. That ICC profile will be embedded in exported image, so i don't need to add it manually later in image editor. (Probably need somehow to save settings preset because Tiff Setup reset selected settings after every export)

 

6. Export image.

 

7. Next i open it in image editor, Convert to ProPhoto L* gamma ICC profile, do Invert, AutoLevels, add some Lightness, pick Grey Point, add Contrast preset LUT. All the same as described earlier in my FAQ and video tutorials.

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by dmitry_shijan

[Ed_Ingold]

Ed_Ingold, just shoot 2-3 frames of same image and check under magnification which parts of image structure are moving (digital noise) and which are not moving (real film grain). It is not that huge amount of noise as ISO 3200 (4 stops underesposed) or higher, so you may not see it so easy in live view, especially on low contrast and orange unprocessed film.

Why just 2-3 frames when I see them all, at 120 fps and up to 12x magnification on a high resolution external display? The dye clouds are clearly visible (and not moving).

[shijan]

Live View designed for quick preview. It is unknown how image debayered inside camera for Live View and what post processing and noise reduction applied there for Live View. Also 120 fps framerate and monitor lag may visually smooth a lot of things.

I can speak only for my camera, but i also don't see clear "dancing" digital noise at 100% magnification in Live View. Too bad Fujifilm cameras can't zoom more that 100%. I see it only on final processed images.

Is it so complicated to shoot 2-3 frames, process them in raw editor without additional noise reduction, open them in image editor as layers, add Invert and AutoLevels, magnify to 200-300%, and hide/show one by one to confirm or deny if there really some digital noise or not? Just a a basic visual compare. Maybe in your camera is really noise free, or maybe not. At least it just may help other people to select better camera in future.

[shijan]

By the way, why you decide that your camera outputs 120 fps to monitor. Live View usually outputs 25-30 FPS (maybe up to 60 in some cameras as an option). Next it connected to HDMI monitor that may have internal refresh rate 60Hz, 75Hz or sometimes 120Hz. Monitor refresh rate is not related to actual camera output framerate at all. Also Monitor or TV panels itself may have internal noise reduction, temporal or frame interpolation or other consumer "enchancers" that suppress digital noise.

[rodeo_joe1]

Are you now suggesting ProPhoto RGB doesn't have a gamma 1.8 encoding by design?

I'm not suggesting it. It's written plain as day in Wikipedia's specification and in the pdf file linked on the ICC's page on ROMM RGB.

Here's yet another screenshot from the ICC's pdf, where it's even more simply expressed -

No matter how small the linear section before it changes to a 1/1.8 exponent, it's a TRC, not a straightforward gamma curve.